‘No one in the US should be retiring at 65’: Ben Shapiro said Social Security was not designed to provide retirement benefits for 20+ years

[Lisa558]

Everybody has antisemitism fatigue. You people throw the word around after any criticism. Your race card is maxed out.

No, antisemites like you want to reveal your Jew-hate without being called on it. This thread had nothing to do with Jews or Israel until you felt it appropriate to interject them.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

But not that poster who interjected about Ben’s religion and Israel on a thread unrelated to either.

I'm pointing out Shapiro's hypocrisy. He complains about Gentiles getting government money but thinks it's perfectly fine for Israel to get billions in welfare every year.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Youre an idiot if you think the trans guy won that. Trans guy lost the argument and then got physical, as men often do, and instantly lost the debate. Ben crushed it!

Tur lost an argument? You're pathetic. Look at who Tur is and what she has accomplished in her life vs Ben the turd.

Tur is tough as nails and allowed Ben to go for a few, then finally had to put him in his place.

Zoey Tur - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[leftwinger]

Couchpotato

If they were buying Treasury bonds with SS funds that is savings. But they can’t sell them later and use the money for other. Sounds like thats what they did? Bond value increases with tome (or should).

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It wasn't "raided" The government got all the excess money paid into SS via treasury bonds in the original bill.

SS is a tax. The benefits are a Ponzi scheme that only survives because it has the power of the Government to keep it afloat.

The reason the ratio was 7:1 when SS started was because the life expectancy in 1935 was 58 for men and 62 for women. Most people died before they collected and even if they did collect it wasn't for long. In other words, the Government always collected far more than it ever had to pay out. The retirement age in the original SS bill was 3 years past when people were expected to live. SS would never have a problem if we tied the retirement age to 3 years older than the life expectancy.

It's amazing to me everyone on here arguing about the subject without doing a simple google search.

conspiracy theory alert!

 

[LeroyDumonde]

It is nothing like a Ponzi scheme.
At all.
That is what the uneducated, simple minded say.
Ponzi Schemes pay CURRENT investors from funds received from newer investors. Right away.
And the longer you are an "older" investor, the more you make.
In every Ponzi scheme, a very few at the top receive the overwhelming amount of total invested.
Thus, why it is also referred to as a pyramid scheme.

That is not what happens in SS. At all. Not even close.

That's literally how SS works, except instead of investors you have tax victims.

 

[Lisa558]

I'm pointing out Shapiro's hypocrisy. He complains about Gentiles getting government money but thinks it's perfectly fine for Israel to get billions in welfare every year.

Foreign aid to all the Arab countries, and to Israel too, has nothing to do with Shapiro’s debate about social security. And when did he ever say anything about Gentiles?

Jew-haters emerge on every thread. Go back to Stormfront.

 

[Couchpotato]

so you want a truck driver or Plumber working to age 79? Huh? A trucker who cant climb into the cab?

Let’s do a bit of math shall we.

If your hypothetical plumber made just 30k a year his entire life and only contributed the 12 he’s putting into SS right now to an IRA at 6% interest he’d have 1.5 million to retire in after 50 years. More than enough to live comfortably in his retirement. And if he dies before it’s spent unlike SS his family or whomever he chooses gets to keep it. Now tell us again which system he ends up ahead in? Which one is a wealth thief? Which one drives the economy better?

 

[leftwinger]

Let’s do a bit of math shall we.

If your hypothetical plumber made just 30k a year his entire life and only contributed the 12 he’s putting into SS right now to an IRA at 6% interest he’d have 1.5 million to retire in after 50 years. More than enough to live comfortably in his retirement. And if he dies before it’s spent unlike SS his family or whomever he chooses gets to keep it. Now tell us again which system he ends up ahead in? Which one is a wealth thief? Which one drives the economy better?

I’m all for the IRA 401K style. Bonds increase also. But they didn’t sell them as needed.

They won’t stop SS as they might have to pay everyone back? Once started, they cant seem to get out? GOVT screwups are monumental. They owe tens of millions persons right now $100s of thousands or more.

 

[Rambunctious]

Social security should be used as what it was intended for---a safety net that is funded by those who receive it. It was never designed to be the sole support of the retiree. That was forgotten until the 80s when the government encouraged private retirement savings to make up for the shortfall. However, many leftists believe the gub'mit should support everyone because they have no concept of WHO the gub'mit is.

Its not a retirement program.... it is a safety net but an inadequate one.... with the kind of money our leaders toss around the world maybe it could truly be a safety net....
This is where Trump was attempting to take the nation.... a nation that works for our people... just like other nations do for their citizens....

 

[JohnDB]

 

[iamwhatiseem]

It literally is set up like a Ponzi scheme. When SS was created there were seven workers paying in for every one retiree. Today there are less than two paying in. It was set up with the assumption that everyone would keep having five, six, seven kids, but "the pill" got invented 30 years later. Eventually, the people at the bottom of the pyramid won't be cashing out without major changes like raising the collection age or increasing the tax.

I'm 41. I don't even factor SS into my retirement planning because in my opinion it's a 50/50 chance it will be insolvent by then after your generation bleeds it dry because you refuse to change. Bush had the right idea with the private accounts and he was wrongly demonized over that proposal. It was the only reason I voted for him in 2004.

