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

[jasonnfree]

I've always kind of wondered. It's not like we're going to stop paying for their benefits just because we won't get any at their age. We legally couldn't if we wanted to. We're not going to start demanding cuts to their benefits just because we won't get any either. The only effect I can see this having is convincing as many of us as possible not to invest in our own futures, with the only reason I can see for that being one last "fuck you" to the grandkids before they pass on and let us try to figure out how to start cleaning up after them shitting all over us, our society, and our planet their entire lives in peace.

The OAS part of SS is relatively fine. There are major problems with the disability part though because it has been poorly funded and poorly run for a long time.

The rich people in the US like to spread lies about SS because they know that if they can steal money from SS we are less likely to need to raise taxes on them for non SS purposes.

True, but there's an element of the very wealthy, as well as corporations, that would like to see a more humble, willing to do anything for a buck, population. No more 'take this job and shove it' attitude.

 

[g5000]

And the solution is so simple: eliminate the earnings cap.

The solution is to raise the eligibility age.

We are living decades longer than our ancestors who established Social Security, we should be working longer than they did. Common sense.

 

[jasonnfree]

And the solution is so simple: eliminate the earnings cap.

The solution is to raise the eligibility age.

We are living decades longer than our ancestors who established Social Security, we should be working longer than they did. Common sense.

We could also make the mitt romney class pay 15% of their total income into social security like most of the working class do. This in itself would probably shore up social security.

 

[g5000]

And the solution is so simple: eliminate the earnings cap.

The solution is to raise the eligibility age.

We are living decades longer than our ancestors who established Social Security, we should be working longer than they did. Common sense.

We could also make the mitt romney class pay 15% of their total income into social security like most of the working class do. This in itself would probably shore up social security.

I seriously doubt that alone would save SS. It would be a temporary fix, at best.

Indexing the eligibility age to 9 percent of the population would be a permanently sustainable fix. And I did not pick that figure out of a hat.

 

[bendog]

And the solution is so simple: eliminate the earnings cap.

The solution is to raise the eligibility age.

We are living decades longer than our ancestors who established Social Security, we should be working longer than they did. Common sense.

Actually I agreed with Mr Clean on his post, and think we should do both, and raise the age on Medicare too. Hopefully the Millennial's will not fall for the supply side tax cut that we did ... to their detriment.

 

[SwimExpert]

And the solution is so simple: eliminate the earnings cap.

That and raise the age to 70 and SS is solvent

Better yet, raise the age to 170, and it'll be even more solvent!

You liberals always have the same solution for everything. Transfer even more wealth. You want to know how to make SS solvent? Simple: Eliminate it. Today. Everyone use the tax money they save and invest it in a 401K.

I think 170 is too high

People are living longer and 70 is more like 60 was thirty years ago

So.....more redistribution, yes?

WTF you talk'n bout Willis?

Don't worry about it. I know you liberals have a hard time grasping the basics.

 

[Moonglow]

I've always kind of wondered. It's not like we're going to stop paying for their benefits just because we won't get any at their age. We legally couldn't if we wanted to. We're not going to start demanding cuts to their benefits just because we won't get any either. The only effect I can see this having is convincing as many of us as possible not to invest in our own futures, with the only reason I can see for that being one last "fuck you" to the grandkids before they pass on and let us try to figure out how to start cleaning up after them shitting all over us, our society, and our planet their entire lives in peace.

The Baby Boomers are the most self centered, greediest generation ever. Their parents made huge sacrifices during WWII, but all the Boomers know how to do is take, take, take and leave a path of destruction in their wake.

Were your parents in Nam?

 

[Rozman]

I'm sure the lefties would like our IRA's and 401 K plans to be confiscated.....
We can only retire at age 80 and then collect what the left would feel is fair.
Maybe $500.00 a month?

 

[rightwinger]

I'm sure the lefties would like our IRA's and 401 K plans to be confiscated.....
We can only retire at age 80 and then collect what the left would feel is fair.
Maybe $500.00 a month?

Why would anyone want your 401K confiscated?

Social Security needs to be adjusted to account for longer lifespans. Why would anyone object to that?

 

[TooTall]

And the solution is so simple: eliminate the earnings cap.[/QUOTE ]

You do know that the benefit you get at retirement is determined by how much you contribute don't you? If the amount paid in increases, so does the amount that will be paid out. The effect of eliminating the earnings gap would be a net zero.

Social Security is a Federal retirement insurance program, although it has been bastardized with the addition of SSDI, and like all insurance programs, the more the premium is the more the face value of the policy is.

 

[Rozman]

I'm sure the lefties would like our IRA's and 401 K plans to be confiscated.....
We can only retire at age 80 and then collect what the left would feel is fair.
Maybe $500.00 a month?

