An Executive Order Is Needed To Confiscate The Social Security Trust Fund

[Markle]

This "millennial" generation is not who got us 27 trillion in debt.

That would be their parents (Generation X) who refused to reduce spending. I'm from the "Silent Generation" so it's certainly not my fault either. So, I'm getting mine each month and incredible health insurance saving me well over $1,000. a month.

Thank you!

Much of them was still in school when this started.

Obviously, you were not in English grammar class when you should have been.

What you mean is, "Many of them were still in school when this started".

What started when?

 

[pknopp]

This "millennial" generation is not who got us 27 trillion in debt.

That would be their parents (Generation X) who refused to reduce spending. I'm from the "Silent Generation" so it's certainly not my fault either. So, I'm getting mine each month and incredible health insurance saving me well over $1,000. a month.

Thank you!

Much of them was still in school when this started.

Obviously, you were not in English grammar class when you should have been.

What you mean is, "Many of them were still in school when this started".

What started when?

At least I am able to follow a conversation.

 

[martybegan]

Dude, how much of that debt you are talking about is owed to social security?

Your ignorance of the fact that spending too much money on the federal government is another issue just shows how much of a moron you are.

Dude, Unfunded Liability as of 7/24/2020 of Social Security and Medicare.

I usually separate the social security issue from the unfunded liability issue, as SS is the one with the supposed "Trust Fund" that is nothing more than a bunch of IOU's.

 

[kyzr]

Dude, how much of that debt you are talking about is owed to social security?

Your ignorance of the fact that spending too much money on the federal government is another issue just shows how much of a moron you are.

Dude, Unfunded Liability as of 7/24/2020 of Social Security and Medicare.

I usually separate the social security issue from the unfunded liability issue, as SS is the one with the supposed "Trust Fund" that is nothing more than a bunch of IOU's.

SS will be insolvent in 2037. Medicare will be bankrupt in 2026.

Both programs are "fixable". All that needs to happen are a few tweaks. Lets say that Trump wants a temporary payroll tax cut. So the democrats want SS & Medicare "fixed". Lets make a win-win. Trump get a few months of the payroll tax cut, and the democrats get SS & Medicare fixed.

Here are the various fixes to consider:
Social Security fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/21/how-warren-buffett-thinks-we-should-fix-social-sec.aspx
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes
https://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2012/future-of-social-security-proposals.html

Medicare Fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2016/03/27/7-ways-to-fix-medicare.aspx
https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/369151-fix-what-weve-got-and-make-medicare-right-this-year
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/how-to-save-and-fix-medicare
https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/health/medicare-and-medicaid/2012-05/The-Future-Of-Medicare.pdf

 

[martybegan]

Dude, how much of that debt you are talking about is owed to social security?

Your ignorance of the fact that spending too much money on the federal government is another issue just shows how much of a moron you are.

Dude, Unfunded Liability as of 7/24/2020 of Social Security and Medicare.

I usually separate the social security issue from the unfunded liability issue, as SS is the one with the supposed "Trust Fund" that is nothing more than a bunch of IOU's.

SS will be insolvent in 2037. Medicare will be bankrupt in 2026.

Both programs are "fixable". All that needs to happen are a few tweaks. Lets say that Trump wants a temporary payroll tax cut. So the democrats want SS & Medicare "fixed". Lets make a win-win. Trump get a few months of the payroll tax cut, and the democrats get SS & Medicare fixed.

Here are the various fixes to consider:
Social Security fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/21/how-warren-buffett-thinks-we-should-fix-social-sec.aspx
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes
https://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2012/future-of-social-security-proposals.html

Medicare Fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2016/03/27/7-ways-to-fix-medicare.aspx
https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/369151-fix-what-weve-got-and-make-medicare-right-this-year
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/how-to-save-and-fix-medicare
https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/health/medicare-and-medicaid/2012-05/The-Future-Of-Medicare.pdf

The problem with raising the cap is that there will still be a cap on benefits, and thus the original pretext of this not being about the rich supporting the poor, but the working supporting the not working goes away.

 

[initforme]

Social security is one of the greatest achievements this nation has EVER created. Imagine the millions upon millions of people who have been greatly helped by it. Now if there's a much better way why is that plan to help people not being pushed our? Voters are going to reject getting rid of it in a resounding fashion

 

[kyzr]

Dude, how much of that debt you are talking about is owed to social security?

