Boomers are something else... (bill, country, considered, Americans)

[SoCalCroozer]

Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever

How is the government going to fund "your money"? The money you paid into the system was used by the generation that preceded you. If we cut off social security, then we pay not for the benefit of ourselves. We'd truly be getting nothing.

The problem with social security is that when they initiated it, they gave money to people who NEVER paid into the system (the first generation), expecting the workers to do the same. However, this was a horrible idea:

1) It assumes that others pay for you. Since generations aren't always equal in size, what happens when the following generation is smaller? They won't be able to meet the needs of the older generation.

2) It makes it nearly impossible to eliminate. Why? Younger generations have to pay for the older generations, but then they don't get any of the money they paid into the system. This breeds resentment.

Therefore, the only reasonable plan would have been to make the first generation of receivers pay for their own retirement, just as those had done in previous generations. They should have made the first payers pay into a trust that was designed for them and them alone, not some other person. More like a health savings account. However, this validates private accounts.

See you can debate the intricacies of economics behind schemes like SS etc. But it doesn't change the simple fact truth etc. that the US is MUCH MUCH wealthier and RICHER and prosperous than we have EVER been as a nation. The question is where the hell has all this wealth and prosperity gone and to who? I think we all know the truth. People like you just don't want to admit it. The real truth has nothing to do with Social Security being a ponzi scheme and everything to do with our government and their corporate banking/wallstreet overlords plundering and pillaging this nation's wealth. The rich have gotten A LOT richer while everyone else has stagnated and even regressed. Why?

Wealth is like energy.....it cannot be created nor destroyed. It simply changes shape, changes form, and CHANGES HANDS! That is the truth that most Americans cannot wrap their fat, lazy, malfunctioning brain around. Our wealth has been stolen. Social Security is just a distraction. This country has enough money and enough "wealth" and natural resources that not ONE child, not one ELDERLY person should EVER have to need for anything let alone food, shelter, and basic healthcare. We have all been brainwashed. The bankers have walked away with the wealth and prosperity millions of generations of Americans have toiled for day in and day out. THERE IS PLENTY OF WEALTH IN THIS COUNTRY........PLENTY! EVEN IF THIS COUNTRY WAS FULLY AUTOMATED AND ALL THE WORK WAS DONE BY ROBOTS and MACHINES we would still be producing COPIOUS and endless amounts of wealth!!!!!!!!!!!! The problem is how it's managed and who controls it and where it goes.

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by SoCalCroozer

See you can debate the intricacies of economics behind schemes like SS etc. But it doesn't change the simple fact truth etc. that the US is MUCH MUCH wealthier and RICHER and prosperous than we have EVER been as a nation. The question is where the hell has all this wealth and prosperity gone and to who? I think we all know the truth. People like you just don't want to admit it. The real truth has nothing to do with Social Security being a ponzi scheme and everything to do with our government and their corporate banking/wallstreet overlords plundering and pillaging this nation's wealth. The rich have gotten A LOT richer while everyone else has stagnated and even regressed. Why?

The last time this happened the era was known as the "roaring 20's" because life was good, money was plentifuly and credit was easy.

And when the imbalance gets too heavy in one direction we all know what happens....*SPLAT* which is also what happened in 1934 when our esteemed government finally admitted to the woes of the nation.

I think our *SPLAT* will be worse though because, unlike back then, our Federal Reserve can just create more money with a few keystrokes which is really just kicking the can down the road.

[tablemtn]

You tell me.... wouldn't you be entitled to the money that you paid in?

I'll just need all the money I've paid in with interest and that will be a nice lump sum.

As noted before, current payments went to current retirees. You didn't pay "in" to anything, really. You paid out. The money was used on a rolling basis. Hence, it would not be possible to issue a "refund," any more than the drain in your sink could "refund" whatever you've poured down in there over the years.

[Joe_Ryder]

Sounds like mom and pop told somebody to get a job and buy their own video games.

[sol11]

Originally Posted by tablemtn

As noted before, current payments went to current retirees. You didn't pay "in" to anything, really. You paid out. The money was used on a rolling basis. Hence, it would not be possible to issue a "refund," any more than the drain in your sink could "refund" whatever you've poured down in there over the years.

The government has stolen the Social Secrity funds or we would not have a problem with Social Security. Had all the contributions been allowed to remain separate from the general fund, there would be plenty to fund social security for decades to come.

Government/politicians are responsible for the shortfalls, and now we look to the same fools and idiots who cause the problem to find a solution. Americans are so screwed.....

[aus10]

Originally Posted by tablemtn

As noted before, current payments went to current retirees. You didn't pay "in" to anything, really. You paid out. The money was used on a rolling basis. Hence, it would not be possible to issue a "refund," any more than the drain in your sink could "refund" whatever you've poured down in there over the years.

