Zone1 Addressing the Disparate Impact of Social Security

[rightwinger]

Of course, but your other assets don't just disappear like SS does.

SS is not an asset
If you want an asset….get a 401k

Most People get both

 

[sealybobo]

Neither does your saving account. It's just an entry on a ledger.

I hear Republicans all the time argue that the only way to save social security is to raise my retirement age 5 years and cut benefits 20%. The last one that suggested this to me I said, "can I ask you a question?" He said sure. I said, "you Republicans cry all the time about democrats raising your taxes. Taking money out of your pockets, right? Well now you are telling me that you're going to be okay when Republicans tell you that you're going to have to work 5 more years and then get 80%? Are you kidding me?"

And he went on to tell me that, "well, people are living longer,.yada yada, derp, idiot, hypocrite, fool, pawn, sucker, cognitive dissonance, etc..... Blows my mind these middle class republicans argue for their masters no matter what shit they're shoveling.

I always say this. If we could find the money to fight the iraq war and afganistan, all while cutting rich people's taxes, we can figure out how to refund social security.

And one more thing. We know both parties have borrowed from this fund? Put it back. Problem solved. So Republicans, stop calling it a ponzi scheme when politicians emptied the funds. Stop being stupid. It's your money.

 

[Foxfyre]

André Braugher Dies: Star Of ‘Homicide: Life On The Street’, ‘Brooklyn Nine-Nine’ & Other Series And Films Was 61

André Braugher has died. The two-time Emmy-winning star of series including Homicide: Life on the Street, Men of a Certain Age and Brooklyn Nine-Nine was 61. Braugher, whose first film role came alongside Matthew Broderick and Denzel Washington in the Ed Zwick-directed Glory, died Monday after a...

www.yahoo.com

As we all know, Social Security provides a retirement stipend for those who have worked a bit in the U.S., and those benefits are doled out on a schedule that is based on AGE. You can start collecting benefits at age 62 - the lowest level of benefits - and your benefits max out if you continue working to age 70.

It has long been known and accepted that women live longer than men, and therefore got more out of Social Security than men do, based on dollars per person over the life of collecting benefits.

Non-Hispanic "whites" live almost six years longer in the U.S. than do non-Hispanic Blacks. (Hispanics live longer than either). And if you count that from a "normal" retirement age of 65 or 66, "whites" are collecting more than twice as much as Blacks, in lifetime payouts from SS. Further, we know that poor people tend to work longer than middle-class or upper-class people, so one suspects that Blacks are more likely to be working up to and even past the age of 70. In that case, the racial difference might be much higher, with those Blacks only drawing SS for a year or two, or maybe not at all, as in the case of the linked personage.

Is this a problem?

It has always been a problem. If you die the day before you start drawing social security all that money you contributed is gone and available to nobody but the government. If we were paying into our own 401ks or IRAs all that time our spouses/children other heirs would have that money.

Also if we were paying into our own 401ks or IRAs we would have far more security. As it is now, a simple majority in Congress plus a presidential signature can take away Social Security entirely and everything you have already paid into it would just go away. (They know it would be political suicide so it is unlikely that will happen, but it technically could.)

Social security, as it currently exists, is unsustainable as an entitlement as the retired group continues to live longer and therefore increases at a higher rate while the birth rate is in no way keeping up. Therefore to continue social security as it is will require massive government subsidies further draining resources and opportunity from all the people.

 

[Mr Natural]

Eliminate the earnings cap.

Problem solved.

 

[sealybobo]

Of course, but your other assets don't just disappear like SS does.

Everyone who lives past 65 benefits from the program. EVERYONE. Anyone who dies before doesn't. I think as a human, I can live with this deal. Boo hoo for the dead. It's a good deal for the living. The early diers pay for the live longers. It's definitely part of how it works. Some people will die early and not collect. If everyone lived to 100, the program would not work.

You can make an argument that IF the person saved the money privately and died at 61, they would have been able to leave that money to their family. Fair point. But 99% won't. In a perfect world you're right. But this is not a perfect world.

