Get rid of Social Security now?

[Skull Pilot]

I predict government will nationalize our IRA and 401k retirement accounts because the country will be so friggin broke they will have no choice.They will confiscate all our retirement accounts and will pay us what they feel is enough for us to live on month by month.

And I'm sure the Democrat party will not have a problem with this.

As it is now your IRA, 401 etc belong to the fucking government already.

The government tells you when you can use the money, how much you have to take out every year and penalizes you if you don't listen

That is return for deferred taxes, and you can break the rules if you feel like, you just have to pay penalties (tax related) to do different than what you originally agreed to.

I dont see the government able to confiscate private retirement accounts, and if they ever get that power, we will have much bigger worries than our 401ks

It's not just taxes. You are required to withdraw a certain amount every year even if that amount is more than you need or else be penalized.

And the worst part is that all the return is taxed as ordinary income rather than at the lower capital gains rate.

So you see the fucking government has sold you a shitty plan. You'd be better off saving that money after taxes because not only would you have complete control but the return would be taxed at the lower capital gains rate.

 

[Politico]

Get rid of it and give me my fucking money back.

 

[Skull Pilot]

This talk about SS going away completely is preposterous.

The truth is--SS will still be around. It just won't pay out as much as it used to(in terms of standard of living), that is all.

So yes, We will still have SS.
No, you probably can not live off of it, so start saving now!

You just illustrated what a rip off SS is.

If one cannot live off of 15% of one's lifetime income that has been saved at even a modest return then one is getting ripped off.

The fucking government is ripping us off with the SS scam.

First, the average Social Security allotment is not sufficient by itself to facilitate a fully accommodated lifestyle which includes such standard comforts as cable tv, phone, auto, etc. But while it can provide adequate but minimal shelter and/or offset the kind of destitute starvation which affected millions of penniless seniors during the Great Depression it typically serves as a necessary supplement to the average retiree's pension, savings, and/or portfolio, thus sustaining a reasonably comfortable existence (as in my own example).

Wow. You're fully indoctrinated aren't you?

If you had control of that money, you'd be better off and would be able to retire on more than a subsistence income.

I've done the math over and over again and no matter how you slice it you lose with social security.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/238556-do-you-feel-we-should-end-medicare-social-security-and-medicaid-13.html#post5770422

The increasingly popular notion that Social Security is "bankrupt" and will not be available to the current generation when they retire derives mainly from propaganda put forth by corporate interests and is motivated by the fact that corporations resent paying their share (50%) of their employees Social Security contributions, and because the financial sector of the emerging corporatocracy is yearning to get its hands on a privatized version of the program.

I never mentioned that in my posts because it's not my point. The point is that if one had control of the 15% of his income that SS takes then one could retire with substantially more money, have a higher income in retirement and possibly leave a large inheritance to his family.

The propaganda is effective with workers below age fifty because almost no one below that age level really believes they ever will grow old enough to collect Social Security. They might have some vague supposition along those lines but they really don't believe it and that is a simple quirk of human nature. (I didn't believe I was getting old until I reached my mid-50s and started losing my hair and teeth -- among other things).

The real experts, i.e., those who administer and understand the program, have repeatedly assured the working public that Social Security is perfectly sound and with some simple adjustments will continue to serve its benevolent purpose into the foreseeable future.

The real experts huh?

You mean the fucking government who sold us this rip off.

 

[flacaltenn]

The real experts, i.e., those who administer and understand the program, have repeatedly assured the working public that Social Security is perfectly sound and with some simple adjustments will continue to serve its benevolent purpose into the foreseeable future.

Can we get one thing straight?? Soc Sec is BROKE TODAY!! It has been running $BILLS in deficits since 2010. LARGELY thanks to Obama stealing from the premiums, thats SIX YEARS ahead of your "expert's" projections.. They suck at managing and adminstrating, but they are superb FICTIONAL writers having lulled the American public into believing that the Trust Fund has anything of value in it..

RIGHT NOW -- NEW debt paid for by the 57% who contribute to INCOME taxes are picking up this growing deficit..

Your assertion that "Social Security is perfectly sound" is the biggest political lie of the decade.. It's broke NOW.. There's nothing of value in the Trust Fund. We've got very little to chat about concerning SS -- if you insist on lying about "experts" and the health of a program on life support...

 

[JakeStarkey]

You really are that uninformed on this issue, aren't you? Wow.

Explain in whatever cosmic language you prefer -- how MEANs testing a program that EVERYONE is required to contribute to is NOT welfare...

I did explain it. But you don't wish to understand it.

The purpose of Social Security, which typically pays out considerably more than is paid in, is to prevent impoverishment in old age or to provide the supplementary means required to enjoy basic comforts during retirement. One who manages to acquire sufficient wealth to ensure a luxurious retirement clearly has no need to draw a supplementary allotment, or the full supplementary allotment.

As mentioned above, in my own example a $200 reduction in my Social Security allotment, if necessary to stabilize the program, wouldn't negatively affect me because I enjoy a generous pension and I have a stack of U.S. Savings Bonds. And even with a reduced allotment I would still derive more from the program than I've paid into it -- as would most recipients.

Again, Social Security is insurance, not an investment or savings program. A means test wouldn't hurt anyone but would simply ensure uninterrupted performance into the future. And it isn't welfare because it is fueled by payroll contributions -- much like health insurance.

If you're lucky you'll never need it. But if you need it, it's there.