Your ignorance of the fact that spending too much money on the federal government is another issue just shows how much of a moron you are.

Dude, Unfunded Liability as of 7/24/2020 of Social Security and Medicare.

I usually separate the social security issue from the unfunded liability issue, as SS is the one with the supposed "Trust Fund" that is nothing more than a bunch of IOU's.

SS will be insolvent in 2037. Medicare will be bankrupt in 2026.

Both programs are "fixable". All that needs to happen are a few tweaks. Lets say that Trump wants a temporary payroll tax cut. So the democrats want SS & Medicare "fixed". Lets make a win-win. Trump get a few months of the payroll tax cut, and the democrats get SS & Medicare fixed.

Here are the various fixes to consider:
Social Security fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/21/how-warren-buffett-thinks-we-should-fix-social-sec.aspx
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes
https://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2012/future-of-social-security-proposals.html

Medicare Fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2016/03/27/7-ways-to-fix-medicare.aspx
https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/369151-fix-what-weve-got-and-make-medicare-right-this-year
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/how-to-save-and-fix-medicare
https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/health/medicare-and-medicaid/2012-05/The-Future-Of-Medicare.pdf

The problem with raising the cap is that there will still be a cap on benefits, and thus the original pretext of this not being about the rich supporting the poor, but the working supporting the not working goes away.

I read your post 10x and still don't get what you're point is?!
1. Raising the cap on tax means more revenue
2. Not raising the cap on benefits means everyone gets a similar "pension", subject to income tax brackets.

No work means no SS.

 

[kyzr]

Social security is one of the greatest achievements this nation has EVER created. Imagine the millions upon millions of people who have been greatly helped by it. Now if there's a much better way why is that plan to help people not being pushed our? Voters are going to reject getting rid of it in a resounding fashion

I'm retired and am getting SS. It is a Godsend. Too many places do not have "defined benefit pensions" so that means that you only have your 401k contributions to retire on. You need BOTH the 401k/IRA and SS/Medicare to survive in retirement.

 

[martybegan]

Dude, how much of that debt you are talking about is owed to social security?

Your ignorance of the fact that spending too much money on the federal government is another issue just shows how much of a moron you are.

Dude, Unfunded Liability as of 7/24/2020 of Social Security and Medicare.

I usually separate the social security issue from the unfunded liability issue, as SS is the one with the supposed "Trust Fund" that is nothing more than a bunch of IOU's.

SS will be insolvent in 2037. Medicare will be bankrupt in 2026.

Both programs are "fixable". All that needs to happen are a few tweaks. Lets say that Trump wants a temporary payroll tax cut. So the democrats want SS & Medicare "fixed". Lets make a win-win. Trump get a few months of the payroll tax cut, and the democrats get SS & Medicare fixed.

Here are the various fixes to consider:
Social Security fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/21/how-warren-buffett-thinks-we-should-fix-social-sec.aspx
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes
https://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2012/future-of-social-security-proposals.html

Medicare Fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2016/03/27/7-ways-to-fix-medicare.aspx
https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/369151-fix-what-weve-got-and-make-medicare-right-this-year
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/how-to-save-and-fix-medicare
https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/health/medicare-and-medicaid/2012-05/The-Future-Of-Medicare.pdf

The problem with raising the cap is that there will still be a cap on benefits, and thus the original pretext of this not being about the rich supporting the poor, but the working supporting the not working goes away.

I read your post 10x and still don't get what you're point is?!
1. Raising the cap on tax means more revenue
2. Not raising the cap on benefits means everyone gets a similar "pension", subject to income tax brackets.

No work means no SS.

SS was built on the basis of "the more you pay in, the more benefits you get up until a point". It's why the cap is there in the first place. It wasn't sold as a progressive income distribution program, but as a scaling retirement "pension".

If you raise the cap on what you put in, and keep a cap on what you can take out later, you basically destroy the concept upon which SS was sold to us at the time of creation. It just becomes another progressive "tax".

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Social security is one of the greatest achievements this nation has EVER created. Imagine the millions upon millions of people who have been greatly helped by it. Now if there's a much better way why is that plan to help people not being pushed our? Voters are going to reject getting rid of it in a resounding fashion

I'm retired and am getting SS. It is a Godsend. Too many places do not have "defined benefit pensions" so that means that you only have your 401k contributions to retire on. You need BOTH the 401k/IRA and SS/Medicare to survive in retirement.

