If Social Security Had Been In Private Accounts The Stock Market Drop Could Have Been A Disaster

[David_42]

The Role of Benefits in Income and Poverty | National Academy of Social Insurance

 

[bripat9643]

What anecdotal evidence are you referencing.

I agree that there is no support for the claim being made, but it is a general claim.

Why is raising the retirement age cruel. The retirement age was originally set at 65. Live expectancy was barely above that when it was formed. Our life expectancy is now much longer. I don't get your logic.

Have you ever been to a nursing home? Seen the problems that develop within the elderly?

Are you saying those problems didn't exist back when it was formed. People didn't suddenly turn old at 65. Especially those who had labor intensive jobs.

I've been to plenty of nursing homes. I also know the gold courses are littered with people well past 70. Why should we subsidize able bodied people ?

If someone is disabled, that is a different story.

Oh, they existed, but 65 is what it is, and it needs to stay that way.

You're kidding yourself.

That age will raise and it's going to go a lot higher than people think it will. That or everyone's benefits will be cut.

Or we raise the contribution cap..

Fuck that. Go loot someone else.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

What anecdotal evidence are you referencing.

I agree that there is no support for the claim being made, but it is a general claim.

Why is raising the retirement age cruel. The retirement age was originally set at 65. Live expectancy was barely above that when it was formed. Our life expectancy is now much longer. I don't get your logic.

Have you ever been to a nursing home? Seen the problems that develop within the elderly?

Are you saying those problems didn't exist back when it was formed. People didn't suddenly turn old at 65. Especially those who had labor intensive jobs.

I've been to plenty of nursing homes. I also know the gold courses are littered with people well past 70. Why should we subsidize able bodied people ?

If someone is disabled, that is a different story.

Oh, they existed, but 65 is what it is, and it needs to stay that way.

Doesn't matter what you think. It's going to go up. Period. Everyone not living in a fantasy world, knows that. That's not even debated on capital hill really. Even the Socialist left-wing, knows 65 isn't even remotely sustainable.

Do you not even attempt to connect this debate with reality?

I said it needs to stay that way, it doesn't mean I am saying it won't go up.

Philosophically, I don't get why you would keep it there.

Retirement isn't a right.

 

[David_42]

Have you ever been to a nursing home? Seen the problems that develop within the elderly?

Are you saying those problems didn't exist back when it was formed. People didn't suddenly turn old at 65. Especially those who had labor intensive jobs.

I've been to plenty of nursing homes. I also know the gold courses are littered with people well past 70. Why should we subsidize able bodied people ?

If someone is disabled, that is a different story.

Oh, they existed, but 65 is what it is, and it needs to stay that way.

Doesn't matter what you think. It's going to go up. Period. Everyone not living in a fantasy world, knows that. That's not even debated on capital hill really. Even the Socialist left-wing, knows 65 isn't even remotely sustainable.

Do you not even attempt to connect this debate with reality?

I said it needs to stay that way, it doesn't mean I am saying it won't go up.

Philosophically, I don't get why you would keep it there.

Retirement isn't a right.

Yes, and children don't have the right to healthy meals, doesn't mean we as a society shouldn't work for these things.

 

[David_42]

Have you ever been to a nursing home? Seen the problems that develop within the elderly?

Are you saying those problems didn't exist back when it was formed. People didn't suddenly turn old at 65. Especially those who had labor intensive jobs.

I've been to plenty of nursing homes. I also know the gold courses are littered with people well past 70. Why should we subsidize able bodied people ?

If someone is disabled, that is a different story.

Oh, they existed, but 65 is what it is, and it needs to stay that way.

You're kidding yourself.

That age will raise and it's going to go a lot higher than people think it will. That or everyone's benefits will be cut.

Or we raise the contribution cap..

Fuck that. Go loot someone else.

What a cry baby. Keep drooling over anarchy.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The Role of Benefits in Income and Poverty | National Academy of Social Insurance

Social Security is the major source of income for older Americans. About nine in 10 Americans aged 65 and older receive Social Security. For nearly two out of three (65 percent) of those beneficiaries, Social Security is more than half their total income, and for one in three (36 percent), it is all or nearly all of their income.

From the article.

The sad thing is that even the government has always said....it was not to be your primary means of retirement.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Are you saying those problems didn't exist back when it was formed. People didn't suddenly turn old at 65. Especially those who had labor intensive jobs.

I've been to plenty of nursing homes. I also know the gold courses are littered with people well past 70. Why should we subsidize able bodied people ?

If someone is disabled, that is a different story.

Oh, they existed, but 65 is what it is, and it needs to stay that way.

Doesn't matter what you think. It's going to go up. Period. Everyone not living in a fantasy world, knows that. That's not even debated on capital hill really. Even the Socialist left-wing, knows 65 isn't even remotely sustainable.

