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.
Thank you, payroll tax reduction,a throat cut for social security.I agree with you, no payroll tax holiday. However, if they can agree on "fixes" for SS & Medicare for a short duration payroll tax cut, that's a win-win.He's trying to have a payroll tax reduction as a stimulus.... this would have doomed social security and Medicare, which are already struggling to get their trust fund money back, from the federal gvt who spent it.What a BS thread! There is absolutely no evidence that President Trump ever has-or would-even consider such an atrocity..
An Executive Order Is Needed To Confiscate The Social Security Trust Fund
For decades retired and disabled Americans have watched with concern as the GOP and many Democrats salivated at the prospect of ending Social Security and Medicare.
Yes, possessing the power to make life miserable for many disabled and elderly men, women, and children has long been a pleasing thought for these politicians. But the important goal has always been to transfer the Social Security Trust Fund into the pockets of the, approximately, 600 American billionaires.
Congress has permitted the impeached president trump immense governing power over and above the maximums granted by the U.S. Constitution. So no impediment remains to block an executive order issued by the impeached president trump, to confiscate all moneys associated with Social Security and Medicare.
The COVID-19 crisis provides an excellent opportunity for the impeached president trump to included in this executive order instructions for the method to be used in the distribution of these funds as a stimulus package: Said funds to be divided equally, as tax free grants, among the top 600 families whose wealth exceeds $1 billion. (A windfall worth over two billion dollar to each billionaire. Now, that’s stimulating!)
Happily, no one of any significance will complain or condemn the impeached president trump or the members of congress for this stimulus package using federally owned funds rather than borrowed.
With the elections just around the corner, time could be growing short to acheive this long-sought goal.
Is Trump Using Next Stimulus Package To Undermine Funding Of Social Security And Medicare?
.
Thankfully, Ds and Rs would have none of it!!! Not in an election year...those Rs already are hurting, in the house and Senate in this upcoming election.... They needed this payroll tax cut as a guise to destroy social security, like a hole in the head....
Medicare is bankrupt in 2026, and SS is insolvent in 2037 without "fixes".
What sort of "adjustments?" You can't change a contract once both parties have signed it.Sure they do when the government is running them. If SS was run by a private company, it would have declared bankruptcy 50 years ago.Ponzi schemes don't last almost a hundred years like our S.S. system has, but trump and the republicans would like to end it. Even the fools that kiss trump's ass even though many of them would be living like paupers were it not for FDR and the democrats.There is no trust fund. S.S. is a ponzi scheme.
No, a private company would have made adjustments every year since its inception.
This is not a fun fix , increase the age pay out one month for everyone five years away from collecting, one month is not that painful, last time they raised it cost me 3 months not that big of a deal. start putting back the money that was borrowed, by reducing the pay of congress, they get a free ride on everything, let them personally help out us old folks. Smile
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.
There is no option but to increase the retirement age by at least five years, incrementally. Folks were roofers and brick laborers in 1950 too. Social Security was never intended as a retirement plan, it was designed to help get you through a year or two until you croaked.
In 1950 for women the retirement age was 62 and 65 for men. The average life expectancy in the US was 66.
Life expectancy of all Americans in 1961 was 70 years. Social Security benefits started at age 62 for women and 65 for men.
For those retiring today full benefits are at 67 with an average lie expectancy of 78. Many, except for blacks, live well into their 80’s or 90’s.
The system is incredibly racist since blacks contribute as much, but their life span is far shorter.
In 1950 there were 16.5 workers for each Social Security recipient. In 2011, the ratio is 2.9 workers for each recipient.
This year, about 157 million U.S. workers support some 55 million Social Security recipients, according to the SSA’s data. In 1950, 48 million workers supported 2 million recipients.
Perhaps some increases in the tax but already we pay 15.3% of our pay up to $137,700 this year. That's more than $21,000 a year PLUS your income taxes. For anyone, that's a LOT of money. Imagine if you had even half of that to invest on your own each year?
I'll have to disagree with you on part of that since I come from a construction family. Growing up, I seen my father in traction for his back. He's had the surgeries. My father loved what he did for a living, but his body couldn't take it. It's very hard work. He had to retire at 62.
My two cousins each have their own remodeling business. One retired about two years ago, but he struggled at least five years before. Going to work every day in pain is no fun on a physical job. My other cousin can't work anymore, but hires people and oversees the remodeling jobs.
