Why exactly are lefty boomers so interested in tricking us into thinking we'll get social security?

[francoHFW]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[TooTall]

Social Security isn't going anywhere.

One way or another, it's going somewhere. Whether by choice, or by virtue of bankruptcy.

There are plenty of tweaks that can be made.

Well, I suppose that technically we could "tweak" it so that you can't start collecting until you're 150, and limit the benefit to $4.25/month. But by that time, I think people will be painfully aware that it just don't work.

Health care as the baby boomers age concerns me far more, and both parties have completely failed us there.
.

And how is that any different than Social Security? Both are going broke. Both are impossible to maintain indefinitely. In both cases the only possibility is to delay the problem by increasing the degree to which tax payers are getting raped for an ever diminishing return upon retirement.

Increase or eliminate the income cap and move starting benefits back a few years.

No big drama. Once the baby boomer population has peaked and is heading back down, the numbers can get better.

.

If you eliminate the income cap you have done nothing. Benefits are paid at retirement based on the amount paid in so if you raise or eliminate the income cap you must raise the maximum benefit.

In this scenario, we probably couldn't raise benefits. Not exactly fair, no, but I'd guess that's what would happen, at least for a while.
.

It has nothing to do with being fair. Either Soc Sec is a Federal Insurance program or it is a tax, and the word tax is not in FICA, but the I stands for insurance. Can you imagine a life insurance policy that is based on income? The more the premium, the more the payout.

 

[bripat9643]

Social Security isn't going anywhere.

One way or another, it's going somewhere. Whether by choice, or by virtue of bankruptcy.

There are plenty of tweaks that can be made.

Well, I suppose that technically we could "tweak" it so that you can't start collecting until you're 150, and limit the benefit to $4.25/month. But by that time, I think people will be painfully aware that it just don't work.

Health care as the baby boomers age concerns me far more, and both parties have completely failed us there.
.

And how is that any different than Social Security? Both are going broke. Both are impossible to maintain indefinitely. In both cases the only possibility is to delay the problem by increasing the degree to which tax payers are getting raped for an ever diminishing return upon retirement.

Increase or eliminate the income cap and move starting benefits back a few years.

No big drama. Once the baby boomer population has peaked and is heading back down, the numbers can get better.

.

If you eliminate the income cap you have done nothing. Benefits are paid at retirement based on the amount paid in so if you raise or eliminate the income cap you must raise the maximum benefit.

In this scenario, we probably couldn't raise benefits. Not exactly fair, no, but I'd guess that's what would happen, at least for a while.
.

It has nothing to do with being fair. Either Soc Sec is a Federal Insurance program or it is a tax, and the word tax is not in FICA, but the I stands for insurance. Can you imagine a life insurance policy that is based on income? The more the premium, the more the payout.

FICA isn't insurance. It's a welfare program. However, the Dims sold it as insurance because they couldn't sell it as welfare for old people. Severing the link between contributions and benefits would make it obvious that it's a welfare program, and that would spell the doom of the program.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

They want us to keep funding SS because if political will shifts and we stop funding it because it is a black hole, then they will not get any upon retirement.

They might not deserve it but if we don't pay their minimal needs then how are we any better than them? How is the heartless bastard who condemns grandma to living in a shelter eating cat food any better than the heartless bastard who condemns their child to die because parenthood is an inconvenience?

You are absolutely right about the baby boomers. These fucking creeps differed from their parents substantially. They are spendthrifts. They generally have no respect for marriage, as they divorce and re-marry at will unlike their ancestors). The Boomers seem to be the first generation that normalized divorce and broken families.

Boomers moved us to the left in the 60s, then abandoned their ideals in favor of mini vans and stock options..,total lack of character. They enabled the leftist movement in this country. They caused the normalization of illegal and dangerous drug use. They were the first generation to normalize social relativity, where there is no right or wrong; there are no absolutes anymore thanks to Boomers.

STDs were ushered in as normal thanks to Boomers, when before them STDs were only prevalent among whores and Sailors. Boomers also gave us legal abortion thanks to their compromised and corrupted sense of morality. Narcissism was made a cultural normality by the Boomers; it never was before them.

I can probably go on and on. Suffice it to say that there is a palpable irony here: the Greatest Generation gave birth to the Shittiest Generation.

Nailed it.

Choice is better than having 5k+ women DYING from illegal abortions a year, and free birth control FINALLY will make abortions rare.

I want you to do something. I want you to go to your pregnant relative and ask to feel her belly. I want you to put your hand against her and feel the squirming and kicking. Feel the life growing inside her. As you do this, I want you to ask her how she feels carrying a parasite that might one day become a potential person. You won't have a problem with this if you really believe the pro-abortion rhetoric that says exactly that.

 

[francoHFW]

WTH is wrong with you? lol

 

[David_42]

Only on Pubworld, dupe. AARP's #1 Myth...

AARP is a socialist propaganda organ.

You're truly a paranoid and willfully ignorant person, arent you patty?

