How to fix SS Trump style

[Siete]

take 3 different positions and let someone else figure it out ..


How would Donald Trump change Social Security?

 

[Siete]

 

[Siete]

 

[Siete]

https://memecrunch.com/meme/6CA42/all-i-hear-are-*******-crickets/image.png?w=400&c=1

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I'd be fine with getting rid of Social Security altogether. It's a pyramid scheme.

 

[Siete]

I'd be fine with getting rid of Social Security altogether. It's a pyramid scheme.

how so ?

 

[Timmy]

SS is an insurance policy for Americans . Cause we all know americans don't save shit for retirement and don't bother getting disability insurance .

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

take 3 different positions and let someone else figure it out ..


How would Donald Trump change Social Security?

If you are getting crickets, it is because the article isn't very insightful. It doesn't explain these ideas. When Trump talks about expanding the economy, it means that we are going to created 40 million jobs in an economy that hasn't created that many in this century. So he is doing nothing. The article goes into the usual pulp politics of privatizing SS without mentioning that the concept might cost as a much as 30 trillion. When you strike those two options, you are left with the garden-variety chicken-in-every-pot promise that politicians make to get elected.

He will do nothing.

 

[Conservative65]

SS is an insurance policy for Americans . Cause we all know americans don't save shit for retirement and don't bother getting disability insurance .

I guess all that I've been setting aside for retirement and the short term/long term disability insurance premiums I pay really haven't been going to retirement and those policies.

It's not the government's job to force you to buy any kind of insurance.

If people don't, that's their problem and not the place of government to hold their hand. You may need the government to do so but many of us don't.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

SS is an insurance policy for Americans . Cause we all know americans don't save shit for retirement and don't bother getting disability insurance .

I guess all that I've been setting aside for retirement and the short term/long term disability insurance premiums I pay really haven't been going to retirement and those policies.

It's not the government's job to force you to buy any kind of insurance.

If people don't, that's their problem and not the place of government to hold their hand. You may need the government to do so but many of us don't.

What about auto insurance? Every state requires it.

Understand, SS isn't retirement insurance. It is old-age insurance. These are very different things. One insures you if you fail to save. The other pays you a small amount of liquidity so that you can plan your retirement.

 

[Conservative65]

take 3 different positions and let someone else figure it out ..


How would Donald Trump change Social Security?

SS is nothing more than another handout program where those on the lower income end of life will get something far greater in return than they ever put in. Those on the upper income end are the ones funding the system. Without them, the system would fail financially. That's why they're required to be a part of it. It's just another way someone that makes if financially has to support those that didn't.

 

[Conservative65]

SS is an insurance policy for Americans . Cause we all know americans don't save shit for retirement and don't bother getting disability insurance .

I guess all that I've been setting aside for retirement and the short term/long term disability insurance premiums I pay really haven't been going to retirement and those policies.

It's not the government's job to force you to buy any kind of insurance.

If people don't, that's their problem and not the place of government to hold their hand. You may need the government to do so but many of us don't.

What about auto insurance? Every state requires it.

Understand, SS isn't retirement insurance. It is old-age insurance. These are very different things. One insures you if you fail to save. The other pays you a small amount of liquidity so that you can plan your retirement.

My state requires auto insurance. However, there is a big difference in the reason behind what they require be purchased and the reason Timmy gave for SS being in place. Can you tell me?

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

SS is an insurance policy for Americans . Cause we all know americans don't save shit for retirement and don't bother getting disability insurance .

I guess all that I've been setting aside for retirement and the short term/long term disability insurance premiums I pay really haven't been going to retirement and those policies.

It's not the government's job to force you to buy any kind of insurance.

If people don't, that's their problem and not the place of government to hold their hand. You may need the government to do so but many of us don't.

What about auto insurance? Every state requires it.

Understand, SS isn't retirement insurance. It is old-age insurance. These are very different things. One insures you if you fail to save. The other pays you a small amount of liquidity so that you can plan your retirement.

