U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-29-2018, 12:05 AM
 
Location: PA
33 posts, read 8,485 times
Reputation: 81

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnhw2 View Post
The basic concept of social security should be to pay contributors an income over some portion of their likely life expectancy. The years today's recipients receiver payments is significantly longer than initially envisioned.


The conceptual solution that is consistent with the intent of this federal program is to extend the age where benefits are available as the life expectancy goes up. A catch up adjustment to these ages is required now to address years of ignoring this reality. So make that adjustment and index the age to life expectancy.


The other 'flaw' in my view to the current system vs conception is the spousal benefit under today's divorce being so much more common than at the time this program was designed. I suspect this is not a major impact on the funds solvency but it is an example of how society evolves and impacts a system designed in another time.


I think millennials will get social security just at an advanced age vs today but with enough life expectacy left to make their benefits feasible with this program.
I have a problem with this. It sounds like hey if you make it to governement listed/chosen retirement age (if you make it to this age after working for society) you will be awarded money. For all those suckers who paid into it for 30 years and pass away early, Iím sorry about your hard work chasing that governement carrot on a stick, but you will not be able to receive the money you placed in the pot. Government thanks you for your donation. Have a nice afterlife.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-29-2018, 12:30 AM
 
6,942 posts, read 3,064,107 times
Reputation: 4424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inquiringmind33 View Post
I have a problem with this. It sounds like hey if you make it to governement listed/chosen retirement age (if you make it to this age after working for society) you will be awarded money. For all those suckers who paid into it for 30 years and pass away early, Iím sorry about your hard work chasing that governement carrot on a stick, but you will not be able to receive the money you placed in the pot. Government thanks you for your donation. Have a nice afterlife.
But yet everyone enjoys driving on paved roads not having war lords driving around taking your property etc
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2018, 02:27 AM
 
Location: PA
33 posts, read 8,485 times
Reputation: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by pittsflyer View Post
But yet everyone enjoys driving on paved roads not having war lords driving around taking your property etc
Be honest, most paved roads suck these days and are covered with potholes. In urban areas, traffic is horrendous due to how many vehicles are on single and two lane roads! I’d prefer dirt at this point, would save taxs too just to have a municipal grader drive every so often to flatten the road. Less vehicles traveling 50+, less high speed deaths, etc. lots of benefits.

Haha warlords. I don’t mind taxation for a national security. I don’t believe the founders had a problem with that either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2018, 08:21 AM
JRR
 
Location: Middle Tennessee
3,679 posts, read 2,226,353 times
Reputation: 5230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inquiringmind33 View Post
Be honest, most paved roads suck these days and are covered with potholes. In urban areas, traffic is horrendous due to how many vehicles are on single and two lane roads! Iíd prefer dirt at this point, would save taxs too just to have a municipal grader drive every so often to flatten the road. Less vehicles traveling 50+, less high speed deaths, etc. lots of benefits.

Haha warlords. I donít mind taxation for a national security. I donít believe the founders had a problem with that either.
I'm glad that I don't live in your area; I have no real complaints about the paved roads around here. Now when I went to West Virginia last month, that was another case. In some areas, their road maintenance appeared to be putting up a sign about rough pavement and that was it.

As far as taxes for paved roads; I'm happy to pay them. I grew up on a dirt street and also lived on one for a while in the early 90s (until they paved it). Dust on everything when it was dry and mud all over the cars when it rained. Nothing like driving home over a washboard when the grader hasn't been by for a while.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2018, 10:03 AM
 
6,942 posts, read 3,064,107 times
Reputation: 4424
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRR View Post
I'm glad that I don't live in your area; I have no real complaints about the paved roads around here. Now when I went to West Virginia last month, that was another case. In some areas, their road maintenance appeared to be putting up a sign about rough pavement and that was it.

As far as taxes for paved roads; I'm happy to pay them. I grew up on a dirt street and also lived on one for a while in the early 90s (until they paved it). Dust on everything when it was dry and mud all over the cars when it rained. Nothing like driving home over a washboard when the grader hasn't been by for a while.
National security is mostly what our federal taxes go towards. The greater the income inequality gets the more security will cost.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2018, 10:11 AM
 
Location: plano
6,569 posts, read 8,103,218 times
Reputation: 5805
That's the way pensions work too as well as social security too. Our roads in Texas are good you really should move it sounds to me
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2018, 01:11 PM
 
13,912 posts, read 7,405,593 times
Reputation: 25389
Quote:
Originally Posted by pittsflyer View Post
National security is mostly what our federal taxes go towards. The greater the income inequality gets the more security will cost.

Nope.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2018, 01:18 PM
 
Location: SoCal
13,227 posts, read 6,331,374 times
Reputation: 9844
I say what the British would say, rubbish to that as well. More crazy talk online. But then I’m not surprised.

Last edited by NewbieHere; 11-29-2018 at 02:34 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2018, 02:12 PM
 
6,942 posts, read 3,064,107 times
Reputation: 4424
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffD View Post
Nope.
Social programs are a form of defense spending - the alternative is mass riots spending on massive prison systems dealing with human rights violations etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top