Which is all fine and dandy. But if we want these programs (and most do) then they need to be properly funded. SS is running out of money and those Medicare payroll deductions only fund a small part of it. The rest comes out of our federal budget, which of course has been running deficits for many years. When was the last time we increased the Medicare payroll tax? I can't even remember.

 

[skews13]

SS was originally designed to kick in 8 years after most people were dead.
So for it to go back to how it was originally designed, we just have to push the eligibility up to age 85.
Do that and it will be perfectly solvent again!

The Biden tax plan, beginning in the first 100 days, will do just fine.

In line with general Democratic demands, he would raise the corporate profits tax, eliminate deductions for high-income earners, repeal most of the Trump tax cuts and increase taxes on fossil-fuel emissions.

His campaign has gone up and beyond, calling for three unique reforms that would dramatically increase taxes on the rich.

What are the three reforms?

1. Making high earners pay

Social Security is funded through a 12.4% tax on the first $137,700 (in 2020) of workers’ annual wages (half is paid by the employer, half by the employee)…. Biden has proposed that earnings above $400,000 become subject to taxation.
Biden then reinvests these revenues in higher Social Security benefits for the poor. As a result, hundreds of thousands of seniors would be pulled out of poverty — without a single dime being spent by the middle class.

2. Ending the benefits the very rich get from capital gains

He has proposed eliminating the lower rates on dividends and long-term capital gains for everyone making more than $1 million per year. Because Biden is also planning to raise the top tax rate to 39.6%, his proposals will nearly double the average tax rate for nonworking millionaires.

3. Ending the benefit the VERY rich get on inheritance

Along with being taxed at extra-low rates, capital gains are given a second carve-out known as stepped-up basis at death…. This tax cut goes almost exclusively to the very richest families.

Biden doesn’t fuss around on this one. There is no “modification” or “tweak” to stepped-up basis at death. He just calls for repealing the provision entirely. Under the Biden tax plan, wealthy heirs will pay the same capital-gains taxes as everyone else.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The US government took my money and promised to pay me back with interest if I managed to live long enough. Then it drafted my sorry butt and sent me to Vietnam. Then it dumped Agent Orange on me. Social Security is a legal debt incurred by the government it can expect to be held to. It's failure to comply would result in repossession.

 

[kyzr]

Dude, how much of that debt you are talking about is owed to social security?

Your ignorance of the fact that spending too much money on the federal government is another issue just shows how much of a moron you are.

Dude, Unfunded Liability as of 7/24/2020 of Social Security and Medicare.

I usually separate the social security issue from the unfunded liability issue, as SS is the one with the supposed "Trust Fund" that is nothing more than a bunch of IOU's.

SS will be insolvent in 2037. Medicare will be bankrupt in 2026.

Both programs are "fixable". All that needs to happen are a few tweaks. Lets say that Trump wants a temporary payroll tax cut. So the democrats want SS & Medicare "fixed". Lets make a win-win. Trump get a few months of the payroll tax cut, and the democrats get SS & Medicare fixed.

Here are the various fixes to consider:
Social Security fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/21/how-warren-buffett-thinks-we-should-fix-social-sec.aspx
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes
https://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2012/future-of-social-security-proposals.html

Medicare Fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2016/03/27/7-ways-to-fix-medicare.aspx
https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/369151-fix-what-weve-got-and-make-medicare-right-this-year
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/how-to-save-and-fix-medicare
https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/health/medicare-and-medicaid/2012-05/The-Future-Of-Medicare.pdf

The problem with raising the cap is that there will still be a cap on benefits, and thus the original pretext of this not being about the rich supporting the poor, but the working supporting the not working goes away.

I read your post 10x and still don't get what you're point is?!
1. Raising the cap on tax means more revenue
2. Not raising the cap on benefits means everyone gets a similar "pension", subject to income tax brackets.

No work means no SS.

SS was built on the basis of "the more you pay in, the more benefits you get up until a point". It's why the cap is there in the first place. It wasn't sold as a progressive income distribution program, but as a scaling retirement "pension".

If you raise the cap on what you put in, and keep a cap on what you can take out later, you basically destroy the concept upon which SS was sold to us at the time of creation. It just becomes another progressive "tax".

