Three major changes Congress wants to make to Social Security

[Fletch]

No, he's stopping the United States from paying the bills it has already incurred from the benefits that we have already obtained and earned. And how exactly does this idiotic "liberals want other people to pay more" nonsense keep going? Liberals are, on average, more wealthy than conservatives. It is our own taxes that we are pushing to raise more than yours. We're just not willing to let you get a free ride. You have to pay your share. Norquist and his people want to make sure the the super wealthy (who bring the conservative average way up from its poor rural base), don't pay much of anything. But don't worry, we the liberal middle class will continue to fund the benefits that conservatives enjoy.

That bolded part is just too frickin funny. Liberalism is the ideology of the free ride. To hear a leftist denounce it to serve some rhetorical goal is comical. Taxation for you is nothing more than a way to transfer wealth, not fund government operations. It is precisely to give a free ride to some at the expense of others. So drop the nonsense.

 

[ecofarm]

so I'm pretty much figuring to drop dead right around retirement age.

How long?

 

[eohrnberger]

Greetings, Erik. :2wave:

:agree: But how can that be done? They make the laws and rules, not us. We're just expected to pay the bills.

Greetings, Polgara. :2wave:

It's the difference between what should be and what is. You and I, we've indicated what should be. It's not how it is, and your are right, we are powerless to change it, but we are expected to pay for it.

To eliminate that, well, I think that would require the armed overthrow of the government, but I don't think things have gotten bad enough yet to give enough people the stomach for it.

 

[eohrnberger]

How long?

10 years give or take a few.

 

[ecofarm]

10 years give or take a few.

SS has more than that.

 

[eohrnberger]

SS has more than that.

Fine. My wife can have my share. I have no need to go out all grey and wheezing, with tubes stuck up my nose, machines to pee for me, shuffling around forgetting if I did things or not, forgetting where everything is supposed to be or who my family is / was.

Or worse, withering away in a hospital bed, because they won't let you die.

But that's a different topic.

 

[ecofarm]

Fine. My wife can have my share. I have no need to go out all grey and wheezing, with tubes stuck up my nose, machines to pee for me, shuffling around forgetting if I did things or not, forgetting where everything is supposed to be or who my family is / was.

The natural right to life includes to choose when and how.

Or worse, withering away in a hospital bed, because they won't let you die.

But that's a different topic.

The state cannot force death location.

 

[polgara]

That's fine. I don't believe that I'll ever receive any SS in my life, so I'm pretty much figuring to drop dead right around retirement age. So to me, SS is little more than a government run, government sanction wealth redistribution / ponzi scheme, and just as in Madoff''s ponzi scheme, there are going to be unlucky ones who get to lose their shirt.

Retirement age will probably be extended to age 70 at some point, since people are living longer, so many people will be paying in longer. However, with nine out of the top 10 occupations today paying less than $35,000 a year, those workers will be paying into SS all year long, while those making more will be taxed up to $118,500 in 2015. The lower income earning workers don't make enough money to keep the system solvent in the future, unless retirees receive a lot less money each month. Now BO wants to make illegals eligible to receive SS, but few, if any, have paid a dime into it, and under the current system, it will be years in the future before they might be eligible for even a minimum monthly payment. They're talking about a means-tested system, but I don't know what they have in mind. There are a lot of IOUs in the SS fund, but IOUs don't pay anybody unless the money is repaid by those who used it for other things, and they're long gone. Where is all the money to pay everybody going to come from?

 

[eohrnberger]

Retirement age will probably be extended to age 70 at some point, since people are living longer, so many people will be paying in longer. However, with nine out of the top 10 occupations today paying less than $35,000 a year, those workers will be paying into SS all year long, while those making more will be taxed up to $118,500 in 2015. The lower income earning workers don't make enough money to keep the system solvent in the future, unless retirees receive a lot less money each month. Now BO wants to make illegals eligible to receive SS, but few, if any, have paid a dime into it, and under the current system, it will be years in the future before they might be eligible for even a minimum monthly payment. They're talking about a means-tested system, but I don't know what they have in mind. There are a lot of IOUs in the SS fund, but IOUs don't pay anybody unless the money is repaid by those who used it for other things, and they're long gone. Where is all the money to pay everybody going to come from?