That aside, I'll use my own former career. Would you want to be in the car in front of me when I'm piloting a 75,000 lbs vehicle at 68 years old in a snow storm, and traffic comes to a sudden stop?
There are a lot of jobs people can't do at a later age because your body can only take so much. Other jobs you really can't do safely as you may be jeopardizing your fellow workers, or in my case, motorists on the road. So raising the age to collect isn't the answer.
Pensions work best if they are run by the employees, i.e. like trade unions. Mob corruption used to be an issue, but the Mob is a shadow of itself.
Why do you say that? The deal was fix SS & Medicare long term, for a short payroll tax holiday. Win-Win.Thank you, payroll tax reduction,a throat cut for social security.I agree with you, no payroll tax holiday. However, if they can agree on "fixes" for SS & Medicare for a short duration payroll tax cut, that's a win-win.He's trying to have a payroll tax reduction as a stimulus.... this would have doomed social security and Medicare, which are already struggling to get their trust fund money back, from the federal gvt who spent it.What a BS thread! There is absolutely no evidence that President Trump ever has-or would-even consider such an atrocity..
An Executive Order Is Needed To Confiscate The Social Security Trust Fund
For decades retired and disabled Americans have watched with concern as the GOP and many Democrats salivated at the prospect of ending Social Security and Medicare.
Yes, possessing the power to make life miserable for many disabled and elderly men, women, and children has long been a pleasing thought for these politicians. But the important goal has always been to transfer the Social Security Trust Fund into the pockets of the, approximately, 600 American billionaires.
Congress has permitted the impeached president trump immense governing power over and above the maximums granted by the U.S. Constitution. So no impediment remains to block an executive order issued by the impeached president trump, to confiscate all moneys associated with Social Security and Medicare.
The COVID-19 crisis provides an excellent opportunity for the impeached president trump to included in this executive order instructions for the method to be used in the distribution of these funds as a stimulus package: Said funds to be divided equally, as tax free grants, among the top 600 families whose wealth exceeds $1 billion. (A windfall worth over two billion dollar to each billionaire. Now, that’s stimulating!)
Happily, no one of any significance will complain or condemn the impeached president trump or the members of congress for this stimulus package using federally owned funds rather than borrowed.
With the elections just around the corner, time could be growing short to acheive this long-sought goal.
Is Trump Using Next Stimulus Package To Undermine Funding Of Social Security And Medicare?
.
Thankfully, Ds and Rs would have none of it!!! Not in an election year...those Rs already are hurting, in the house and Senate in this upcoming election.... They needed this payroll tax cut as a guise to destroy social security, like a hole in the head....
Medicare is bankrupt in 2026, and SS is insolvent in 2037 without "fixes".
Pensions work best if they are run by the employees, i.e. like trade unions. Mob corruption used to be an issue, but the Mob is a shadow of itself.
Membership in trade unions has dropped since the turn of the last century. In 2000 it was about 16.33% and it was 14.57% in 2019.
Not at all unlike the buggy whip, the eight-track tape, and typewriter, they have outlived their purpose.
Maybe President Trump would like Congress who controls budgets and taxes to cut other expenditures. They certainly have the power to do that.
SS is an income tax and always has been and it was intended as a retirement plan. It is not contributed; it is taken. Benefits have been paid for by the recipient through forced contract. How many were forced to pay into the system but never received a dime in compensation? I receive S. Security. How much better might I have done had the government allowed me to keep what I had earned? Now it is quite literally a done deal and I fully expect the government to comply with it's part of it's own forced contract. It is not some kind of welfare; it is one of the most important National debts and must be considered as such. Purely idiotic to claim we cannot afford to pay debts to our own citizens while throwing away money on foreign aid to countries which we don't owe and don't even particularly like us.
www.fool.com
Pensions work best if they are run by the employees, i.e. like trade unions. Mob corruption used to be an issue, but the Mob is a shadow of itself.
Membership in trade unions has dropped since the turn of the last century. In 2000 it was about 16.33% and it was 14.57% in 2019.
Not at all unlike the buggy whip, the eight-track tape, and typewriter, they have outlived their purpose.