You're looking at it way too idealistically. Here are the cold-hard "facts":
1. SS will be insolvent in 2037, paying only 70% of promised benefits.....forever
2. Unless SS is "fixed" one way or another, that's what happens.
3. So pick your preferred "fix", raise the cap, raise the retirement ages, raise the tax rate, tax benefits (means test), or something else or any combination that works.

Who gives a **** how it was created 80-years ago?? We all paid into it and are promised benefits. The government needs to provide those promised benefits.

 

[martybegan]

Dude, how much of that debt you are talking about is owed to social security?

Your ignorance of the fact that spending too much money on the federal government is another issue just shows how much of a moron you are.

Dude, Unfunded Liability as of 7/24/2020 of Social Security and Medicare.

I usually separate the social security issue from the unfunded liability issue, as SS is the one with the supposed "Trust Fund" that is nothing more than a bunch of IOU's.

SS will be insolvent in 2037. Medicare will be bankrupt in 2026.

Both programs are "fixable". All that needs to happen are a few tweaks. Lets say that Trump wants a temporary payroll tax cut. So the democrats want SS & Medicare "fixed". Lets make a win-win. Trump get a few months of the payroll tax cut, and the democrats get SS & Medicare fixed.

Here are the various fixes to consider:
Social Security fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/21/how-warren-buffett-thinks-we-should-fix-social-sec.aspx
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes
https://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2012/future-of-social-security-proposals.html

Medicare Fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2016/03/27/7-ways-to-fix-medicare.aspx
https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/369151-fix-what-weve-got-and-make-medicare-right-this-year
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/how-to-save-and-fix-medicare
https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/health/medicare-and-medicaid/2012-05/The-Future-Of-Medicare.pdf

The problem with raising the cap is that there will still be a cap on benefits, and thus the original pretext of this not being about the rich supporting the poor, but the working supporting the not working goes away.

I read your post 10x and still don't get what you're point is?!
1. Raising the cap on tax means more revenue
2. Not raising the cap on benefits means everyone gets a similar "pension", subject to income tax brackets.

No work means no SS.

SS was built on the basis of "the more you pay in, the more benefits you get up until a point". It's why the cap is there in the first place. It wasn't sold as a progressive income distribution program, but as a scaling retirement "pension".

If you raise the cap on what you put in, and keep a cap on what you can take out later, you basically destroy the concept upon which SS was sold to us at the time of creation. It just becomes another progressive "tax".

You're looking at it way too idealistically. Here are the cold-hard "facts":
1. SS will be insolvent in 2037, paying only 70% of promised benefits.....forever
2. Unless SS is "fixed" one way or another, that's what happens.
3. So pick your preferred "fix", raise the cap, raise the retirement ages, raise the tax rate, tax benefits (means test), or something else or any combination that works.

Who gives a **** how it was created 80-years ago?? We all paid into it and are promised benefits. The government needs to provide those promised benefits.

I am looking at it as how the program was sold, and legally framed. By removing caps on investment, and leaving caps on return, you are destroying the original basis of the program, and the reason it probably survived multiple court attempts to shut it down.

I was promised the RKBA by the 2nd amendment, and NYC makes me wait 3-6 months and pay $500 or more just to keep a revolver in my apartment. Why isn't the government keeping that one?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Dude, how much of that debt you are talking about is owed to social security?

Your ignorance of the fact that spending too much money on the federal government is another issue just shows how much of a moron you are.

Dude, Unfunded Liability as of 7/24/2020 of Social Security and Medicare.

I usually separate the social security issue from the unfunded liability issue, as SS is the one with the supposed "Trust Fund" that is nothing more than a bunch of IOU's.

SS will be insolvent in 2037. Medicare will be bankrupt in 2026.

Both programs are "fixable". All that needs to happen are a few tweaks. Lets say that Trump wants a temporary payroll tax cut. So the democrats want SS & Medicare "fixed". Lets make a win-win. Trump get a few months of the payroll tax cut, and the democrats get SS & Medicare fixed.

Here are the various fixes to consider:
Social Security fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/21/how-warren-buffett-thinks-we-should-fix-social-sec.aspx
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes
https://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2012/future-of-social-security-proposals.html

Medicare Fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2016/03/27/7-ways-to-fix-medicare.aspx
https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/369151-fix-what-weve-got-and-make-medicare-right-this-year
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/how-to-save-and-fix-medicare
https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/health/medicare-and-medicaid/2012-05/The-Future-Of-Medicare.pdf

The problem with raising the cap is that there will still be a cap on benefits, and thus the original pretext of this not being about the rich supporting the poor, but the working supporting the not working goes away.