In the given situation that you outline, the only scenario that has a hope of being solvent is that everyone in the US is working, and maximizing the value that they can bring to their roles. Given the way that it's going at present, we are gaining that that, but more and more consumers of government benefits. It won't stay solvent for very long if it continues along that path.

 

[Paschendale]

That bolded part is just too frickin funny. Liberalism is the ideology of the free ride. To hear a leftist denounce it to serve some rhetorical goal is comical. Taxation for you is nothing more than a way to transfer wealth, not fund government operations. It is precisely to give a free ride to some at the expense of others. So drop the nonsense.

Do you ever get tired of arguing with the boogeymen in your head? Do you ever realize that reality doesn't look anything like the delusions that conservative media tell you over and over? Stop yelling at the empty chair. Literally no one believes the things you just said I stand for. No one. Maybe if you took the time learn what your political opponents were actually saying, you'd have something meaningful to add to the discussion.

 

[eohrnberger]

Do you ever get tired of arguing with the boogeymen in your head? Do you ever realize that reality doesn't look anything like the delusions that conservative media tell you over and over? Stop yelling at the empty chair. Literally no one believes the things you just said I stand for. No one. Maybe if you took the time learn what your political opponents were actually saying, you'd have something meaningful to add to the discussion.

Been listening or a while now.

• Oh we need more money for green tech industries because of global warming, and it'll be too bad that you electrical bills will go up by 30%
• Oh we need more money for poor inner city black children so that they can have 3 meals for free because they come from single parent families and can't afford food
• Oh, we need money for the poor delta smelt is becoming extinct so we'll have to take all that water that's being used for crops
• Oh, we need more money for the LGBT because, well, they just different and deserve it
• Oh, we need more money for this foolish social spending on this other group, well, because of diversity
• Oh, we need more money for . . .
  . . . .

and on and on it goes. Examples of stupid government spending abound all over the place.

Never mind that our roads are crap because the politicians haven't been spending to properly maintain them, and have absconded with those funds for other foolish spending, oh excuse me, investments that'll never pay off.

Never mind that many of our bridges are well beyond their replacement age, and some have collapsed.

Never mind that our seaports can't accommodate the new larger freight ships, but the Panama Canal sure does, and have really invested in their future infrastructure so that they'll remain the main Atlantic / Pacific gateway. Just that we can't manage to do the same with just our seaports!

Yeah, I've been listening, and I'm not liking what I'm hearing. Not in the least. Stupid government spending on foolish things at the expense of the worthwhile things. How brain damaged a decision making process is that?

Now, a real investment that pays off, one that has given us some 30 years of technological advancement, NASA and the space program, we have to beg / pay the Russians for us to hitch a ride to the ISS. How's that leading? How that leading except from behind? Is this the behind that we want to be?

 

[Fletch]

Do you ever get tired of arguing with the boogeymen in your head? Do you ever realize that reality doesn't look anything like the delusions that conservative media tell you over and over? Stop yelling at the empty chair. Literally no one believes the things you just said I stand for. No one. Maybe if you took the time learn what your political opponents were actually saying, you'd have something meaningful to add to the discussion.

LOL. I know exactly what you are saying and what you stand for. Truth offends you. As it should.

 

[Fletch]

Been listening or a while now.

• Oh we need more money for green tech industries because of global warming, and it'll be too bad that you electrical bills will go up by 30%
• Oh we need more money for poor inner city black children so that they can have 3 meals for free because they come from single parent families and can't afford food
• Oh, we need money for the poor delta smelt is becoming extinct so we'll have to take all that water that's being used for crops
• Oh, we need more money for the LGBT because, well, they just different and deserve it
• Oh, we need more money for this foolish social spending on this other group, well, because of diversity
• Oh, we need more money for . . .
  . . . .

and on and on it goes. Examples of stupid government spending abound all over the place.

Never mind that our roads are crap because the politicians haven't been spending to properly maintain them, and have absconded with those funds for other foolish spending, oh excuse me, investments that'll never pay off.

