Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You sound butthurt, want some lotion? Every generation hates the generation before them, and saying they're greedy is fucking ridiculous, sure, some people are, but it's stupid to stereotype in such a way.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.
I seriously doubt that alone would save SS. It would be a temporary fix, at best.The solution is to raise the eligibility age.And the solution is so simple: eliminate the earnings cap.
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.
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.
Why would anyone want your 401K confiscated?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?
Social Security needs to be adjusted to account for longer lifespans. Why would anyone object to that?
Don't file for it and you won't have to worry about it.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.
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.
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.
There's no guarantees in life, but medicare has been working pretty well for about 50 years and has helped millions. And of course social security is over 75 years old and has helped millions, even republicans. No guarantees, just have to keep on trying and try not to be swayed by multibillionaires like the pete petersons and the coke sisters and all their austerity swill.
You have to remember, many workers die before collecting social security, even those that paid into the system for decades. There are fixes to the problems. Bernie Sanders addresses that issue, such as taxing stock transactions. Don't listen to anti social security republicans, who represent only the extremely wealthy and corporations. They sure don't give a damn about you.I seriously doubt that alone would save SS. It would be a temporary fix, at best.The solution is to raise the eligibility age.And the solution is so simple: eliminate the earnings cap.
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.
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.
According to the SSA, it does not even kick the can. Life expectancy of a retiree isn't moving much at all. About 18 days per co-hort. If you started work in 1980 and you retire in 2030, the life expectancy of a retiree is up about 2.5 years, which is almost the increase we had in retirement age for this worker. That worker will have to contribute for two additonal years. It is almost a wash.
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.
There's no guarantees in life, but medicare has been working pretty well for about 50 years and has helped millions. And of course social security is over 75 years old and has helped millions, even republicans. No guarantees, just have to keep on trying and try not to be swayed by multibillionaires like the pete petersons and the coke sisters and all their austerity swill.
I don't pay much attention to Pete or his sisters. I tend to listen to the Trustees, who say that the system is not working well. In fact they say that the system is creating unfunded liabilities faster than it collects revenue. I am guessing that you missed the expansions in coverage and cuts in benefits which were caused by impending insolvency.
You have to remember, many workers die before collecting social security, even those that paid into the system for decades. There are fixes to the problems. Bernie Sanders addresses that issue, such as taxing stock transactions. Don't listen to anti social security republicans, who represent only the extremely wealthy and corporations. They sure don't give a damn about you.
I addressed that funding problem already in my last post. Don't let the republicans scare you. These guys hated social security when it first came out in the '30's and they can't wait to get rid of it. Take notice of those republican politicians that want to defund everything. They don't defund their retirements, health care or salaries, do they?
Don't file for it and you won't have to worry about it.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.
I addressed that funding problem already in my last post. Don't let the republicans scare you. These guys hated social security when it first came out in the '30's and they can't wait to get rid of it. Take notice of those republican politicians that want to defund everything. They don't defund their retirements, health care or salaries, do they?
The Trustees aren't Republicans. Are you saying that you think that the Trustees of the Social Security Trust Funds hate Social Security?
I was talking about the republican party's stance on social security in the 30's as well as today. Pure hatred for what they considered a socialist program. Well, be thankful for socialism and FDR, you may need it yourself someday.
Don't worry about me. I don't intend to even if it is still an option. My bills are mine to pay. If I can't pay them then I'm willing to accept the natural consequences of this.Don't file for it and you won't have to worry about it.
There's a hard and fast difference between those who hate social security and those who don't trust it.I addressed that funding problem already in my last post. Don't let the republicans scare you. These guys hated social security when it first came out in the '30's and they can't wait to get rid of it. Take notice of those republican politicians that want to defund everything. They don't defund their retirements, health care or salaries, do they? Start writing and calling them. Ask boner or mcconnell to take drastic cuts in their tax payer funded bennies. See what they say.
The fact that the elderly deserve to have some sort of public assistance?well how else are they going to justify tapping you paycheck every week
--LOL
I say let them refuse. We can provide it ourselves. Life is meant to be lived for other people anyway.Because left genxrs won't let right genxrs not provide it.
So ... I'm not a boomer (thank God). I'm what is called a "war baby" - born during WWII. I think Social Security began in the 1930s and contrary to popular belief it is not an "entitlement" in the sense that "entitlement" is so freely tossed around these days. It is "earned" by employers paying into Social Security an amount based on current salary of each employee and each employee has a matching amount taken off the top of their paycheck ("FICA tax") along with federal, state or other applicable income taxes.