I read your post 10x and still don't get what you're point is?!
1. Raising the cap on tax means more revenue
2. Not raising the cap on benefits means everyone gets a similar "pension", subject to income tax brackets.

No work means no SS.

SS was built on the basis of "the more you pay in, the more benefits you get up until a point". It's why the cap is there in the first place. It wasn't sold as a progressive income distribution program, but as a scaling retirement "pension".

If you raise the cap on what you put in, and keep a cap on what you can take out later, you basically destroy the concept upon which SS was sold to us at the time of creation. It just becomes another progressive "tax".

You're looking at it way too idealistically. Here are the cold-hard "facts":
1. SS will be insolvent in 2037, paying only 70% of promised benefits.....forever
2. Unless SS is "fixed" one way or another, that's what happens.
3. So pick your preferred "fix", raise the cap, raise the retirement ages, raise the tax rate, tax benefits (means test), or something else or any combination that works.

Who gives a **** how it was created 80-years ago?? We all paid into it and are promised benefits. The government needs to provide those promised benefits.

Raising the retirement age doesn't work based on the type of job you had. You can't ask a roofer to be climbing up ladders three stories with a 30 lbs pack of roof shingles when he's 68 years old. Or a bricklayers laborer. Or perhaps a carpenter or remodeler.

Of course the problem can be fixed. Simply take a huge increase on payroll deductions for SS and Mediocre. So why won't they do it? For one, political suicide. We all want the goodies, but don't want to pay for them. Two, the working public would then demand an end to these programs because of the expense. Democrat would never allow themselves to be put in that position.

 

[kyzr]

Dude, how much of that debt you are talking about is owed to social security?

Your ignorance of the fact that spending too much money on the federal government is another issue just shows how much of a moron you are.

Dude, Unfunded Liability as of 7/24/2020 of Social Security and Medicare.

I usually separate the social security issue from the unfunded liability issue, as SS is the one with the supposed "Trust Fund" that is nothing more than a bunch of IOU's.

SS will be insolvent in 2037. Medicare will be bankrupt in 2026.

Both programs are "fixable". All that needs to happen are a few tweaks. Lets say that Trump wants a temporary payroll tax cut. So the democrats want SS & Medicare "fixed". Lets make a win-win. Trump get a few months of the payroll tax cut, and the democrats get SS & Medicare fixed.

Here are the various fixes to consider:
Social Security fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/21/how-warren-buffett-thinks-we-should-fix-social-sec.aspx
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes
https://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2012/future-of-social-security-proposals.html

Medicare Fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2016/03/27/7-ways-to-fix-medicare.aspx
https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/369151-fix-what-weve-got-and-make-medicare-right-this-year
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/how-to-save-and-fix-medicare
https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/health/medicare-and-medicaid/2012-05/The-Future-Of-Medicare.pdf

The problem with raising the cap is that there will still be a cap on benefits, and thus the original pretext of this not being about the rich supporting the poor, but the working supporting the not working goes away.

I read your post 10x and still don't get what you're point is?!
1. Raising the cap on tax means more revenue
2. Not raising the cap on benefits means everyone gets a similar "pension", subject to income tax brackets.

No work means no SS.

SS was built on the basis of "the more you pay in, the more benefits you get up until a point". It's why the cap is there in the first place. It wasn't sold as a progressive income distribution program, but as a scaling retirement "pension".

If you raise the cap on what you put in, and keep a cap on what you can take out later, you basically destroy the concept upon which SS was sold to us at the time of creation. It just becomes another progressive "tax".

You're looking at it way too idealistically. Here are the cold-hard "facts":
1. SS will be insolvent in 2037, paying only 70% of promised benefits.....forever
2. Unless SS is "fixed" one way or another, that's what happens.
3. So pick your preferred "fix", raise the cap, raise the retirement ages, raise the tax rate, tax benefits (means test), or something else or any combination that works.

Who gives a **** how it was created 80-years ago?? We all paid into it and are promised benefits. The government needs to provide those promised benefits.

Raising the retirement age doesn't work based on the type of job you had. You can't ask a roofer to be climbing up ladders three stories with a 30 lbs pack of roof shingles when he's 68 years old. Or a bricklayers laborer. Or perhaps a carpenter or remodeler.