This program is one way us liberals created a middle class the world has ever seen.

I have an idea. End all pensions for politicians. Put that money into social security.

 

[rightwinger]

It has always been a problem. If you die the day before you start drawing social security all that money you contributed is gone and available to nobody but the government. If we were paying into our own 401ks or IRAs all that time our spouses/children other heirs would have that money.

Also if we were paying into our own 401ks or IRAs we would have far more security. As it is now, a simple majority in Congress plus a presidential signature can take away Social Security entirely and everything you have already paid into it would just go away. (They know it would be political suicide so it is unlikely that will happen, but it technically could.)

Social security, as it currently exists, is unsustainable as an entitlement as the retired group continues to live longer and therefore increases at a higher rate while the birth rate is in no way keeping up. Therefore to continue social security as it is will require massive government subsidies further draining resources and opportunity from all the people.

Dying sucks

There are a lot of things you miss out on when you are dead

 

[sealybobo]

It has always been a problem. If you die the day before you start drawing social security all that money you contributed is gone and available to nobody but the government. If we were paying into our own 401ks or IRAs all that time our spouses/children other heirs would have that money.

Also if we were paying into our own 401ks or IRAs we would have far more security. As it is now, a simple majority in Congress plus a presidential signature can take away Social Security entirely and everything you have already paid into it would just go away. (They know it would be political suicide so it is unlikely that will happen, but it technically could.)

Social security, as it currently exists, is unsustainable as an entitlement as the retired group continues to live longer and therefore increases at a higher rate while the birth rate is in no way keeping up. Therefore to continue social security as it is will require massive government subsidies further draining resources and opportunity from all the people.

The government doesn't get the money if you die before 62. The person who lives to be 100 gets that money.

 

[sealybobo]

Dying sucks

There are a lot of things you miss out on when you are dead

If you are rich and die at 61 you aren't worried about the money you left on the table. Your family will be fine. If you are not rich and want to retire at a decent age, like 65, you're going to need social security.

I'm so looking forward to being able to retire. And I have over a half million dollars. So with social security and medicare, I should be able to retire at 65. But what if I wasn't going to get social security? Would a half million be enough? Plus I would have to eat up my half mill. With social security I will be able to live off the interest and not touch the principle. I will be able to leave my nephews money when I die. It seems like Republicans don't want people to die with anything left. Eat up your life savings if you want to retire.

If I could get medicare at 62 I would retire at 62. Instead I have to work 3 more years. Republicans say I should have to slave for 5 more years? They want me to have to work till I'm 70? Who votes for Republicans? Yall must be really rich or really stupid.

 

[rightwinger]

If you are rich and die at 61 you aren't worried about the money you left on the table. Your family will be fine. If you are not rich and want to retire at a decent age, like 65, you're going to need social security.

I'm so looking forward to being able to retire. And I have over a half million dollars. So with social security and medicare, I should be able to retire at 65. But what if I wasn't going to get social security? Would a half million be enough? Plus I would have to eat up my half mill. With social security I will be able to live off the interest and not touch the principle. I will be able to leave my nephews money when I die. It seems like Republicans don't want people to die with anything left. Eat up your life savings if you want to retire.

If I could get medicare at 62 I would retire at 62. Instead I have to work 3 more years. Republicans say I should have to slave for 5 more years? They want me to have to work till I'm 70? Who votes for Republicans? Yall must be really rich or really stupid.

I am retired and can tell you that half a million will go fast
Nothing beats my pension and SS for steady retirement income

 

[sealybobo]

I am retired and can tell you that half a million will go fast
Nothing beats my pension and SS for steady retirement income

I should have said it will be $1.4 million in 9 years. Or should be. Unless my dad goes into a home and eats up $400K of it. Then it'll be $1 million.

Luckily I live in a condo. Cheap. Even with the association dues. And my brother has vacation homes in Greece, Florida and Up North MI so I really don't spend a lot when I travel.

 

[Foxfyre]

The government doesn't get the money if you die before 62. The person who lives to be 100 gets that money.