Not too long ago, DOL issued new regulations regarding home healthcare workers who were previously classified in the same category as babysitters who get paid whatever they get paid, period - no overtime time. The new regs. make it so that home healthcare workers would now be paid time and a half for everything over 40 hours a week. My boss threw an absolute fit right in front of me when I stopped by one day to turn in my time sheet. She was not going to pay anybody overtime pay and was going to have to reschedule everybody's hours so that no one would have more than 40 hours a week. Well, having worked for labor lawyers, I came home, turned on my computer and looked up the DOL regs. Hmmm - does not apply to independent contractors - and everybody who works for my boss is an independent contractor. I just kept my mouth shut and let the boss stew in her own juices until a few months later when she learned apparently from the state auditor that the regs. did not apply to independent contractors. They don't want to be bothered with the issue of having to deduct taxes and reporting FICA, etc. So at the end of the year we all get 1099s. That means, for IRS purposes, I am a business owner. I have to pay FICA taxes as an employer AND as my only employee in my non-existent "business." I have to pay a matching employee FICA in addition to my federal income taxes. In other words - roughly 15% of my tax dollars is FICA taxes. I do not see ONE PENNY of those FICA taxes going toward an increase in my base Social Security. Every penny of it goes into the Social Security Trust Fund to help cover those future retirees who come long after I'm dead and gone. If current Social Security recipients are lucky, we might get a 1 or 1-1/2% COL increase - provided Congress decides a cost of living increase is necessary. They're going to give themselves a raise, COL or not.
Social Security IS a Trust Fund, and as such, should not be borrowed from or otherwise tampered with and managed wisely with growth in mind as other Trust Funds are managed. I think we all know that Congress has borrowed money from this Trust Fund with empty promises to repay such borrowed money - which has never be repaid. So, yes, there is a problem with Social Security and maybe the time to end (or phase it out) has come. There are so many retirement plans these days, whether employer sponsored or private plans, that were not available back when Social Security was established. On the other hand, jobs are damned hard to come by these days and today's young workers don't stick around one job long enough to establish a good retirement benefit. They job hop every year or so hoping to get higher pay for today as opposed to looking to the future income they might need. I don't know the answer.
^ Silly comment.So ... I'm not a boomer (thank God). I'm what is called a "war baby" - born during WWII. I think Social Security began in the 1930s and contrary to popular belief it is not an "entitlement" in the sense that "entitlement" is so freely tossed around these days. It is "earned" by employers paying into Social Security an amount based on current salary of each employee and each employee has a matching amount taken off the top of their paycheck ("FICA tax") along with federal, state or other applicable income taxes.
Not too long ago, DOL issued new regulations regarding home healthcare workers who were previously classified in the same category as babysitters who get paid whatever they get paid, period - no overtime time. The new regs. make it so that home healthcare workers would now be paid time and a half for everything over 40 hours a week. My boss threw an absolute fit right in front of me when I stopped by one day to turn in my time sheet. She was not going to pay anybody overtime pay and was going to have to reschedule everybody's hours so that no one would have more than 40 hours a week. Well, having worked for labor lawyers, I came home, turned on my computer and looked up the DOL regs. Hmmm - does not apply to independent contractors - and everybody who works for my boss is an independent contractor. I just kept my mouth shut and let the boss stew in her own juices until a few months later when she learned apparently from the state auditor that the regs. did not apply to independent contractors. They don't want to be bothered with the issue of having to deduct taxes and reporting FICA, etc. So at the end of the year we all get 1099s. That means, for IRS purposes, I am a business owner. I have to pay FICA taxes as an employer AND as my only employee in my non-existent "business." I have to pay a matching employee FICA in addition to my federal income taxes. In other words - roughly 15% of my tax dollars is FICA taxes. I do not see ONE PENNY of those FICA taxes going toward an increase in my base Social Security. Every penny of it goes into the Social Security Trust Fund to help cover those future retirees who come long after I'm dead and gone. If current Social Security recipients are lucky, we might get a 1 or 1-1/2% COL increase - provided Congress decides a cost of living increase is necessary. They're going to give themselves a raise, COL or not.
Social Security IS a Trust Fund, and as such, should not be borrowed from or otherwise tampered with and managed wisely with growth in mind as other Trust Funds are managed. I think we all know that Congress has borrowed money from this Trust Fund with empty promises to repay such borrowed money - which has never be repaid. So, yes, there is a problem with Social Security and maybe the time to end (or phase it out) has come. There are so many retirement plans these days, whether employer sponsored or private plans, that were not available back when Social Security was established. On the other hand, jobs are damned hard to come by these days and today's young workers don't stick around one job long enough to establish a good retirement benefit. They job hop every year or so hoping to get higher pay for today as opposed to looking to the future income they might need. I don't know the answer.
First, as a war-baby you haven't paid 15.3% your whole career, which started in 1990. You likely started work when the rate was about 5% of your first $5,000. Yes you have paid for it - just not close to the actual price.
The Trust Fund is separate, and hasn't been temppered with since 1939.
Why should we phase it out? Just end it. If we phase it out, it is we get ours because we paid in. You get nothing, having paid in substantially more.