Not trade unions. Letting the workers handle their benefits is a great idea. Companies just pay in additional $$ per hour and the union handles pensions, health insurance, every fringe.
Pensions work best if they are run by the employees, i.e. like trade unions. Mob corruption used to be an issue, but the Mob is a shadow of itself.
Membership in trade unions has dropped since the turn of the last century. In 2000 it was about 16.33% and it was 14.57% in 2019.
Not at all unlike the buggy whip, the eight-track tape, and typewriter, they have outlived their purpose.
Not trade unions. Letting the workers handle their benefits is a great idea. Companies just pay in additional $$ per hour and the union handles pensions, health insurance, every fringe.
First, you said trade unions, now you say NOT trade unions.
Leaving it up to the individual worker is not viable. The vast number of American workers live paycheck to paycheck. Give them an extra $100.00 or $200.00 more a week and they'll be right back at the same spending habit.
Galveston Texas has a great plan when they opted out of Social Security. Our legislators would NEVER let that much money and that much control of citizens out of their grasp.
President Bush pushed to allow YOUNG WORKERS the OPTION of placing 2% of their Social Security Tax into a separate account where it could be invested in government-approved mutual funds etc..
For how well a completely privatized SS plan works, see Galveston Texas. They took advantage of a short loophole and opted out of SS in 1980.
The result of privatization?
•Workers making $17,000 a year receive about 50 percent more per month on our alternative plan than on Social Security - $1,036 instead of $683. [See the Figure.]
•making $26,000 a year make almost double Social Security's return - $1,500 instead of $853.
•making $51,000 a year get $3,103 instead of $1,368.
•making $75,000 or more nearly triple Social Security - $4,540 instead of $1,645.
PLUS death benefits equal to 4 times their annual salary up to $215,000
That’s a bad thing?
http://www.unitypublishing.com/government/GalvestonSocialSecurityPlan.htm
http://debtdiagnosis.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/BOSSGalvestonCountyLifeInsurance.pdf
Does Galveston Offer a Model For Social Security Reform?
How Galveston Opted out of Social Security (long, but good)
Pensions work best if they are run by the employees, i.e. like trade unions. Mob corruption used to be an issue, but the Mob is a shadow of itself.
Membership in trade unions has dropped since the turn of the last century. In 2000 it was about 16.33% and it was 14.57% in 2019.
Not at all unlike the buggy whip, the eight-track tape, and typewriter, they have outlived their purpose.
Not trade unions. Letting the workers handle their benefits is a great idea. Companies just pay in additional $$ per hour and the union handles pensions, health insurance, every fringe.
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.
There is no option but to increase the retirement age by at least five years, incrementally. Folks were roofers and brick laborers in 1950 too. Social Security was never intended as a retirement plan, it was designed to help get you through a year or two until you croaked.
In 1950 for women the retirement age was 62 and 65 for men. The average life expectancy in the US was 66.
Life expectancy of all Americans in 1961 was 70 years. Social Security benefits started at age 62 for women and 65 for men.
For those retiring today full benefits are at 67 with an average lie expectancy of 78. Many, except for blacks, live well into their 80’s or 90’s.
The system is incredibly racist since blacks contribute as much, but their life span is far shorter.
In 1950 there were 16.5 workers for each Social Security recipient. In 2011, the ratio is 2.9 workers for each recipient.
This year, about 157 million U.S. workers support some 55 million Social Security recipients, according to the SSA’s data. In 1950, 48 million workers supported 2 million recipients.
Perhaps some increases in the tax but already we pay 15.3% of our pay up to $137,700 this year. That's more than $21,000 a year PLUS your income taxes. For anyone, that's a LOT of money. Imagine if you had even half of that to invest on your own each year?
I'll have to disagree with you on part of that since I come from a construction family. Growing up, I seen my father in traction for his back. He's had the surgeries. My father loved what he did for a living, but his body couldn't take it. It's very hard work. He had to retire at 62.
My two cousins each have their own remodeling business. One retired about two years ago, but he struggled at least five years before. Going to work every day in pain is no fun on a physical job. My other cousin can't work anymore, but hires people and oversees the remodeling jobs.
That aside, I'll use my own former career. Would you want to be in the car in front of me when I'm piloting a 75,000 lbs vehicle at 68 years old in a snow storm, and traffic comes to a sudden stop?
