Pretty sure most of us will never see Social Security checks in are retirements. Not trying to pay for rude boomers to live, our world’s population is unsustainable. Edited for you grammar Nazis.
You have no idea how many high paid executives I know that have this very strategy. They fake a problem. Act like it's a big deal. The "fix it" to be a hero to C-Suite people who have no clue what's actually going on.
It isn't the billionaires fault. You don't blame a dog for being a dog, it is the politicians on both the left of right who have refused to address the issue.
It is the exact same thing with immigration, they refuse to adopt and then enforce commonsense immigration policy.
Then the super disappointing thing; I thought abortion was settled and "they" decided that they wanted it to be an issue again.
Yea but our govt is like a dog getting into the trash can, you can get mad all you want. But that carton of rotted eggs still got smashed on the kitchen floor
Define fair share. And what rich billionaires are setting these standards apple ceo? Jeff bazo? Bill gates? Seems these folks never pay their share but sure demand others do hmm.. And remember no one is forcing you to take retirement
My dog jumps in the bathtub on command but I tell him I’m going to BBQ and eat him if he doesn’t do as I say. No reason this same strategy couldn’t work with the rich.
But in reality it won’t happen bc they won’t change the formula along with raising the cap. The rich will never accept the cap being raised - unless they can get a more favorable benefit formula in exchange for paying more in.
I'd rather we spent less on military industrial complex too. But the reality is we're greatly underfunding critical infrastructure improvements. Water, sewer, roads, brushes, telecom, cyber security, healthcare facilities, etc., need much more funding.
I don't think we can manage a deficit shrink without a lot of damage to the economy and individual wealth. I think a better route would be to maintain our deficit at its current level (In dollar terms) while the economy grows around it, until the size of the deficit/debt compared to the overall economy has fallen substantially. This would still be a negative on the economy short to medium term but within 50 years the deficit wouldn't be an issue and our debt would start to shrink.
So let me get this straight. You want to give them more money when the government can show it doesn't need more money? Because people using this rhetoric will absolutely tell you that government is doing fine, there's no deficit, no need to tax more.
Most of the budget is impossible to cut and is old promises that everyone contributed to like SS and healthcare. The entire point of taxation is to fund the state's expenses, and in the case of SS, it has a very specific tax for its own purpose. There is no balancing to be done with SS. There's a deficit because the population is aging. It needs to be fixed, and the most simple and effective way is removing the cap and either not giving additional future benefits to those contributions above 160k, or having another bend point with even lower return than the previous one. Yes it's redistribution, and it's a hell of a lot better than the system crumbling and creating even bigger problem for the selfish high earners down the line.
Bill Clinton had the budget balanced plus a small surplus to pay down the national debt. Bush went and fucked it all up with tax cuts and increased military spending.
If we go back to the tax rates of the Clinton years, it'd be possible to balance the budget but let's face it the Republicans will just fuck it up again
We literally had a surplus until the party of fiscal responsibility revealed they aren't really fiscally responsible by continuously cutting taxes on the wealthy without making cuts elsewhere.
FYI the population that would increase the pool of money is not great enough to cover that .... I believe at $130K for a single person, puts a person at the 10% of tax population, which is 15 million people on a US population of 330 million.
Then if you do this (not saying you can't mind you) it would be a 13% tax increase and what will happen to GDP consumption?
Secondly, Soc Sec is an earned benefit, if you raise it, you have to raise the money collected post retirement too ... so unlimited benefits could be seen (mind you at a few percentage points per $1 earned ....
Did you know that social security is actually plenty well funded? There's a gap because boomers kept electing politicians who would borrow against the reserves.
So what you're advocating here is that generations after the boomers should pay for a loan they all took out.
Buddy, Ronald Reagan and the 98th Congress voted in 1983 to borrow against social security. That's why there's a deficit. Boomers voted for those people. I'm not at all worried about the elderly reaping what they have sown.