My state requires auto insurance. However, there is a big difference in the reason behind what they require be purchased and the reason Timmy gave for SS being in place. Can you tell me?

Elaborate on the big difference. Insurance manages the cost of realized risk. You don't know how many auto wrecks that you will have so you buy insurance. You don't know how long you will live so you buy old-age insurance. Social Security carries more benefits than just old-age insurance, but the primary benefit is old-age insurance.

 

[Conservative65]

SS is an insurance policy for Americans . Cause we all know americans don't save shit for retirement and don't bother getting disability insurance .

I guess all that I've been setting aside for retirement and the short term/long term disability insurance premiums I pay really haven't been going to retirement and those policies.

It's not the government's job to force you to buy any kind of insurance.

If people don't, that's their problem and not the place of government to hold their hand. You may need the government to do so but many of us don't.

What about auto insurance? Every state requires it.

Understand, SS isn't retirement insurance. It is old-age insurance. These are very different things. One insures you if you fail to save. The other pays you a small amount of liquidity so that you can plan your retirement.

My state requires auto insurance. However, there is a big difference in the reason behind what they require be purchased and the reason Timmy gave for SS being in place. Can you tell me?

Elaborate on the big difference. Insurance manages the cost of realized risk. You don't know how many auto wrecks that you will have so you buy insurance. You don't know how long you will live so you buy old-age insurance. Social Security carries more benefits than just old-age insurance, but the primary benefit is old-age insurance.

In my State, the only type of auto insurance required is liability. That isn't designed to protect me, it's designed to protect the other guy in case I'm at fault. Based on Timmy's reasoning behind supporting SS, it's designed to protect me.

I have save and invested so that I can provide for myself in older age. Unlike people who defend SS, I don't need the government forcing me to buy something I don't need. When I reach the age where I can start getting distributions, I will take it but it won't be because I need it. It will be because I was required to be a part of it and will gladly take it even if someone else needs it more.

Like I said to Timmy. The ONLY reason people aren't allowed to opt out is the government knows those doing so are the ones that truly fund the system, those on the higher end of the income scale. Without us, those on the lower end wouldn't have a pot to piss in and someone it would be seen as our fault because we didn't want to be forced to fund a system that provides many of them with the only thing they'll ever have for money when they get old.

There is an income cap on which SS is paid. Without looking, I don't recall the exact amount but it's somewhere just shy of $120,000.

Person A contributes over his/her working lifetime at an average income amount that is 5x more than the average income for which Person B contributes over his/her lifetime. Should Person A get 5x the monthly distribution of Person B? Does Person A get 5x more/month than Person B because they put in at a 5x greater amount?

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

SS is an insurance policy for Americans . Cause we all know americans don't save shit for retirement and don't bother getting disability insurance .

I guess all that I've been setting aside for retirement and the short term/long term disability insurance premiums I pay really haven't been going to retirement and those policies.

It's not the government's job to force you to buy any kind of insurance.

If people don't, that's their problem and not the place of government to hold their hand. You may need the government to do so but many of us don't.

What about auto insurance? Every state requires it.

Understand, SS isn't retirement insurance. It is old-age insurance. These are very different things. One insures you if you fail to save. The other pays you a small amount of liquidity so that you can plan your retirement.

My state requires auto insurance. However, there is a big difference in the reason behind what they require be purchased and the reason Timmy gave for SS being in place. Can you tell me?

Elaborate on the big difference. Insurance manages the cost of realized risk. You don't know how many auto wrecks that you will have so you buy insurance. You don't know how long you will live so you buy old-age insurance. Social Security carries more benefits than just old-age insurance, but the primary benefit is old-age insurance.

In my State, the only type of auto insurance required is liability. That isn't designed to protect me, it's designed to protect the other guy in case I'm at fault. Based on Timmy's reasoning behind supporting SS, it's designed to protect me.