It literally isn't.
In a Ponzi Scheme the investors are paid immediately when newer investors invest. And as more people invest, the more they get. In every ponzi/pyramid scheme - the early investors get nearly all of the money.
Ponzi schemes are designed to make huge profits to the original founders. Social Security is not designed to make anyone a profit.
In fact, it is almost opposite of what a Ponzi scheme is.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Let’s do a bit of math shall we.

If your hypothetical plumber made just 30k a year his entire life and only contributed the 12 he’s putting into SS right now to an IRA at 6% interest he’d have 1.5 million to retire in after 50 years. More than enough to live comfortably in his retirement. And if he dies before it’s spent unlike SS his family or whomever he chooses gets to keep it. Now tell us again which system he ends up ahead in? Which one is a wealth thief? Which one drives the economy better?

Now, can you inform us for your transition plan?

You take that 12% now and it's placed in a private retirement account.

However the funds collected now are paying current benefits. If the 12% revenue isn't occurring, but benefits still have to be paid, where will the funding come from.

Also please enunciate in this plan how the transition occurs as a function of time in terms of:

• New workers that have never paid into SS,
• Existing workers, say those 30-50 years old that have paid into SS for 2-3 decades and will have to make up the difference by contributing significantly more than 12% to be able to retire.
• 50-65 year old's that have paid into SS and really don't have the time to build retirement accounts that would replace SS.
• Current SS recipients.

Thank you.

WW

[DISCLAIMER: I fully support transitioning to lockbox private retirement accounts. To be true retirement accounts they would have mandatory contributions that cannot be accessed prior to retirement. The question is how to fund the 30-50 years of transition.]

 

[iamwhatiseem]

That's literally how SS works, except instead of investors you have tax victims.

Yeah... no.
If SS worked that way, then the original people who put money in would have all been $billionaires.
A Ponzi Scheme is designed to provide large profits for very small investment, because as more people invest - they keep getting more and more.
Every single Ponzi scheme - ever... resulted in large sums of money for the very first founders, all at the expense of everyone else.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The biggest problem of SS - just like Ross Perot said in 1992 - Every time there is a surplus year, the government spent the surplus on something else. So now - as baby boomers retire, instead of all that surplus funding that imbalance, until boomers die - Congress spent it!! And that is why it is short.

 

[Rambunctious]

It amazes me and pisses me off to watch our elected leaders address the national debt. by going straight to programs that help our citizens first for cuts...
Shapiro is a blind fool who will never need social security... maybe folks like him and myself frankly should be cut from the program all together... I don't need the money and would gladly be cut out of any benefits when the time comes... lets see if Shapiro makes the same proclamation....

 

[Concerned American]

I fully support transitioning to lockbox private retirement accounts.

Just to be clear. Does this lockbox invest or does it become money buried. If it is the latter, there will be no growth beyond contributions OTOH, there will be no loss of principal. If it is allowed to invest, there is always the gamble of the investment losing money, possibly disappearing completely---however there is the potential for growth. Do I understand you to say that we should have a portable 401K system as we have now exclusively with no SS and what happens if we have negative growth for an extended period?

 

[Rambunctious]

How much money did Afghanistan war cost?
Human and Budgetary Costs to Date of the U.S. War in Afghanistan, 2001-2022. Since invading Afghanistan in 2001, the United States has spent $2.313 trillion on the war, which includes operations in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The costs of the Iraq War are often contested, as academics and critics have unearthed many hidden costs not represented in official estimates. The most recent major report on these costs come from Brown University in the form of the Costs of War, which totaled just over $1.1 trillion.

The U.S. federal price tag for the post-9/11 wars is over $8 trillion.

And Shapiro goes after old folks who worked and paid taxes their entire lives and are in need of federal assistance.....

 

[iamwhatiseem]

It amazes me and pisses me off to watch our elected leaders address the national debt. by going straight to programs that help our citizens first for cuts...
Shapiro is a blind fool who will never need social security... maybe folks like him and myself frankly should be cut from the program all together... I don't need the money and would gladly be cut out of any benefits when the time comes... lets see if Shapiro makes the same proclamation....

My grandparents on my mothers side never took one dime of SS.
Started out with one auto repair shop in the 1950s, figured out there was more money selling parts... by the time they sold the business when they retired... they were set for life.
They refused to take the money despite everyone telling them they should.
I also support the idea of people who have a net worth beyond $XX - to not receive any - AS LONG AS - no illegal immigrants get one red cent.
This is the worst part - SS is in trouble - but Democrats will support giving the money to illegals... wait and see.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It literally isn't.
In a Ponzi Scheme the investors are paid immediately when newer investors invest. And as more people invest, the more they get. In every ponzi/pyramid scheme - the early investors get nearly all of the money.
Ponzi schemes are designed to make huge profits to the original founders. Social Security is not designed to make anyone a profit.
In fact, it is almost opposite of what a Ponzi scheme is.

The Boomers are getting all the money and the rest of us are probably fucked.

Ponzi scheme.