Of course the problem can be fixed. Simply take a huge increase on payroll deductions for SS and Medicare. So why won't they do it? For one, political suicide. We all want the goodies, but don't want to pay for them. Two, the working public would then demand an end to these programs because of the expense. Democrat would never allow themselves to be put in that position.

1. Raising the retirement ages one year is a no-brainer. From 62 to 63 and 65 to 66. If someone has a strenuous job, find an easier one.
2. Political suicide is NOT fixing SS and Medicare.
3. No one will demand an end to SS & Medicare. They worked well for 80-years, and will work well for another 80.

 

[kyzr]

Dude, how much of that debt you are talking about is owed to social security?

Your ignorance of the fact that spending too much money on the federal government is another issue just shows how much of a moron you are.

Dude, Unfunded Liability as of 7/24/2020 of Social Security and Medicare.

I usually separate the social security issue from the unfunded liability issue, as SS is the one with the supposed "Trust Fund" that is nothing more than a bunch of IOU's.

SS will be insolvent in 2037. Medicare will be bankrupt in 2026.

Both programs are "fixable". All that needs to happen are a few tweaks. Lets say that Trump wants a temporary payroll tax cut. So the democrats want SS & Medicare "fixed". Lets make a win-win. Trump get a few months of the payroll tax cut, and the democrats get SS & Medicare fixed.

Here are the various fixes to consider:
Social Security fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/21/how-warren-buffett-thinks-we-should-fix-social-sec.aspx
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes
https://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2012/future-of-social-security-proposals.html

Medicare Fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2016/03/27/7-ways-to-fix-medicare.aspx
https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/369151-fix-what-weve-got-and-make-medicare-right-this-year
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/how-to-save-and-fix-medicare
https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/health/medicare-and-medicaid/2012-05/The-Future-Of-Medicare.pdf

The problem with raising the cap is that there will still be a cap on benefits, and thus the original pretext of this not being about the rich supporting the poor, but the working supporting the not working goes away.

I read your post 10x and still don't get what you're point is?!
1. Raising the cap on tax means more revenue
2. Not raising the cap on benefits means everyone gets a similar "pension", subject to income tax brackets.

No work means no SS.

SS was built on the basis of "the more you pay in, the more benefits you get up until a point". It's why the cap is there in the first place. It wasn't sold as a progressive income distribution program, but as a scaling retirement "pension".

If you raise the cap on what you put in, and keep a cap on what you can take out later, you basically destroy the concept upon which SS was sold to us at the time of creation. It just becomes another progressive "tax".

You're looking at it way too idealistically. Here are the cold-hard "facts":
1. SS will be insolvent in 2037, paying only 70% of promised benefits.....forever
2. Unless SS is "fixed" one way or another, that's what happens.
3. So pick your preferred "fix", raise the cap, raise the retirement ages, raise the tax rate, tax benefits (means test), or something else or any combination that works.

Who gives a **** how it was created 80-years ago?? We all paid into it and are promised benefits. The government needs to provide those promised benefits.

I am looking at it as how the program was sold, and legally framed. By removing caps on investment, and leaving caps on return, you are destroying the original basis of the program, and the reason it probably survived multiple court attempts to shut it down.

I was promised the RKBA by the 2nd amendment, and NYC makes me wait 3-6 months and pay $500 or more just to keep a revolver in my apartment. Why isn't the government keeping that one?

1. Who the **** cares how the programs were sold back in 1938? Not me. I just want them fixed now.
2. You have a carry permit in NYC?! You are fortunate. Count your blessings.

 

[martybegan]

Dude, how much of that debt you are talking about is owed to social security?

Your ignorance of the fact that spending too much money on the federal government is another issue just shows how much of a moron you are.

Dude, Unfunded Liability as of 7/24/2020 of Social Security and Medicare.

I usually separate the social security issue from the unfunded liability issue, as SS is the one with the supposed "Trust Fund" that is nothing more than a bunch of IOU's.

SS will be insolvent in 2037. Medicare will be bankrupt in 2026.

Both programs are "fixable". All that needs to happen are a few tweaks. Lets say that Trump wants a temporary payroll tax cut. So the democrats want SS & Medicare "fixed". Lets make a win-win. Trump get a few months of the payroll tax cut, and the democrats get SS & Medicare fixed.