Do you not even attempt to connect this debate with reality?

I said it needs to stay that way, it doesn't mean I am saying it won't go up.

Philosophically, I don't get why you would keep it there.

Retirement isn't a right.

Yes, and children don't have the right to healthy meals, doesn't mean we as a society shouldn't work for these things.

Get back on topic.

Retirement isn't a right and never has been.

 

[David_42]

The Role of Benefits in Income and Poverty | National Academy of Social Insurance

Social Security is the major source of income for older Americans. About nine in 10 Americans aged 65 and older receive Social Security. For nearly two out of three (65 percent) of those beneficiaries, Social Security is more than half their total income, and for one in three (36 percent), it is all or nearly all of their income.

From the article.

The sad thing is that even the government has always said....it was not to be your primary means of retirement.

The reality is different.

 

[bripat9643]

The Role of Benefits in Income and Poverty | National Academy of Social Insurance

"The National Academy of Social Insurance?" Do you really expect anyone to drink the horse piss dispensed by that obvious propaganda organ?

 

[David_42]

Oh, they existed, but 65 is what it is, and it needs to stay that way.

Doesn't matter what you think. It's going to go up. Period. Everyone not living in a fantasy world, knows that. That's not even debated on capital hill really. Even the Socialist left-wing, knows 65 isn't even remotely sustainable.

Do you not even attempt to connect this debate with reality?

I said it needs to stay that way, it doesn't mean I am saying it won't go up.

Philosophically, I don't get why you would keep it there.

Retirement isn't a right.

Yes, and children don't have the right to healthy meals, doesn't mean we as a society shouldn't work for these things.

Get back on topic.

Retirement isn't a right and never has been.

I addressed your point, nothing is a "right", seniors don't have the "right" to healthcare, kids don't have the "right" to schooling. We as a society allow these things to happen, retirement, to me, is as much as a right as these things, do you want seniors to work till their 90?

 

[David_42]

The Role of Benefits in Income and Poverty | National Academy of Social Insurance

"The National Academy of Social Insurance?" Do you really expect anyone to drink the horse piss dispense by that obvious propaganda organ?

LOL. Sorry that facts scare you. Refute ANYTHING.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The Role of Benefits in Income and Poverty | National Academy of Social Insurance

Social Security is the major source of income for older Americans. About nine in 10 Americans aged 65 and older receive Social Security. For nearly two out of three (65 percent) of those beneficiaries, Social Security is more than half their total income, and for one in three (36 percent), it is all or nearly all of their income.

From the article.

The sad thing is that even the government has always said....it was not to be your primary means of retirement.

The reality is different.

Yes it is.

And that should tell you that those thirty six percent are living below the poverty line.

I would never take that away from anyone who has put into the system.

But to advocate for a system that allows the elderly to waste away in poverty isn't doing anyone any good.

 

[David_42]

The Role of Benefits in Income and Poverty | National Academy of Social Insurance

Social Security is the major source of income for older Americans. About nine in 10 Americans aged 65 and older receive Social Security. For nearly two out of three (65 percent) of those beneficiaries, Social Security is more than half their total income, and for one in three (36 percent), it is all or nearly all of their income.

From the article.

The sad thing is that even the government has always said....it was not to be your primary means of retirement.

The reality is different.

Yes it is.

And that should tell you that those thirty six percent are living below the poverty line.

I would never take that away from anyone who has put into the system.

But to advocate for a system that allows the elderly to waste away in poverty isn't doing anyone any good.

You do realize those seniors get access to other welfare programs that help them as well, and can save their own money throughout there life to supplement SS?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Doesn't matter what you think. It's going to go up. Period. Everyone not living in a fantasy world, knows that. That's not even debated on capital hill really. Even the Socialist left-wing, knows 65 isn't even remotely sustainable.

Do you not even attempt to connect this debate with reality?

I said it needs to stay that way, it doesn't mean I am saying it won't go up.

Philosophically, I don't get why you would keep it there.

Retirement isn't a right.

Yes, and children don't have the right to healthy meals, doesn't mean we as a society shouldn't work for these things.

Get back on topic.

Retirement isn't a right and never has been.

I addressed your point, nothing is a "right", seniors don't have the "right" to healthcare, kids don't have the "right" to schooling. We as a society allow these things to happen, retirement, to me, is as much as a right as these things, do you want seniors to work till their 90?

No, I said retirement wasn't a right. Trying to link it to those other things is simply a deflection and shows your position to be weak.

And while I will do what I can to get kids educated, I see no reason to promote a comfortable retirement for people who won't do it for themselves.