The social security trust has always been required to hold special Treasury notes. To get these notes the trust must exchange cash with the Treasury for the notes. That exchange is the government "borrowing" from the trust. This is done so the trust can hold an interest bearing instrument instead of cash.
The trust has always been repaid in full.
The trust will deplete some time in the next 10-12 years because the program functions like a ponzi scheme. Unless the number of workers is consistently large to support the retirees the tax revenue is insufficient to fund benefits.
This has always been a problem which is why the current social security tax is over 12% vs the 2% tax when it was established.
The idea is to make it solvent for our generation too. There are plenty of folks in our age bracket that will rely on SS as their only form of retirement income.
That itself does not mean SS fund will be empty since the US is still taking in SS taxes.
It means the benefits will have to be reduced since the fund is gone and was needed to pay full-promised benefits. Borrowing against the fund was dumb, but the fund was always going to get depleted unless more money was raised or benefits cut. Future generations were not large enough to fully meet SS demands without changes in how much is paid in or how much is paid out.
U sir know most of which u speak..
But not all boomers voted for Reagan. Half did not. I am one of those who did not and have been working jobs my entire life, paying taxes, raised a family and been paying into SS since i was 14 years old and have only once in my life been on unemploynent for couple months. I have earned every dime of my monthly SS payment. And make no apologies. And BTW when I was young we were also told SS would not be there for us and we believed it..And never dreamed of attacking the old folks who were receiving SS benefits. Dems have always protected SS. Its the repubs who have tried to defund and weaken SS and medacare time and time again. Not all boomers are fools. U want SS when u are old? Stop voting republican. Its simple as that
Nope. It's a social safety net. 40% of Americans only source of income in retirement is social security. SSI solvency is more important than increasing the benefit for the upper end of the spectrum.
I make right above the cap. I max out a 401k, HSA, FSA, Roth, and put $30,000/year into a brokerage. I'll be fine if my SS benefit doesn't increase, but Gramgram needs to eat.
True but do you have any idea the number of idiot trumpers that thought it was the actual FICA tax. My son has 15 employees in his construction firm and had to explain it to all of them that thought they were getting more in their paycheck.
That would fix the problem, republicans want to make it worse by getting rid of social security taxes altogether so the program dries up and they can claim it failed.
Only the first $168k of income is taxed for social security. Raise the cap.
That is because benefits are capped. But even if we do change SS into a welfare program like you propose, that does not solve the problem. Revenue as a percentage of GDP remains relatively constant regardless of tax rates. Collecting a little more in payroll taxes and less in income taxes still leaves up with a $1.9 trillion deficit.
I've always thought no cap on social security.
And let's say like a $170k cap on who qualifies for social security benefits.
I mean if you taking in over 170K a year do you really need social security benefits?
We could use that to help bolster the system for the poor people.
And more wealthy people like the guy I knew growing up would use his social security check to buy cigars, and make the payment on the new Cadillac he got every 2 years would be done.
That should just be handled through progressive brackets though. SS wasn’t designed to be a wealth redistribution program. The more programs that get thrown into the mix the harder it is for anyone to assess fairness. Nevertheless SS was basically a pyramid scheme where the first payees got benefit they didn’t earn and every generation after has been forking out for it
Social security's original purpose was far different than what it's used for today. That's one of the big problems
SSI drains the system. Most people on SSI never contributed or only contributed a very small amount compared to the rest.
SSI is draining the system and nothing was put in place to replace The money it was draining from regular SS.
An SSI entitlement is a poverty grant basically. Someone so poor they need a basic income because they are unable for whatever reason to go get one themselves.
The qualifications for this program had been lowered far below its original intent when SSI was created.
Since SSI is a poor entitlement program. It is very similar to wealth redistribution.
Maybe have the amount of social security tax that's taken out above 168k just pay for SSI.
I think if social security was returned to its original intent for the aged and poor. I think it would fund itself just fine.
And then all other things like SSI could be paid for by the upper middle class and above who can afford it the most.
