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.
Absolutely, it is an intergenerational transfer of wealth from younger Amerians to those old enough or sick enough to qualify for it.
That's only true for the low-income. Everyone else actually LOSES money on Social Security. That is, they pay MORE in SS taxes than they'll get back in SS benefits.
Quote:
As recently as 1985, workers at every income level could retire and expect to get more in benefits than they paid in Social Security taxes, though they didn't do quite as well as their parents and grandparents.
Not anymore.
A married couple retiring last year after both spouses earned average lifetime wages paid about $598,000 in Social Security taxes during their careers. They can expect to collect about $556,000 in benefits, if the man lives to 82 and the woman lives to 85, according to a 2011 study by the Urban Institute, a Washington think tank.
Social Security benefits are progressive, so most low-income workers retiring today still will get slightly more in benefits than they paid in taxes. Most high-income workers started getting less in benefits than they paid in taxes in the 1990s, according to data from the Social Security Administration.
Middle class retirees are finally just now getting a little taste of how higher income earners have been screwed by SS and federal income taxes for DECADES.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,164,711 times
Reputation: 8105
There's no arguing with the Scrooge Party ...... either you care about your fellow humans or you don't. For the time being, the decent, compassionate people have gained political control, but that's not guaranteed to last forever.
There is an economic aspect to social programs. Aside from the social cost, you know people starving, higher crime, instability etc. If you lay someone off and tell him/her good luck, that person leaves the economy, she/he is not consuming, not spending. I don;t know if you notice we are a consumer based economy, no more money multiplier, it is much better for the economy for that money, whether is from the government or not, to be injected back into the economy.
There's no arguing with the Scrooge Party ...... either you care about your fellow humans or you don't. For the time being, the decent, compassionate people have gained political control, but that's not guaranteed to last forever.
Could the so-called "decent compassionate people" PLEASE put their money where their mouths are and stop overcharging the rest of us for their disingenuous acts of artificial bleeding heart demands? If you want them, PAY for them! Flat tax!
HERE are the people voting for "decent compassion." Of course, MANY of them don't have to pay for it, and hypocrites that they are, fully expect someone else to pay for it:
I'm all in favor of ending government welfare, by eliminating handouts such as mortgage interest deductions for buying second, third, and fourth houses, awarding cost-plus contracts to defense contractors, paying farm subsidies to millionaire (and some billionaires, like Simplot) farmers, protecting KBR's Iraq and Afghanistan contracts with not only guaranteed profits, but insulation from liability when their employees commit rape and the company protects them, and creating every loophole in the Internal Revenue Code and Treasury Regulations that was custom-made for some multinational corporation.
What we pay to keep the sickest and weakest of our neighbors and fellow citizens from dying and starving is a pittance compared with real welfare.
What we pay to keep the sickest and weakest of our neighbors and fellow citizens from dying and starving is a pittance compared with real welfare.
If that is all we were paying for, I would agree. Instead, we're paying for VERY high occurrences of a complete lack of personal responsibility. Just one indication of the problem: those receiving public assistance have a birth rate 3 times higher than everyone else. They get PAID to do nothing more than breed. The more children they have, the greater the public assistance benefits they receive. How many of you think that financially supporting an exponentially growing welfare-dependent class is sustainable?
And to put in terms already used in this thread, how "decent" or "compassionate" is a country that incentivizes the highest rate of birth among its poor? What kind of future are all those children born into poverty going to have? Right off the bat there are overwhelming odds AGAINST them. Why would any country do that to its own children? Why is incentivizing an increasingly larger poverty class considered "decent" OR "compassionate?" They face a lifetime of struggle.
u r askig politicians to put their head on the railroad track.
why do u think 52% won last election? they are the welfare. the 48% that lost are the working tax payers.
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.
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.
If you want them, PAY for them! Flat tax! 