I did pay in. I was forced too. Legal Theft of my money if I don't get either the benefit I paid for or my cash back... plain and simple.

[Kkaos2]

Originally Posted by SoCalCroozer

See you can debate the intricacies of economics behind schemes like SS etc. But it doesn't change the simple fact truth etc. that the US is MUCH MUCH wealthier and RICHER and prosperous than we have EVER been as a nation.

Uhhh...what? You're absolutely right. Debating Social Security does not change the fact that the US is wealthier now than it has been in the past. The fact that 2 + 2 equals 4 also doesn't change the fact that B comes after A in the alphabet. In other words, what does a debate on Social Security have to do with the rise in GDP?

In any case, your contention is debatable. We have something over 100 trillion dollars in liabilities in this country and something around 15 trillion in GDP. So it kind of depends on how you look at things. On Monday you have $50 in your pocket and owe $100. On Tuesday you have $100 in your pocket but you're $1,000 in debt. On which day are you wealthier?

The question is where the hell has all this wealth and prosperity gone and to who? I think we all know the truth.

Government.

People like you just don't want to admit it. The real truth has nothing to do with Social Security being a ponzi scheme and everything to do with our government and their corporate banking/wallstreet overlords plundering and pillaging this nation's wealth.

Again, a non sequitor.

But anyway, it seems to really bother you that someone out there in the world might have more money than you do. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe some people work harder and are stronger, smarter, faster, or more talented than you are and thus they deserve more than you do?

The rich have gotten A LOT richer while everyone else has stagnated and even regressed. Why?

I'm sure your answer is that the rich stole everything from the poor.

Wealth is like energy.....it cannot be created nor destroyed. It simply changes shape, changes form, and CHANGES HANDS! That is the truth that most Americans cannot wrap their fat, lazy, malfunctioning brain around.

Perhaps we can't wrap our brains around it because it is patently false. Every drop of oil drilled, every grain of wheat farmed, every thread spun into cloth, every toaster and can opener that comes off an assembly line, is wealth. Wealth is being created every second of every hour of every day.

If the rich get richer that does NOT mean the poor get poorer. It is not a zero sum game. It's a distortion liberals use. They look at the disparity in income and say the poor are getting poorer. No, they aren't. If you get a $10 raise and I get a $5 raise, I'm not getting "poorer" just because you got more of a raise than I did.

Our wealth has been stolen. Social Security is just a distraction. This country has enough money and enough "wealth" and natural resources that not ONE child, not one ELDERLY person should EVER have to need for anything let alone food, shelter, and basic healthcare.

Correction: it's no person "could" have a need, not "should". Yes, theoretically there is enough wealth in the country that everyone's standard of living "could" be raised. But should it? Saying it "should" is an opinion. An opinion only shared by communists. And communism is a proven failure.

See, you take a capitalist system that has generated a lot of wealth, redistribute that wealth to the point where there is no more incentive or capital for generating new wealth, and then it all collapses once the existing wealth is exhausted.

Communists such as yourself would do well to read the story of the goose that laid the golden egg.

We have all been brainwashed. The bankers have walked away with the wealth and prosperity millions of generations of Americans have toiled for day in and day out. THERE IS PLENTY OF WEALTH IN THIS COUNTRY........PLENTY! EVEN IF THIS COUNTRY WAS FULLY AUTOMATED AND ALL THE WORK WAS DONE BY ROBOTS and MACHINES we would still be producing COPIOUS and endless amounts of wealth!!!!!!!!!!!! The problem is how it's managed and who controls it and where it goes.

Here's the thing you socialists can't seem to grasp:

1 man with 100 dollars can create a business that can grow and eventually employ 100 men

100 men with 1 dollar each can buy one meal each, then go broke.

Get it? Same amount of wealth, but once you spread the capital around, it can no longer be used for investment. Thus instead of sustainably generating new wealth, it just disappears.

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by Joe_Ryder

Sounds like mom and pop told somebody to get a job and buy their own video games.

ROFL..and they don't want ANY taxes taken out of their paychecks cause it's their money..all of it

[SoCalCroozer]

Originally Posted by Kkaos2

Uhhh...what? You're absolutely right. Debating Social Security does not change the fact that the US is wealthier now than it has been in the past. The fact that 2 + 2 equals 4 also doesn't change the fact that B comes after A in the alphabet. In other words, what does a debate on Social Security have to do with the rise in GDP?

In any case, your contention is debatable. We have something over 100 trillion dollars in liabilities in this country and something around 15 trillion in GDP. So it kind of depends on how you look at things. On Monday you have $50 in your pocket and owe $100. On Tuesday you have $100 in your pocket but you're $1,000 in debt. On which day are you wealthier?