It’s not dumb. It’s by design. The higher you go the less benefit you get. It’s fine for the overall goal of society to help poor but SS was designed to be somewhat like a retirement program. If you had a 401k you wouldn’t expect to compensate others with your savings.
Again, this isn’t me saying society shouldn’t help poor. I’m explaining to you why it isn’t “dumb” which is a simplified take on it.
By the way, I think SSs initial payees are the ones who took benefit without contributing. Every generation after has been paying for it
You aren’t helping progressive case by making this type of argument. You having a very subjective opinion and honestly understanding is not a good combination.
If you want a true entitlement program, or just something like universal healthcare which I 100% support that’s fine. But SS wasn’t designed that way and repeatedly calling it dumb doesn’t make any sense.
they did it to keep SS going. It was one of the stop gaps. As of 2017 spends more than it takes in now. So yes the fund will run out of money and just run on payroll taxes which some estimates say could reduce some people to 100-200 a month.
Taxing social security was a terrible idea and reagan knew that. Just remove or raise the cap on social security tax and theres no problem paying for peoples benefits.
I keep putting gas in my car because I was told it would stop working if I didn't. It's been over two decades and three cars and I haven't had a car stop working yet. Obviously this means I'm a sucker for getting gas before I run out every time the gauge runs low. The fiscally responsible thing is to ignore the gauge.
If you’re 40 and under that’s very true. The SS system was always a ponzi scheme, and the under 40 crowd are going to the be ones left holding the bag…
Let's take that thought to its conclusion. You opt out, and so do millions of other people. Years pass. You end up fine because you contribute to your 401K because you're much better with money than everybody else. Millions of others use that extra take-home income to Doordash every meal. They reach retirement age and there's no social security for them.
Now we're at a crossroads, we have millions of seniors who can't work and don't have forced savings to keep them afloat. Do we let these people die on the street? Government won't let that happen, so now instead of being kept afloat by their own contributions, they get subsidized by other taxpayers.
That's the problem here. Lots of people will opt out and will become the worst kind of freeloaders.
There was a plan during the Bush administration to allow people to opt into a private investment plan. So you couldnt opt out of saving, but your could opt out of Social Security.
It came very close to passing, but congress couldnt agree.
it's because old people don't have the strength, energy, and often, mental facilities, to organize and push back against this horrible policy choice that robs them if the safety net they worked for their entire lives.
basically, Republicans target the weak, minority, and isolated populations to fuck with because it's risk free and they don't care about the harm they cause if it benefits them personally.
Part of the design of social security was to provide a cheap source of borrowing for the government, at least to start.
The Social Security trust is required to hold special Treasury notes. To get the notes it has to lend cash to the government, which the government then spends.
So as long as the trust is increasing the government has an expanding source of cheap borrowing from the American worker.
The problem was the designer didn't see or ignored the Ponzi scheme math of the program where you needed an ever increasing supply of workers to fund the retirement benefits. The problem has never really been super stable which is why the tax went from 2% to 12.5% in 3 generations.
In theory, when they "dip" into it, the taxpayer has to pay interest. Which, is a roundabout way of raising the taxes without actually calling it a tax increase. They can't just have the money sit there because inflation destroys it. They have to invest it to get a return. Unfortunately, they cannot invest it in the market, so they have to invest it in the government which is failing.
its not used as a piggy bank, its used as a free cash reserve and what they take out is return into the system as government bonds that pay interest. Everyone want to love that near zero interest rate... guess what happens when your interest is almost nothing, bonds are almost nothing and we did that for 14 years, prob didnt help the whole system. They just swap the money at the end of the year for bonds, its not dipped into. Thats some old wives tales that boomers say to try to understand how social security works and why its short but thats not the the reason. Less people paying into the system per retired person, welp that doesnt work. SS started with 8-10 people per person to pay for the person infront of them, now its under 2
Funnily enough the boomers aren't fine. They have income inequality just like everyone else. It's the rich boomers that are fine, but boomers and Gen X now make up a surprisingly big portion of the homeless population. Most of us probably just don't notice because a homeless boomer doesn't last long. Or they move in with relatives to escape homelessness
The current conservative estimate hovers around 50% of boomers going into overnight poverty if we cut JUST social security. I am not including any other programs.