 

[Mac1958]

Social Security isn't going anywhere.

One way or another, it's going somewhere. Whether by choice, or by virtue of bankruptcy.

There are plenty of tweaks that can be made.

Well, I suppose that technically we could "tweak" it so that you can't start collecting until you're 150, and limit the benefit to $4.25/month. But by that time, I think people will be painfully aware that it just don't work.

Health care as the baby boomers age concerns me far more, and both parties have completely failed us there.
.

And how is that any different than Social Security? Both are going broke. Both are impossible to maintain indefinitely. In both cases the only possibility is to delay the problem by increasing the degree to which tax payers are getting raped for an ever diminishing return upon retirement.

Increase or eliminate the income cap and move starting benefits back a few years.

No big drama. Once the baby boomer population has peaked and is heading back down, the numbers can get better.

.

If you eliminate the income cap you have done nothing. Benefits are paid at retirement based on the amount paid in so if you raise or eliminate the income cap you must raise the maximum benefit.

In this scenario, we probably couldn't raise benefits. Not exactly fair, no, but I'd guess that's what would happen, at least for a while.
.

It has nothing to do with being fair. Either Soc Sec is a Federal Insurance program or it is a tax, and the word tax is not in FICA, but the I stands for insurance. Can you imagine a life insurance policy that is based on income? The more the premium, the more the payout.

Yes. What I'm talking about is keeping Social Security solvent through the Baby Boomer wave. Either we do or we don't, and if we're going to, increasing or removing the income cap while keeping benefits the same would be one strategy. If it's that or letting Social Security die on the vine, if that ends up being the choice, I strongly suspect we'd choose to do it.
.

 

[bripat9643]

Only on Pubworld, dupe. AARP's #1 Myth...

AARP is a socialist propaganda organ.

You're truly a paranoid and willfully ignorant person, arent you patty?

Not at all.

 

[TooTall]

One way or another, it's going somewhere. Whether by choice, or by virtue of bankruptcy.

Well, I suppose that technically we could "tweak" it so that you can't start collecting until you're 150, and limit the benefit to $4.25/month. But by that time, I think people will be painfully aware that it just don't work.

And how is that any different than Social Security? Both are going broke. Both are impossible to maintain indefinitely. In both cases the only possibility is to delay the problem by increasing the degree to which tax payers are getting raped for an ever diminishing return upon retirement.

Increase or eliminate the income cap and move starting benefits back a few years.

No big drama. Once the baby boomer population has peaked and is heading back down, the numbers can get better.

.

If you eliminate the income cap you have done nothing. Benefits are paid at retirement based on the amount paid in so if you raise or eliminate the income cap you must raise the maximum benefit.

In this scenario, we probably couldn't raise benefits. Not exactly fair, no, but I'd guess that's what would happen, at least for a while.
.

It has nothing to do with being fair. Either Soc Sec is a Federal Insurance program or it is a tax, and the word tax is not in FICA, but the I stands for insurance. Can you imagine a life insurance policy that is based on income? The more the premium, the more the payout.

Yes. What I'm talking about is keeping Social Security solvent through the Baby Boomer wave. Either we do or we don't, and if we're going to, increasing or removing the income cap while keeping benefits the same would be one strategy. If it's that or letting Social Security die on the vine, if that ends up being the choice, I strongly suspect we'd choose to do it.
.

What you are talking about is theft by the government.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

WTH is wrong with you? lol

Who was that directed to?

 

[Mac1958]

Increase or eliminate the income cap and move starting benefits back a few years.

No big drama. Once the baby boomer population has peaked and is heading back down, the numbers can get better.

.

If you eliminate the income cap you have done nothing. Benefits are paid at retirement based on the amount paid in so if you raise or eliminate the income cap you must raise the maximum benefit.

In this scenario, we probably couldn't raise benefits. Not exactly fair, no, but I'd guess that's what would happen, at least for a while.
.

It has nothing to do with being fair. Either Soc Sec is a Federal Insurance program or it is a tax, and the word tax is not in FICA, but the I stands for insurance. Can you imagine a life insurance policy that is based on income? The more the premium, the more the payout.

Yes. What I'm talking about is keeping Social Security solvent through the Baby Boomer wave. Either we do or we don't, and if we're going to, increasing or removing the income cap while keeping benefits the same would be one strategy. If it's that or letting Social Security die on the vine, if that ends up being the choice, I strongly suspect we'd choose to do it.
.

What you are talking about is theft by the government.

Yes, that would be the reaction of some, and that reaction would be weighed against the benefits of doing it.
.

 

[SwimExpert]

Benefits are paid at retirement based on the amount paid in

Actually, benefits are paid based on age when you start collecting, and your income history for the previous 5 years. You could spend your entire life paying nothing into SS, and suddenly at 60 get a job paying $1 million a year, and start collecting at 65. Your benefits will be huge.

SS is a welfare system, and all ideas that you "pay in" to receive a proportional benefit are fabrications.