Government.



Again, a non sequitor.

But anyway, it seems to really bother you that someone out there in the world might have more money than you do. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe some people work harder and are stronger, smarter, faster, or more talented than you are and thus they deserve more than you do?




I'm sure your answer is that the rich stole everything from the poor.



Perhaps we can't wrap our brains around it because it is patently false. Every drop of oil drilled, every grain of wheat farmed, every thread spun into cloth, every toaster and can opener that comes off an assembly line, is wealth. Wealth is being created every second of every hour of every day.

If the rich get richer that does NOT mean the poor get poorer. It is not a zero sum game. It's a distortion liberals use. They look at the disparity in income and say the poor are getting poorer. No, they aren't. If you get a $10 raise and I get a $5 raise, I'm not getting "poorer" just because you got more of a raise than I did.



Correction: it's no person "could" have a need, not "should". Yes, theoretically there is enough wealth in the country that everyone's standard of living "could" be raised. But should it? Saying it "should" is an opinion. An opinion only shared by communists. And communism is a proven failure.

See, you take a capitalist system that has generated a lot of wealth, redistribute that wealth to the point where there is no more incentive or capital for generating new wealth, and then it all collapses once the existing wealth is exhausted.

Communists such as yourself would do well to read the story of the goose that laid the golden egg.



Here's the thing you socialists can't seem to grasp:

1 man with 100 dollars can create a business that can grow and eventually employ 100 men

100 men with 1 dollar each can buy one meal each, then go broke.

Get it? Same amount of wealth, but once you spread the capital around, it can no longer be used for investment. Thus instead of sustainably generating new wealth, it just disappears.

Oh brother what utter garbage.

Everyone that believes in the greater good, and the equal access to their own nation's wealth is somehow a communist or socialist. How's that so called "capitalism" working out for you buddy? Try to see the world outside of your outdated "isms". It just might make sense.

The only reason the US has trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities and debt is because our government is in bed with a bunch of private bankers who have been given the power to print our money out of thin air. You can blame everything on government. But it's made up of the same idiots that make up the rest of this country both public and private. The USA is one big corporation. You are the typical brainwashed lemming that sees things through the economical paradigms they want you to see the world through.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by sol11

The government has stolen the Social Secrity funds or we would not have a problem with Social Security.

Even if the money for the various Trust Funds was sitting in a bank account, you would still be experiencing the exact same problems. The only difference is that people would not be taxed twice for the same money.

Originally Posted by sol11

Had all the contributions been allowed to remain separate from the general fund, there would be plenty to fund social security for decades to come.

That is not even remotely true.

Originally Posted by sol11

Government/politicians are responsible for the shortfalls, and now we look to the same fools and idiots who cause the problem to find a solution.

Well, you are fools and idiots, because you sat there like a cow chewing cud staring blankly into space while your Trust Funds were raided.

Responsibly...

Mircea

Originally Posted by aus10

I did pay in. I was forced too. Legal Theft of my money if I don't get either the benefit I paid for or my cash back... plain and simple.

Which part of "OASI - Old Age Survivor's Insurance" do you not understand?

Simply...

Mircea

Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever

There were two solutions:

1) Do away with social security all-together. It's a ponzi scheme. It is bound to fail at some point in history, given its flawed nature.

That is not entirely true.

Ford appointed a commission to study Social Security, because there were problems even in the early 1970s. Ford was not re-elected, but Carter took the commission's recommendations to heart and increased the FICA tax to cover Social Security. Carter suggested even more reforms, but he was not re-elected either. Still, Reagan was concerned enough to also appoint a commission to study the problem and followed with all of the commission's recommendations as well.

Unfortunately, the successors have not.

According to the recommendations made by those two commissions, your FICA tax rate should be around 9%-10% right now.

What is it? Still 6.2%. Ooops.

It would seem that Blow Job Bill and the Republican-controlled House and Senate dropped the ball, as did Bush the Younger and Obama the Boy King.

Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever

2) Boomers should have had more kids. They didn't. They contributed to the lowest birth rates in American history, particularly in the Gen X generation of the mid to late 70s. They have often been coined "Baby Bust".

That would be a failed argument.

Perhaps the Boomers had a lower birth rate, but the fact that women entered the work-force more than made up for that.

Solving...

Mircea

Originally Posted by aus10

I'm just curious what the OP would think when he realizes that there are actually people like myself (who falls at the very tail of the boomers) who will have NO CHOICE but to remain working past age 67.

But you do have a choice; you simply refuse to exercise it.

Your choice is to alter your life-style. Perhaps that means a lesser quality of life, or a lower standard of living, but such is life.