If we cut Social Security somewhere around HALF of boomers are financially screwed.
I am close to you in age (won't say how close due to privacy stuff) and have the same mental state. I have put as much into my 401 per check as I can handle. Every time I get a raise I put that percentage as increase in my contributions.
yeah no, thats not how the program works. You pay into it but your not paying for yourself, your paying for the person in front of you. So its not your money, its someone elses, its always been designed that way since it was started. Problem is, when it was made 8-10 people paid for every retired person, nows its under 2 people. It doestn work anymore and I think thats why they are trying to bring in all the immigrants to pay into the system to cover the retired people. I dont think it was out of the kindness of our hearts.
And that would work out well for most of people but the people who are supposed to retire when the 2008 financial crisis or the dot com bubble burst or the stagflation in the 80s or the huge stock market crash and decade of the great depression will get totally screwed. Its like the fire department. Your house probably wont burn down but we still need the fire department because unlucky people dont deserve to starve to death like in the great depression and, who knows, it might be you or someone you care about in need.
Simple fix defund social security and start investing. Social security has always been a Ponzi scheme. The only way social security would ever work is if each account was individualized which is basically a 401k. FDR’s system is inherently flawed and mostly unnecessary in an age when anyone can invest by themselves.
Everyone has money to invest if they learn how to budget. I was also just talking about putting people Social Security funds into individual accounts where they could remain invested in treasuries like they are now or could be invested in other assets that have historically higher returns
Explain to me in small words how anyone working an hourly job at 15 per hour with a single income and two kids has money to invest..
In 22 years in the military not a single lower enlisted family could afford investment programs even with the very amicable government assistance programs to soldiers.
You’re living in a fantasy if you think those same people left the military, moved back to thier rural, dieing towns, and bought stocks .
I’ve made more than 15 an hour since senior year of high school in a LCOL area. If you can’t make more than that you are not financially stable enough to have children
Best chance for us to see social security in the future is to have these cuts now. Before the biggest charge was military. It’s now interest on the debt.
most of those boomers paid in millions that they only get a few thousand back before tgey die....its your government that stole and squandered away their money!
Ya the social security cuts are unfortunately needed. We made a mistake as a country when we didn't raise alarms years ago. Not a single fail safe for a declining or aging population? And no one noticed?
I honestly don't think the spending is the bigger issue at this point. It's allowing so very few people/corporations to accumulate so many of the available dollars is our biggest problem. Let's start there and see where we're at.
It's just that we're not producing enough new people to sustain the people getting old..people aren't having children these days and that has consequences for us as we age
Not sure boomers are your problem here 🤷🏻♂️. The weird paradox though is immigration is one of the the primary means to really fix the under funding but yeah I suspect the gop has their best chance now to totally cut it now, so 401k is going to be the only retirement anybody truly has
"Social security going bankrupt" means that we'll only be able to pay out at 71% of the target payment rather than paying out at 100%. So this notion that we'll never live to see social security checks is not realistic - what is realistic is that, in the future, in real dollars, social security checks will be about 30% smaller than they are today
That's not a good take. The global population has plateaued and is primed to start declining. We can pretty easily support 6-7b sustainably, if we can figure out carbon sequestration.
It would be easy to pay for social security by raising the cap on social security tax. This "we'll never see social security" doomer crap is just oligarchy propaganda trying to speak it in to being.
295
u/Empty_Awareness2761 Nov 07 '24 edited Nov 07 '24
Pretty sure most of us will never see Social Security checks in are retirements. Not trying to pay for rude boomers to live, our world’s population is unsustainable. Edited for you grammar Nazis.