Here are the various fixes to consider:
Social Security fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/21/how-warren-buffett-thinks-we-should-fix-social-sec.aspx
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes
https://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2012/future-of-social-security-proposals.html

Medicare Fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2016/03/27/7-ways-to-fix-medicare.aspx
https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/369151-fix-what-weve-got-and-make-medicare-right-this-year
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/how-to-save-and-fix-medicare
https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/health/medicare-and-medicaid/2012-05/The-Future-Of-Medicare.pdf

The problem with raising the cap is that there will still be a cap on benefits, and thus the original pretext of this not being about the rich supporting the poor, but the working supporting the not working goes away.

I read your post 10x and still don't get what you're point is?!
1. Raising the cap on tax means more revenue
2. Not raising the cap on benefits means everyone gets a similar "pension", subject to income tax brackets.

No work means no SS.

SS was built on the basis of "the more you pay in, the more benefits you get up until a point". It's why the cap is there in the first place. It wasn't sold as a progressive income distribution program, but as a scaling retirement "pension".

If you raise the cap on what you put in, and keep a cap on what you can take out later, you basically destroy the concept upon which SS was sold to us at the time of creation. It just becomes another progressive "tax".

You're looking at it way too idealistically. Here are the cold-hard "facts":
1. SS will be insolvent in 2037, paying only 70% of promised benefits.....forever
2. Unless SS is "fixed" one way or another, that's what happens.
3. So pick your preferred "fix", raise the cap, raise the retirement ages, raise the tax rate, tax benefits (means test), or something else or any combination that works.

Who gives a **** how it was created 80-years ago?? We all paid into it and are promised benefits. The government needs to provide those promised benefits.

I am looking at it as how the program was sold, and legally framed. By removing caps on investment, and leaving caps on return, you are destroying the original basis of the program, and the reason it probably survived multiple court attempts to shut it down.

I was promised the RKBA by the 2nd amendment, and NYC makes me wait 3-6 months and pay $500 or more just to keep a revolver in my apartment. Why isn't the government keeping that one?

1. Who the **** cares how the programs were sold back in 1938? Not me. I just want them fixed now.
2. You have a carry permit in NYC?! You are fortunate. Count your blessings.

1. It matters because people might sue to end any changes that transform it from a pension to a tax distribution.
2. No, that's just to keep a revolver for home use.

 

[kyzr]

Dude, how much of that debt you are talking about is owed to social security?

Your ignorance of the fact that spending too much money on the federal government is another issue just shows how much of a moron you are.

Dude, Unfunded Liability as of 7/24/2020 of Social Security and Medicare.

I usually separate the social security issue from the unfunded liability issue, as SS is the one with the supposed "Trust Fund" that is nothing more than a bunch of IOU's.

SS will be insolvent in 2037. Medicare will be bankrupt in 2026.

Both programs are "fixable". All that needs to happen are a few tweaks. Lets say that Trump wants a temporary payroll tax cut. So the democrats want SS & Medicare "fixed". Lets make a win-win. Trump get a few months of the payroll tax cut, and the democrats get SS & Medicare fixed.

Here are the various fixes to consider:
Social Security fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/21/how-warren-buffett-thinks-we-should-fix-social-sec.aspx
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes
https://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2012/future-of-social-security-proposals.html

Medicare Fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2016/03/27/7-ways-to-fix-medicare.aspx
https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/369151-fix-what-weve-got-and-make-medicare-right-this-year
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/how-to-save-and-fix-medicare
https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/health/medicare-and-medicaid/2012-05/The-Future-Of-Medicare.pdf

The problem with raising the cap is that there will still be a cap on benefits, and thus the original pretext of this not being about the rich supporting the poor, but the working supporting the not working goes away.

I read your post 10x and still don't get what you're point is?!
1. Raising the cap on tax means more revenue
2. Not raising the cap on benefits means everyone gets a similar "pension", subject to income tax brackets.

No work means no SS.

SS was built on the basis of "the more you pay in, the more benefits you get up until a point". It's why the cap is there in the first place. It wasn't sold as a progressive income distribution program, but as a scaling retirement "pension".

If you raise the cap on what you put in, and keep a cap on what you can take out later, you basically destroy the concept upon which SS was sold to us at the time of creation. It just becomes another progressive "tax".