Well shit man.. Forget losing $200.. Lets' declare YOU not needy of a "supplement" and see if you don't understand the meaning of welfare then... What with all your LOOT and Savings Bonds and such.. What a load...

One guy pays 12% of 7 figures for their working life and gets NOTHING. Another pays 12% of squat and gets a 60% of his salary pension.. No -- that wouldn't be welfare..

I know it's not UNIVERSAL anything like it was intended either.

We won't get fooled again...

 

[LogikAndReazon]

The Republicans will not be content until they rid the nation of Social Security. This battle could go on for years, and for years the aged will live in fear.
Would it be in the best interests of America to elect Republicans in the next election. The Republicans will drop the Social Security and other social programs. Once the loss of Social Security is felt Americans will then rid the nation of Republicans. It might take years for the entire cleansing but the new Social Security program might then be secure for a long time to come.

Such mindless pussified hysteria........

The social security system is perfect, no need to improve it ............Just raise the tax and delay the beneficiary period Lol

 

[MikeK]

Wow. Your fully indoctrinated aren't you?

If you had control of that money, you'd be better off and would be able to retire on more than a subsistence income.

If, in 2007, you and I had control of the money we paid into FICA and had it invested in some component of the stock market, and the market collapsed as it did, destroying the retirement plans of millions, I suggest you'd be singing a different tune today -- in spite of the brainwash which apparently controls your thinking.

I've done the math over and over again and no matter how you slice it you lose with social security.

Sure. In your mind.

I've done very satisfactorily with my retirement situation, which includes Social Security. And I'm very grateful to FDR for it -- among other things.

How old are you, by the way?

 

[MikeK]

Can we get one thing straight?? Soc Sec is BROKE TODAY!!

Social Security will be broke when the U.S. Government is broke! And when that happens it won't matter a bit how much Social Security has in its fund because the world as we know it will be collapsing around us and our main concern will be how well armed and capable of defending our homes we are. But as long as the Government is solvent the SS checks will go out.

One thing you need to get straight is we can depend much less on the stock market than on Social Security -- and that is the name of the game. How many people do you know who were financially injured when Bush collapsed the economy? I live in a big retirement community and I know quite a few. Were it not for Social Security they would be in serious trouble right now.

Don't believe the propaganda that's being fed to you by the likes of Romney/Ryan and other corporatist puppets. They have an agenda and your best interests are not included in it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Wow. Your fully indoctrinated aren't you?

If you had control of that money, you'd be better off and would be able to retire on more than a subsistence income.

If, in 2007, you and I had control of the money we paid into FICA and had it invested in some component of the stock market, and the market collapsed as it did, destroying the retirement plans of millions, I suggest you'd be singing a different tune today -- in spite of the brainwash which apparently controls your thinking.

I've done the math over and over again and no matter how you slice it you lose with social security.

Sure. In your mind.

I've done very satisfactorily with my retirement situation, which includes Social Security. And I'm very grateful to FDR for it -- among other things.

How old are you, by the way?

So you are basing the performance of a working lifetime, say 45 years or so on the performance of the stock market for one year?

That's awfully shortsighted of you.

The stock market over any period of time over 30 years has averaged almost a 10% return and common sense investing strategies such as decreasing the amount of money in equities as you near retirement age effectively safeguard principle.

And you may be comfortable settling for satisfactory when it comes to your money but many of us who can think for ourselves aren't.

And not that it's any of your business but I am in my mid 40s

 

[jwoodie]

Why is it even worth replying to this crap thread?

 

[9thIDdoc]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...rewed-generation-is-turning-to-paul-ryan.html

The younger generation will pull for Paul Ryan when they realize they will become the oxen in the field responsible for carrying the elderly in their bloated government programs.

I was up late the other night and all you saw were infomercials for medical crap where the announcer stated...."Medicare will pay for it all....just see your doctor." This wasn't for life threatening stuff.

Young people are catching on.

Poor baby! You think it was any more fun for our older generation to be forced to pay into the program? You think you are more entitled to take home your whole paycheck than we were. And I'll bet that when you were a child you thought you were entitled to food, shelter, clothing, transportation, etc. etc. Try to pretend you are an adult.

More entitled? No. Smart enough to see what you obviously didn't and don't? Apparently.

Bullshit. Not unless you're smart enough to avoid haveing part of your pay seized by the government. But if you were you would also be smart enough not to mention that here.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We the People permit taxation by our governments.

Don't like it, 9thID, then get a majority to change the law.

 

[Skull Pilot]

We the People permit taxation by our governments.

Don't like it, 9thID, then get a majority to change the law.

Tough to do when the majority are bleating sheep

 

[JakeStarkey]

Tough to do when you are the minority who can't catch the sheeps' attention.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Tough to do when you are the minority who can't catch the sheeps' attention.

One doesn't catch a sheep's attention because sheep have no attention to catch.

One herds sheep with a stick and a dog then one slaughters sheep and eats them

 

[JakeStarkey]

ah, you wish to be a wolfie. OK. have the last word.

 

[Skull Pilot]

ah, you wish to be a wolfie. OK. have the last word.

You say wolf. I say shepherd.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ah, typical libertarian nonsense: the masses being guarded by the society of equal (warlords).

 

[9thIDdoc]

We the People permit taxation by our governments.

Don't like it, 9thID, then get a majority to change the law.

Don't be silly I've gotten to the point where I'm getting paid rather than paying in.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We the People permit taxation by our governments.

Don't like it, 9thID, then get a majority to change the law.

Don't be silly I've gotten to the point where I'm getting paid rather than paying in.