Most seniors work at something to stay engaged. That is a fact. Many volunteer. How long...that is their choice. But our demographic shows that many people (who are not obese) are very healthy heading into age 65. Now, if you work for the government, you can retire (or could) at 55. Meaning you might pull from the system for longer than what you worked.

Something isn't right there.

 

[bripat9643]

Are you saying those problems didn't exist back when it was formed. People didn't suddenly turn old at 65. Especially those who had labor intensive jobs.

I've been to plenty of nursing homes. I also know the gold courses are littered with people well past 70. Why should we subsidize able bodied people ?

If someone is disabled, that is a different story.

Oh, they existed, but 65 is what it is, and it needs to stay that way.

You're kidding yourself.

That age will raise and it's going to go a lot higher than people think it will. That or everyone's benefits will be cut.

Or we raise the contribution cap..

Fuck that. Go loot someone else.

What a cry baby. Keep drooling over anarchy.

Keep drooling over your Ponzi scheme. Its days are numbered.

 

[David_42]

Oh, they existed, but 65 is what it is, and it needs to stay that way.

You're kidding yourself.

That age will raise and it's going to go a lot higher than people think it will. That or everyone's benefits will be cut.

Or we raise the contribution cap..

Fuck that. Go loot someone else.

What a cry baby. Keep drooling over anarchy.

Keep drooling over your Ponzi scheme. Its days are numbered.

We'll both be dead by the time that happens, if ever. Well, the world probably won't last for another 100 years, so it's whatever.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The Role of Benefits in Income and Poverty | National Academy of Social Insurance

Social Security is the major source of income for older Americans. About nine in 10 Americans aged 65 and older receive Social Security. For nearly two out of three (65 percent) of those beneficiaries, Social Security is more than half their total income, and for one in three (36 percent), it is all or nearly all of their income.

From the article.

The sad thing is that even the government has always said....it was not to be your primary means of retirement.

The reality is different.

Yes it is.

And that should tell you that those thirty six percent are living below the poverty line.

I would never take that away from anyone who has put into the system.

But to advocate for a system that allows the elderly to waste away in poverty isn't doing anyone any good.

You do realize those seniors get access to other welfare programs that help them as well, and can save their own money throughout there life to supplement SS?

So what is your point ?

This was about advocating for more participation in savings.

Other welfare programs ? Did you read what you wrote ? You don't mind relegating seniors to welfare. S.S. is not welfare.

 

[David_42]

The Role of Benefits in Income and Poverty | National Academy of Social Insurance

Social Security is the major source of income for older Americans. About nine in 10 Americans aged 65 and older receive Social Security. For nearly two out of three (65 percent) of those beneficiaries, Social Security is more than half their total income, and for one in three (36 percent), it is all or nearly all of their income.

From the article.

The sad thing is that even the government has always said....it was not to be your primary means of retirement.

The reality is different.

Yes it is.

And that should tell you that those thirty six percent are living below the poverty line.

I would never take that away from anyone who has put into the system.

But to advocate for a system that allows the elderly to waste away in poverty isn't doing anyone any good.

You do realize those seniors get access to other welfare programs that help them as well, and can save their own money throughout there life to supplement SS?

So what is your point ?

This was about advocating for more participation in savings.

Other welfare programs ? Did you read what you wrote ? You don't mind relegating seniors to welfare. S.S. is not welfare.

"statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need."

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Oh, they existed, but 65 is what it is, and it needs to stay that way.

You're kidding yourself.

That age will raise and it's going to go a lot higher than people think it will. That or everyone's benefits will be cut.

Or we raise the contribution cap..

Fuck that. Go loot someone else.

What a cry baby. Keep drooling over anarchy.

Keep drooling over your Ponzi scheme. Its days are numbered.

A lie.

When the trust fund goes tits up....benefits will be paid on a strictly in/out system and around 60 to 70% of current levels.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Social Security is the major source of income for older Americans. About nine in 10 Americans aged 65 and older receive Social Security. For nearly two out of three (65 percent) of those beneficiaries, Social Security is more than half their total income, and for one in three (36 percent), it is all or nearly all of their income.

From the article.

The sad thing is that even the government has always said....it was not to be your primary means of retirement.

The reality is different.

Yes it is.

And that should tell you that those thirty six percent are living below the poverty line.

I would never take that away from anyone who has put into the system.

But to advocate for a system that allows the elderly to waste away in poverty isn't doing anyone any good.

You do realize those seniors get access to other welfare programs that help them as well, and can save their own money throughout there life to supplement SS?

So what is your point ?

This was about advocating for more participation in savings.

Other welfare programs ? Did you read what you wrote ? You don't mind relegating seniors to welfare. S.S. is not welfare.

"statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need."

You can, at least, try to explain the point you wish to make.

This means nothing unless you somehow see it as a justification for welfare.

Do you think the elderly really want to soak their kids and grandkids ?