Never mind that many of our bridges are well beyond their replacement age, and some have collapsed.

Never mind that our seaports can't accommodate the new larger freight ships, but the Panama Canal sure does, and have really invested in their future infrastructure so that they'll remain the main Atlantic / Pacific gateway. Just that we can't manage to do the same with just our seaports!

Yeah, I've been listening, and I'm not liking what I'm hearing. Not in the least. Stupid government spending on foolish things at the expense of the worthwhile things. How brain damaged a decision making process is that?

Now, a real investment that pays off, one that has given us some 30 years of technological advancement, NASA and the space program, we have to beg / pay the Russians for us to hitch a ride to the ISS. How's that leading? How that leading except from behind? Is this the behind that we want to be?

Yeah, these guys act as if they are saying something profound. Its the same song and dance it has always been. It used to be called tax and spend. It still is. Every issue is to be nationalized and resolved through more government, more regulation, and more transfers of wealth. They bring Robin Hood and their Medieval ideology into the 21st century and call themselves progressive. Worst of all, they are too arrogant to recognize their own foolishness, so they drag the world down the toilet with them. Yeah, I listen.

 

[polgara]

Been listening or a while now.

• Oh we need more money for green tech industries because of global warming, and it'll be too bad that you electrical bills will go up by 30%
• Oh we need more money for poor inner city black children so that they can have 3 meals for free because they come from single parent families and can't afford food
• Oh, we need money for the poor delta smelt is becoming extinct so we'll have to take all that water that's being used for crops
• Oh, we need more money for the LGBT because, well, they just different and deserve it
• Oh, we need more money for this foolish social spending on this other group, well, because of diversity
• Oh, we need more money for . . .
  . . . .

and on and on it goes. Examples of stupid government spending abound all over the place.

Never mind that our roads are crap because the politicians haven't been spending to properly maintain them, and have absconded with those funds for other foolish spending, oh excuse me, investments that'll never pay off.

Never mind that many of our bridges are well beyond their replacement age, and some have collapsed.

Never mind that our seaports can't accommodate the new larger freight ships, but the Panama Canal sure does, and have really invested in their future infrastructure so that they'll remain the main Atlantic / Pacific gateway. Just that we can't manage to do the same with just our seaports!

Yeah, I've been listening, and I'm not liking what I'm hearing. Not in the least. Stupid government spending on foolish things at the expense of the worthwhile things. How brain damaged a decision making process is that?

Now, a real investment that pays off, one that has given us some 30 years of technological advancement, NASA and the space program, we have to beg / pay the Russians for us to hitch a ride to the ISS. How's that leading? How that leading except from behind? Is this the behind that we want to be?

Erik, a lot of people have been not only listening, but watching, and they don't like what they see and hear. We see our infrastructure crumbling while we send money to anyone that asks, friend or foe, trying to buy friends, while we alienate our long-time allies; our known enemies laugh at our inept leadership in the ME, bombing empty buildings in the middle of the night to show we mean business; the good jobs have all but disappeared to more business-friendly countries; our country exports food all over the world while we have 50 million people in this country on food-stamps; there's graft and corruption in DC that rivals the mafia; and lots more. What do you think the message from the voters was in the mid-terms - we're happy with the way things are going? Results show that more Democrats actually voted than Republicans, yet the Republicans won the Senate, added more seats to the House, and changed Governorships and State legislators from Democrat to Republican, some of them for the first time in many years! It appears that even Democrats voted for Republicans this time around! Change is sometimes slow, but it does happen.

 

[eohrnberger]

Erik, a lot of people have been not only listening, but watching, and they don't like what they see and hear. We see our infrastructure crumbling while we send money to anyone that asks, friend or foe, trying to buy friends, while we alienate our long-time allies; our known enemies laugh at our inept leadership in the ME, bombing empty buildings in the middle of the night to show we mean business; the good jobs have all but disappeared to more business-friendly countries; our country exports food all over the world while we have 50 million people in this country on food-stamps; there's graft and corruption in DC that rivals the mafia; and lots more. What do you think the message from the voters was in the mid-terms - we're happy with the way things are going? Results show that more Democrats actually voted than Republicans, yet the Republicans won the Senate, added more seats to the House, and changed Governorships and State legislators from Democrat to Republican, some of them for the first time in many years! It appears that even Democrats voted for Republicans this time around! Change is sometimes slow, but it does happen.