Originally Posted by aus10

I'm not even 50 yet and every time I turn around talk of once again raising the age for SS is being put on the table. If in fact there is SS still around by the time I turn old enough to qualify I'm sure it'll be 70 for me at minimum.

I seriously doubt that.

In order for people to make informed decisions, they must first understand how the system works. Given that so many Americans are so friggin' stupid that they think the Keystone XL pipeline will save them, I seriously doubt they understand Social Security.

Each age cohort has a date for Full or Normal Retirement Age.

People born on or before December 31, 1937 may retire at full benefits at age 65.

Those born between January 1, 1938 and December 31, 1942 may retire with full benefits at age 65 and some months, depending on the exact year, eg 1941 = 65 years and 8 months

People born between January 1, 1943 and December 31, 1954 may retire at age 66 years.

From January 1, 1955 to December 31, 1959, the age is 66 years and some months, eg if you were born in 1957 it is 66 years and 6 months.

For all those born on or after January 1, 1960, the retirement age is 67 years.

Having said that, anyone may retire at age 62 however you will not get full benefits ever (even when you reach your normal retirement age your benefits will not be "bumped up").

So if you were born in 1958 then you can retire at age 62, but your benefits will be reduced by 28.33% until the day you die.

I can retire at 62, but with a 30% cut in benefits permanently. If I wait until 63, I can retire but with a 25% cut permanently. If I wait until 65, I can retire and only take a 15% permanent cut.

Raising the retirement age to 70 is the worst possible thing that could even be done.

What you will be successful in doing is ensuring that the younger people do not enter the work-force when they should, and that means you just skewed their Salary Curve to the negative and that means Social Security will have even less revenues to continue operating.

Raising the age to 70 won't stop people from taking early retirement between ages 62-65 even though they'll receive slightly less in benefits.

The intelligent and logical thing to do would be to raise the minimum retirement age from 62 to 64 or 65 for those who were born on or after January 1, 1978.

Logically...

Mircea

Originally Posted by LookinForMayberry

I hope President Obama's Health Care Reforms make it possible that they will never know. It is time that everyone have access to affordable health care.

Instead of looking for Mayberry, you might want to set your sights on something like looking for Reality.

Apparently there is some part of "You don't have the money to pay for Social Security" and "You don't have the money to pay for Medicare" that you don't understand.

I don't know how to say "You don't have any money..." any other way. Well, maybe in Romanian....N-ai bani. Or German...Sie haben kein Geld.

Medicare's 2011 report put the Trust Fund fail date at 2024. Unfortunately, they also made the grotesque error assuming that your economy would grow at a rate of 5.2% through 2020.

For the not-too-bright:

Originally Posted by Medicare June 2011 Page 5 -- Actual -- (Page 11 in Adode Reader)

For Part D, the average annual increase in expenditures is estimated to be 9.7 percent through 2020. The U.S. economy is projected to grow at an average annual rate of 5.2 percent during this period, significantly more slowly than Part D and the probable growth rate for Part B.

Is your economy going to grow at 5.2%? Not no, but Hell, no.

If your economy averages 2.89% for the next 8 years, it will be because Christ himself has come down from his throne to Earth and granted a miracle.

Medicare thinks it will get enough in revenues over the next 8 years to last through 2024. Sorry, that ain't gonna happen. Worse than that, Medicare did not factor in the lower labor participation rate, and that guarantees Medicare will not get the much needed revenues, even if your economy grows at 5.2%.

The Medicare HI Trust Fund will fail in 2018 (if not earlier -- perhaps as early as 2016).

Social Security is in the same position. The report says 2036, but in reality, the combined OASI/OADI Trust Funds will fail in 2028 (or as early as 2025).

If you eliminate the cap on Social Security wages, AND you raise the FICA tax rate to 16.4% AND you engage in means-testing, it just might be possible to keep Social Security alive through the year 2040. After that, it you must do all of those things, raise the FICA tax even higher and not only means-test, but cut benefits to survive through 2085.

For someone earning $40,000 per year, a FICA rate of 16.4% (what Social Security recommends) will result in the loss of $367 per month.

How many of you in that salary range whether individually or joint household income can afford to lose $367/month?

What changes in your life-style would you have to make?

That would be a great thread topic.

The cap for 2012 is $110,100 and that means at 7.65% (total) is $701 per month.

For someone earning

$150,000 they would lose an additional $254/month.
$200,000 it is $573/month
$250,000 is $891/month

You might want to consider the net negative affect on your economy when eliminating the cap.

The whole point is that you cannot pay for Social Security and Medicare and yet you want to add another hair-brained social welfare program into the mix, even though you have no possible way to pay for that either.

I have to believe the lot of you are financial sadists.

Mathematically...

Mircea