You're looking at it way too idealistically. Here are the cold-hard "facts":
1. SS will be insolvent in 2037, paying only 70% of promised benefits.....forever
2. Unless SS is "fixed" one way or another, that's what happens.
3. So pick your preferred "fix", raise the cap, raise the retirement ages, raise the tax rate, tax benefits (means test), or something else or any combination that works.

Who gives a **** how it was created 80-years ago?? We all paid into it and are promised benefits. The government needs to provide those promised benefits.

I am looking at it as how the program was sold, and legally framed. By removing caps on investment, and leaving caps on return, you are destroying the original basis of the program, and the reason it probably survived multiple court attempts to shut it down.

I was promised the RKBA by the 2nd amendment, and NYC makes me wait 3-6 months and pay $500 or more just to keep a revolver in my apartment. Why isn't the government keeping that one?

1. Who the **** cares how the programs were sold back in 1938? Not me. I just want them fixed now.
2. You have a carry permit in NYC?! You are fortunate. Count your blessings.

1. It matters because people might sue to end any changes that transform it from a pension to a tax distribution.
2. No, that's just to keep a revolver for home use.

1. Let them sue SS, they will lose.
2. Having a legal gun in NYC is still an accomplishment.

 

[martybegan]

Dude, how much of that debt you are talking about is owed to social security?

Your ignorance of the fact that spending too much money on the federal government is another issue just shows how much of a moron you are.

Dude, Unfunded Liability as of 7/24/2020 of Social Security and Medicare.

I usually separate the social security issue from the unfunded liability issue, as SS is the one with the supposed "Trust Fund" that is nothing more than a bunch of IOU's.

SS will be insolvent in 2037. Medicare will be bankrupt in 2026.

Both programs are "fixable". All that needs to happen are a few tweaks. Lets say that Trump wants a temporary payroll tax cut. So the democrats want SS & Medicare "fixed". Lets make a win-win. Trump get a few months of the payroll tax cut, and the democrats get SS & Medicare fixed.

Here are the various fixes to consider:
Social Security fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/21/how-warren-buffett-thinks-we-should-fix-social-sec.aspx
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes
https://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2012/future-of-social-security-proposals.html

Medicare Fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2016/03/27/7-ways-to-fix-medicare.aspx
https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/369151-fix-what-weve-got-and-make-medicare-right-this-year
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/how-to-save-and-fix-medicare
https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/health/medicare-and-medicaid/2012-05/The-Future-Of-Medicare.pdf

The problem with raising the cap is that there will still be a cap on benefits, and thus the original pretext of this not being about the rich supporting the poor, but the working supporting the not working goes away.

I read your post 10x and still don't get what you're point is?!
1. Raising the cap on tax means more revenue
2. Not raising the cap on benefits means everyone gets a similar "pension", subject to income tax brackets.

No work means no SS.

SS was built on the basis of "the more you pay in, the more benefits you get up until a point". It's why the cap is there in the first place. It wasn't sold as a progressive income distribution program, but as a scaling retirement "pension".

If you raise the cap on what you put in, and keep a cap on what you can take out later, you basically destroy the concept upon which SS was sold to us at the time of creation. It just becomes another progressive "tax".

You're looking at it way too idealistically. Here are the cold-hard "facts":
1. SS will be insolvent in 2037, paying only 70% of promised benefits.....forever
2. Unless SS is "fixed" one way or another, that's what happens.
3. So pick your preferred "fix", raise the cap, raise the retirement ages, raise the tax rate, tax benefits (means test), or something else or any combination that works.

Who gives a **** how it was created 80-years ago?? We all paid into it and are promised benefits. The government needs to provide those promised benefits.

I am looking at it as how the program was sold, and legally framed. By removing caps on investment, and leaving caps on return, you are destroying the original basis of the program, and the reason it probably survived multiple court attempts to shut it down.

I was promised the RKBA by the 2nd amendment, and NYC makes me wait 3-6 months and pay $500 or more just to keep a revolver in my apartment. Why isn't the government keeping that one?

1. Who the **** cares how the programs were sold back in 1938? Not me. I just want them fixed now.
2. You have a carry permit in NYC?! You are fortunate. Count your blessings.

1. It matters because people might sue to end any changes that transform it from a pension to a tax distribution.
2. No, that's just to keep a revolver for home use.

1. Let them sue SS, they will lose.
2. Having a legal gun in NYC is still an accomplishment.

1. No, they won't.
2. It shouldn't be. My point is about government "promises"