Dream on. Nobody but the government has the right to spend the money and it does. The only thing in the social security vault controlled by the government are moths and dust. The government spends it as fast as it comes in and borrows more.

 

[rightwinger]

Dream on. Nobody but the government has the right to spend the money.

Actually he is right
The money goes to other receipients
The government doesn’t pocket it

 

[Foxfyre]

Actually he is right
The money goes to other receipients
The government doesn’t pocket it

See Post #31

 

[Foxfyre]

Dying sucks

There are a lot of things you miss out on when you are dead

Including all the thousands of dollars you paid into Social Security that should be going to your spouse and children but won't.

 

[rightwinger]

See Post #31

The Government doesn’t spend your money. It is sent to others

 

[rightwinger]

Including all the thousands of dollars you paid into Social Security that should be going to your spouse and children but won't.

Your spouse and minor children get survivor benefits if you die

 

[Foxfyre]

The Government doesn’t spend your money. It is sent to others

When the government sends money to anybody or any entity it is spending money.

 

[Foxfyre]

I hear Republicans all the time argue that the only way to save social security is to raise my retirement age 5 years and cut benefits 20%. The last one that suggested this to me I said, "can I ask you a question?" He said sure. I said, "you Republicans cry all the time about democrats raising your taxes. Taking money out of your pockets, right? Well now you are telling me that you're going to be okay when Republicans tell you that you're going to have to work 5 more years and then get 80%? Are you kidding me?"

And he went on to tell me that, "well, people are living longer,.yada yada, derp, idiot, hypocrite, fool, pawn, sucker, cognitive dissonance, etc..... Blows my mind these middle class republicans argue for their masters no matter what shit they're shoveling.

I always say this. If we could find the money to fight the iraq war and afganistan, all while cutting rich people's taxes, we can figure out how to refund social security.

And one more thing. We know both parties have borrowed from this fund? Put it back. Problem solved. So Republicans, stop calling it a ponzi scheme when politicians emptied the funds. Stop being stupid. It's your money.

No it isn't my money. I can't spend more than the government allows me to have. The government can take it away any time it wants to. That this or that Republican suggests remedies for keeping Social Security solvent that you find unacceptable is a moot point because it can't happen without a vote of Congress and a signature by the President.

I find it unacceptable that the money I worked hard for and paid into social security won't go to my spouse or children or anybody I know if I die before I can collect it. So tell me again how it is 'my' money.

 

[Woodznutz]

SS is not an asset
If you want an asset….get a 401k

Most People get both

I consider it a financial asset. It can also be used to obtain traditional assets such as property. It can be used as security for a loan as well.

 

[Woodznutz]

I hear Republicans all the time argue that the only way to save social security is to raise my retirement age 5 years and cut benefits 20%. The last one that suggested this to me I said, "can I ask you a question?" He said sure. I said, "you Republicans cry all the time about democrats raising your taxes. Taking money out of your pockets, right? Well now you are telling me that you're going to be okay when Republicans tell you that you're going to have to work 5 more years and then get 80%? Are you kidding me?"

If those adjustments are necessary, we have to live with them. The pool of money comes from working people and their employers, not from everyone. So the money coming in is limited.

And he went on to tell me that, "well, people are living longer,.yada yada, derp, idiot, hypocrite, fool, pawn, sucker, cognitive dissonance, etc..... Blows my mind these middle class republicans argue for their masters no matter what shit they're shoveling.

People are living much longer than the plan envisioned. They are also working longer and collecting more (guilty as charged). This needs to be accounted for.

I always say this. If we could find the money to fight the iraq war and afganistan, all while cutting rich people's taxes, we can figure out how to refund social security.

SS is funded solely by workers and their employers, therefore the pot is limited to their contributions.

And one more thing. We know both parties have borrowed from this fund? Put it back. Problem solved. So Republicans, stop calling it a ponzi scheme when politicians emptied the funds. Stop being stupid. It's your money.

SS is already drawing on the fund. It will be depleted (fully 'put back') in less than a decade.