There are a lot of jobs people can't do at a later age because your body can only take so much. Other jobs you really can't do safely as you may be jeopardizing your fellow workers, or in my case, motorists on the road. So raising the age to collect isn't the answer.
That's all fine and dandy but we don't have that much money. It AIN'T THERE!
Were there no roofers, truckers, or bricklayers in 1950? In fact, at that time, everything was far more labor intense. When you started to receive SS, your life expectancy was one, maybe two years more.
As for you driving a rig at 68, honestly I have no problem. I'm fairly sure that the DOT has routine physicals, (so I've heard from a couple of truckers) so you're probably going to be in better shape than me.
I am saying Trade unions are viable.
Try to keep up.
The DOT does have physicals which is why I'm no longer working, even though I could still do my job today.
Yes, there were roofers, truckers and bricklayers back in the 50's, but many of them died off before they could collect a dime from SS. However with medical advancements, we now live much longer, and if we are going to live longer, then we need funds to support us in our later years.
People back in the 50's worked into their 60's, some with no problem. Today, people live longer, but that doesn't mean they can extend their work life. Only their mortality rate extended, not the ability of their body or mind. That part is no different than people of the 50's.
So we are faced with a real problem. Perhaps we can offer incentives for those who don't have a physically challenging job to continue working, or we need working people to contribute more to the program. I just don't see forcing people to work longer as a solution because some people just can't do it.
The DOT does have physicals which is why I'm no longer working, even though I could still do my job today.
Yes, there were roofers, truckers and bricklayers back in the 50's, but many of them died off before they could collect a dime from SS. However with medical advancements, we now live much longer, and if we are going to live longer, then we need funds to support us in our later years.
People back in the 50's worked into their 60's, some with no problem. Today, people live longer, but that doesn't mean they can extend their work life. Only their mortality rate extended, not the ability of their body or mind. That part is no different than people of the 50's.
So we are faced with a real problem. Perhaps we can offer incentives for those who don't have a physically challenging job to continue working, or we need working people to contribute more to the program. I just don't see forcing people to work longer as a solution because some people just can't do it.
So you just shot down your own argument by admitting that tractor-trailer drives have physicals so they're not on the road if they aren't physically able.
Nonsense too that only our life expectancy has been extended, not our useful life. Of course, our quality of life has NOT been GREATLY extended?
I don't see that forcing younger workers to pay more and more because older people I don't know, or care enough about themselves, or others, to plan for themselves.
I thought you believed in personal responsibility? Or is that only other people?
I believe you are the one who is wrong here. If you are no longer working (which is what I always thought "retirement" meant) where exactly do you expect "other income" to come from? Most people I know live paycheck to paycheck if they're lucky. Why would people who are already wealthy need more income? Providing money to live on when a person can no longer work is exactly what SS was intended to do. People who have an "other income" option don't need it.SS is an income tax and always has been and it was intended as a retirement plan. It is not contributed; it is taken. Benefits have been paid for by the recipient through forced contract. How many were forced to pay into the system but never received a dime in compensation? I receive S. Security. How much better might I have done had the government allowed me to keep what I had earned? Now it is quite literally a done deal and I fully expect the government to comply with it's part of it's own forced contract. It is not some kind of welfare; it is one of the most important National debts and must be considered as such. Purely idiotic to claim we cannot afford to pay debts to our own citizens while throwing away money on foreign aid to countries which we don't owe and don't even particularly like us.
Wrong.
One thing Social Security was never designed to be
Providing a financial floor for retired workers and protecting the disabled and survivors are the primary purposes of Social Security. What it was never intended to do was act as a primary source of income for retirees.
Social Security's 3 Purposes, and the 1 Thing It Was Never Intended For | The Motley Fool
America's most important social program is tasked with providing a financial backdrop for tens of millions of Americans.
What you are suggesting is that we keep a program not properly funded, and instead, make people work longer than they were promised they didn't have to. I was told from the beginning that at the age of 65, I could collect from the program I supported all of my life.
I believe you are the one who is wrong here. If you are no longer working (which is what I always thought "retirement" meant) where exactly do you expect "other income" to come from? Most people I know live paycheck to paycheck if they're lucky. Why would people who are already wealthy need more income? Providing money to live on when a person can no longer work is exactly what SS was intended to do. People who have an "other income" option don't need it.
