- Joined
- Oct 12, 2009
- Messages
- 23,909
- Reaction score
- 11,003
- Location
- New Jersey
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
For those who choose to settle at a discount, the execution would work like this. From the time of the decision on, every payday the 6.2% deduction from your paycheck, instead of disappearing into the maw of the insolvent Social Security program, would directly buy from the Treasury an equivalent amount of actual Treasury bonds, preferably inflation-indexed ones, which would be automatically deposited in your IRA. You now would have assets you truly own, which you could hold or sell to reinvest in your IRA at your option. In exchange, you would give up future scheduled Social Security benefits in the amount of the bond purchase divided by 0.77. This is the same saying that you would be paid in bonds 77% of the reduction in your scheduled future benefits.
The question is based off of an Alex Pollock article at Real Clear Markets.
Would You Take 77 Cents For Every Dollar Social Security Owes You? | RealClearMarkets
So would you do it?
The question is based off of an Alex Pollock article at Real Clear Markets.
Would You Take 77 Cents For Every Dollar Social Security Owes You? | RealClearMarkets
So would you do it?
no. pay me what i was promised. if there isn't enough money, raise taxes, and end the wars.
no. pay me what i was promised. if there isn't enough money, raise taxes, and end the wars.
You can receive an Estimation of Benefits from SSA. It shows you your age 62, full retirement, and age 70 benefit.When did the government promise you anything?
You weren't exactly promised anything. Hell I'd actually be happy to get back what I've paid in.
When did the government promise you anything?
save your absolutist libertarian nonsense arguments for someone who even gives a fraction of a ****.
of course i was. i was promised that i could retire at 65 with full benefits. if there isn't enough money to do that, make it enough, or raise taxes.
Nah, they can change it as they see fit. No inherent promise there.
- The fact that workers contribute to the Social Security program's funding through a dedicated payroll tax establishes a unique connection between those tax payments and future benefits. More so than general federal income taxes can be said to establish "rights" to certain government services. This is often expressed in the idea that Social Security benefits are "an earned right." This is true enough in a moral and political sense. But like all federal entitlement programs, Congress can change the rules regarding eligibility--and it has done so many times over the years. The rules can be made more generous, or they can be made more restrictive. Benefits which are granted at one time can be withdrawn, as for example with student benefits, which were substantially scaled-back in the 1983 Amendments.
Social Security Online History Pages
Hell SS used to be tax free, then they went up to 50%, now it's can be up to 85%. Full retirement age used to be 65, now it's 67. With the looming baby boomer crowd going through SS, I can guarantee you there will be more changes.
almost certainly. however, i don't support those changes. i'm out of the daily grind at 65 no matter what it means for my social security benefits.
no. pay me what i was promised. if there isn't enough money, raise taxes, and end the wars.
If they raise taxes, they would just be taking much of what you were promised back again. If there is not enough money, put the able bodied welfare recipients to work and cut down on the pork barrel spending products....and stop raiding the SS trust fund.
i absolutely support utilizing the public sector to hire the unemployed.
Which public sector? Federal, state or municipal? Think carefully before you answer, because the latter two don't issue their own currency and thus basically have to balance their budgets, therefore budgetary constraints exist, and so at those levels simply forcing the citizens in a given area who don't want to or have the funds to hire the unemployed will result in a battered tax base and economic suffering.
On what basis are you arguing against the government employing people whose labor would otherwise be completely wasted?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?