I have save and invested so that I can provide for myself in older age. Unlike people who defend SS, I don't need the government forcing me to buy something I don't need. When I reach the age where I can start getting distributions, I will take it but it won't be because I need it. It will be because I was required to be a part of it and will gladly take it even if someone else needs it more.

Like I said to Timmy. The ONLY reason people aren't allowed to opt out is the government knows those doing so are the ones that truly fund the system, those on the higher end of the income scale. Without us, those on the lower end wouldn't have a pot to piss in and someone it would be seen as our fault because we didn't want to be forced to fund a system that provides many of them with the only thing they'll ever have for money when they get old.

Social Security in large part protects society from having to support seniors who outlive their savings. Some don't save. The fact is that outliving your savings is a growing possibility. Dependence on SS doubles between the age of 70 and 80. That is a pretty big problem when the average retiree lives to 85.

The problem with Social Security is that it is run like i-don't-want-to-live-with-my-inlaws insurance. That is a system in which everyone like you says that I pay too much to keep my inlaws out of my house, and the inlaws ***** about living in poverty.

 

[Conservative65]

I guess all that I've been setting aside for retirement and the short term/long term disability insurance premiums I pay really haven't been going to retirement and those policies.

It's not the government's job to force you to buy any kind of insurance.

If people don't, that's their problem and not the place of government to hold their hand. You may need the government to do so but many of us don't.

What about auto insurance? Every state requires it.

Understand, SS isn't retirement insurance. It is old-age insurance. These are very different things. One insures you if you fail to save. The other pays you a small amount of liquidity so that you can plan your retirement.

My state requires auto insurance. However, there is a big difference in the reason behind what they require be purchased and the reason Timmy gave for SS being in place. Can you tell me?

Elaborate on the big difference. Insurance manages the cost of realized risk. You don't know how many auto wrecks that you will have so you buy insurance. You don't know how long you will live so you buy old-age insurance. Social Security carries more benefits than just old-age insurance, but the primary benefit is old-age insurance.

In my State, the only type of auto insurance required is liability. That isn't designed to protect me, it's designed to protect the other guy in case I'm at fault. Based on Timmy's reasoning behind supporting SS, it's designed to protect me.

I have save and invested so that I can provide for myself in older age. Unlike people who defend SS, I don't need the government forcing me to buy something I don't need. When I reach the age where I can start getting distributions, I will take it but it won't be because I need it. It will be because I was required to be a part of it and will gladly take it even if someone else needs it more.

Like I said to Timmy. The ONLY reason people aren't allowed to opt out is the government knows those doing so are the ones that truly fund the system, those on the higher end of the income scale. Without us, those on the lower end wouldn't have a pot to piss in and someone it would be seen as our fault because we didn't want to be forced to fund a system that provides many of them with the only thing they'll ever have for money when they get old.

Social Security in large part protects society from having to support seniors who outlive their savings. Some don't save. The fact is that outliving your savings is a growing possibility. Dependence on SS doubles between the age of 70 and 80. That is a pretty big problem when the average retiree lives to 85.

The problem with Social Security is that it is run like i-don't-want-to-live-with-my-inlaws insurance. That is a system in which everyone like you says that I pay too much to keep my inlaws out of my house, and the inlaws bitching about living in poverty.

Some don't save. That's not my problem nor is it justification to force anyone to be part of a program because they don't. That's the problem. The government mandates those of us that do and set our selves up financially to be part of a system because others aren't responsible.

It's not my responsibility to support someone's family member that outlived his/her savings. It's their family's job to do it.

The problem with social security is the government thinks one group, the higher income group, should be part of a system in order that the other, the irresponsible and/or low income groups can have something. Living in society doesn't make it the responsibility of one to pick up the slack of the other. You say people don't save. Not my problem. I didn't make the choice not to save. They did. That means it's not my place to be part of a system because they chose not to.

I'm not saying that SS should be disbanded. Let those who want to opt out do so. I add to that if they then don't do their part, let them pay the price as a result.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Some don't save. That's not my problem nor is it justification to force anyone to be part of a program because they don't. That's the problem. The government mandates those of us that do and set our selves up financially to be part of a system because others aren't responsible.