True. But the Republicans are only marginally better than the Democrats. The voters know this, as that's why congressional approval is down in the single digits, due to all their ridiculousness.

The government, rather than trying to do too much and doing it all poorly should focus on it's core competencies that it's supposed to have, and do them exceedingly well, and exceedingly efficiently. Every dime that the government doesn't need should be returned to the tax payer and the private sector.

Government is necessary overhead for having a society, but overhead should never out strip it's host organization that it relies on for life. It should look to be as small a burden on the host organization as possible.

 

[jonny5]

Why have a republican party if they don't oppose things like tax increases? I know liberals long for one party rule, but don't you guys even hide that anymore?

SSA is one of the few programs that comes close to paying for itself in a fair way. Everyone pays in, everyone gets out relative to what they pay in. Absent doing away with the program (which I would do), it only makes sense to charge people appropriately for the service. WHich means higher taxes across the board.

 

[jonny5]

I did not see that in the OP - did you?

You know thats what they want, otherwise what would be the point?

 

[ttwtt78640]

You know thats what they want, otherwise what would be the point?

Adding 1% to the SS "contribution" rate for all yields a substantial amount which is the point but the current reality, in congress critter land, means that some will insist on adding a more progressive element to get onboard with any "bipartisan" SS reform.

 

[ecofarm]

It appears that even Democrats voted for Republicans this time around! Change is sometimes slow, but it does happen.

Oh come on.

 

[American]

I suspect that you are being sarcastic.

Anyway, the only real solution here is to cut down the demands of the government for tax payer's hard earned wages. Government should deliver only the necessities that it really has to provide, those demanded by constitutional mandate.

Dream on, brother. We'll never see that again, too many don't believe in it.

 

[jonny5]

Adding 1% to the SS "contribution" rate for all yields a substantial amount which is the point but the current reality, in congress critter land, means that some will insist on adding a more progressive element to get onboard with any "bipartisan" SS reform.

Of course, thats what they mean when they say "No. 3: Increase the tax on the highest-earning individuals." Making the program more progressive.

 

[Dittohead not!]

You know thats what they want, otherwise what would be the point?

Of course, thats what they mean when they say "No. 3: Increase the tax on the highest-earning individuals." Making the program more progressive.

I'm not sure just who "they" are. It always seems to be some undetermined "they" who are out to get us in one way or another, but this is what the OP said about "No. 3: Increase the tax on the highest-earning individuals"

Finally, the Social Security 2100 Act aims to put wealthy Americans on a similar tax footing to John and Jane Q. Public. Under the new proposal, wages in excess of $400,000 would be subject to a reduced payroll tax of 2%. This represents an attempt to get Americans to pay a more nearly equal percentage of their income into the program.

 

[eohrnberger]

Dream on, brother. We'll never see that again, too many don't believe in it.

This being the case, it's no longer a question of IF the US will circle the drain and collapse, but merely a question WHEN it will.

 

[jonny5]

I'm not sure just who "they" are. It always seems to be some undetermined "they" who are out to get us in one way or another, but this is what the OP said about "No. 3: Increase the tax on the highest-earning individuals"

They, meaning, those who often suggest taxing the rich to fix SSA. The usual problem is that even if you reduce the tax to 2%, 2% of a million (plus 7% of 400k) is still WAY more than 7% of $40,000. So its still wealth redistribution. Is the wealthy person going to start getting $500,000 checks every month when they retire? Since they put billions into the system?

 

[Dittohead not!]

They, meaning, those who often suggest taxing the rich to fix SSA. The usual problem is that even if you reduce the tax to 2%, 2% of a million (plus 7% of 400k) is still WAY more than 7% of $40,000. So its still wealth redistribution. Is the wealthy person going to start getting $500,000 checks every month when they retire? Since they put billions into the system?

That seems fair.