Why would anyone want your 401K confiscated?

Social Security needs to be adjusted to account for longer lifespans. Why would anyone object to that?

Fine let me retire at 66 if I choose....
Anyone lucky enough to land a job today in this still shitty economy feel free to
change the retirement age to 70...

As far as nationalizing retirement accounts.
Libs love other people's money...

I still think Libs dream of controlling all that $$$ in IRA's and 401 K plans....
Just think of all the social programs they could fund....
Just think a small part of that going to Planned Parenthood alone....
OOOooga.... all the abortions that could pay for.

She wants to kill your 401 k

 

[Mac1958]

SS will be there, there are several tweaks that can be made.

I'm far more concerned about Medicare as the population continues to age and as we limp along with an absurd, disjointed "health care system".

.

 

[rightwinger]

You will get your social security, it has been paying for 80 years

I will never get it, I haven't paid in

 

[rightwinger]

I'm sure the lefties would like our IRA's and 401 K plans to be confiscated.....
We can only retire at age 80 and then collect what the left would feel is fair.
Maybe $500.00 a month?

Why would anyone want your 401K confiscated?

Social Security needs to be adjusted to account for longer lifespans. Why would anyone object to that?

Fine let me retire at 66 if I choose....
Anyone lucky enough to land a job today in this still shitty economy feel free to
change the retirement age to 70...

As far as nationalizing retirement accounts.
Libs love other people's money...

I still think Libs dream of controlling all that $$$ in IRA's and 401 K plans....
Just think of all the social programs they could fund....
Just think a small part of that going to Planned Parenthood alone....
OOOooga.... all the abortions that could pay for.

She wants to kill your 401 k

For one thing, the higher age will be phased in with 70 only applying to younger workers
I have no problem allowing you to retire early at a reduced rate.

No lib is trying to take your IRA

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

You will get your social security, it has been paying for 80 years

I will never get it, I haven't paid in

See, the problem isn't that I'm not going to get it. I can accept that, and didn't really want it in the first place. I support it purely for other people. The problem is that you're trying to tell me something obviously untrue and expect me to believe it.

 

[rightwinger]

You will get your social security, it has been paying for 80 years

I will never get it, I haven't paid in

See, the problem isn't that I'm not going to get it. I can accept that, and didn't really want it in the first place. I support it purely for other people. The problem is that you're trying to tell me something obviously untrue and expect me to believe it.

Why wouldn't you get it?

It has been paying out for 80 years

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

I've always kind of wondered. It's not like we're going to stop paying for their benefits just because we won't get any at their age. We legally couldn't if we wanted to.

See Flemming V Nestor 1960

We're not going to start demanding cuts to their benefits just because we won't get any either. The only effect I can see this having is convincing as many of us as possible not to invest in our own futures, with the only reason I can see for that being one last "fuck you" to the grandkids before they pass on and let us try to figure out how to start cleaning up after them shitting all over us, our society, and our planet their entire lives in peace.

Yet.

It isn't the Boomers who created Social Security. It isn't the Boomers who created Medicare. The Boomers inherited problems that will be passed on to future workers, unless the younger workers say no. There is no guarantee of benefits legally anyway. The problems will emerge as the pct of government revenues consumed by interest and entitlements raise to a point where workers say enough.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

And the solution is so simple: eliminate the earnings cap.

As Mencken said, you demonstrate, "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong" What you are suggesting is neither simple nor a solution.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

I've always kind of wondered. It's not like we're going to stop paying for their benefits just because we won't get any at their age. We legally couldn't if we wanted to. We're not going to start demanding cuts to their benefits just because we won't get any either. The only effect I can see this having is convincing as many of us as possible not to invest in our own futures, with the only reason I can see for that being one last "fuck you" to the grandkids before they pass on and let us try to figure out how to start cleaning up after them shitting all over us, our society, and our planet their entire lives in peace.

The OAS part of SS is relatively fine. There are major problems with the disability part though because it has been poorly funded and poorly run for a long time.

The rich people in the US like to spread lies about SS because they know that if they can steal money from SS we are less likely to need to raise taxes on them for non SS purposes.

The OAS system created 900 billion in unfunded liabilities solely because the calender changed years. That is more than the system collected in all forms of revenue. That is not fine, unless it is relative to the waining moments of Lehman Brothers.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

And the solution is so simple: eliminate the earnings cap.

The solution is to raise the eligibility age.

We are living decades longer than our ancestors who established Social Security, we should be working longer than they did. Common sense.

Again, Mencken said "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

We are living longer lives from birth, but that is not what Social Security pays benefits upon. The projected life expectancy of a retiree is roughly the same between 2000 and 2050. Mind you the retiree circa 2050 has to contribute two additional years.

You are looking at the wrong data point.