It's not my responsibility to support someone's family member that outlived his/her savings. It's their family's job to do it.

Society says that it is. The government taxes citizens, and sets priorities. You may not like it, but that is the beauty of the electoral process. Vote for people who support your view.

The problem with social security is the government thinks one group, the higher income group, should be part of a system in order that the other, the irresponsible and/or low income groups can have something. Living in society doesn't make it the responsibility of one to pick up the slack of the other. You say people don't save. Not my problem. I didn't make the choice not to save. They did. That means it's not my place to be part of a system because they chose not to.

I'm not saying that SS should be disbanded. Let those who want to opt out do so. I add to that if they then don't do their part, let them pay the price as a result.

I don't sense you fully understand how the system works or the size of the problems that it faces. The primary subsidy is not rich to poor. It is young to old and single to married. That doesn't justify it but that is the way it works.

If you let anyone opt-out, everyone would. The system has $25 trillion in promises it can't keep. Everyone leaves a burning house. So you are saying that the SS should be disbanded, but you just don't realize it. The problems within the system are larger than you realize.

 

[Conservative65]

Some don't save. That's not my problem nor is it justification to force anyone to be part of a program because they don't. That's the problem. The government mandates those of us that do and set our selves up financially to be part of a system because others aren't responsible.

It's not my responsibility to support someone's family member that outlived his/her savings. It's their family's job to do it.

Society says that it is. The government taxes citizens, and sets priorities. You may not like it, but that is the beauty of the electoral process. Vote for people who support your view.

The problem with social security is the government thinks one group, the higher income group, should be part of a system in order that the other, the irresponsible and/or low income groups can have something. Living in society doesn't make it the responsibility of one to pick up the slack of the other. You say people don't save. Not my problem. I didn't make the choice not to save. They did. That means it's not my place to be part of a system because they chose not to.

I'm not saying that SS should be disbanded. Let those who want to opt out do so. I add to that if they then don't do their part, let them pay the price as a result.

I don't sense you fully understand how the system works or the size of the problems that it faces. The primary subsidy is not rich to poor. It is young to old and single to married. That doesn't justify it but that is the way it works.

If you let anyone opt-out, everyone would. The system has $25 trillion in promises it can't keep. Everyone leaves a burning house. So you are saying that the SS should be disbanded, but you just don't realize it. The problems within the system are larger than you realize.

I fully understand how it works. Those working today fund the system for those receiving today and those receiving today funded the system for those receiving before them. Since the contributions and distributions are based on income, discussing things related to income are directly in line with it.

I'm saying those that want to opt out should be able to opt out. That doesn't mean it should be disbanded it means those that don't want to be a part of it shouldn't be forced to be a part of it and accept that if they choose not to do themselves, they do without later.

 

[AntonToo]

SS is nothing more than another handout program where those on the lower income end of life will get something far greater in return than they ever put in. Those on the upper income end are the ones funding the system. Without them, the system would fail financially. That's why they're required to be a part of it. It's just another way someone that makes if financially has to support those that didn't.

This is the standard conservative angle:

Rich are overburdened, poor are not pulling their weight. Let give rich tax cuts and tax the poor more.

Of course not a single politician is crazy enough to explicitly take up this position, but that's the out-on-the-moon base they have to work with. And then you wonder why they all lie to you.

 

[AntonToo]

I fully understand how it works. Those working today fund the system for those receiving today and those receiving today funded the system for those receiving before them. Since the contributions and distributions are based on income, discussing things related to income are directly in line with it.

I'm saying those that want to opt out should be able to opt out. That doesn't mean it should be disbanded it means those that don't want to be a part of it shouldn't be forced to be a part of it and accept that if they choose not to do themselves, they do without later.

And what happens when they miscalculate and are broke by their 65th? Are we now going to jump in a bail them all the same or maybe let them wallow in poverty and all the problems that causes?