Zone1 Social security a socialist program supported by the Trump administration ?

[ThunderKiss1965]

No talk of "socialism" overcomes my point that the valuation is the dollar not the type of work.

You have a reading comprehension issue. I did not say anything about socialism. I rightfully called Social Security a Ponzi scheme.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I have told you that is a stupid statement. Untrue, do you get it?

 

[beagle9]

Social Security is the biggest Ponzi scheme in history.

Needs to be fixed and preserved for seniors only. Gotta give the younger generations something visable to work towards and be hopeful for.

 

[beagle9]

You have a reading comprehension issue. I did not say anything about socialism. I rightfully called Social Security a Ponzi scheme.

The socialist part is where there is no descernment when it comes to worker requirements having to adhere to the same retirement age as another, and having to do so regardless of the physical and mental health of the individuals being worlds apart.

 

[d0gbreath]

If it was a socialist program, they wouldn't be giving me my money back in small increments.
May the good Lord bless me with enough years to get it all back.

 

[beagle9]

If it was a socialist program, they wouldn't be giving me my money back in small increments.
May the good Lord bless me with enough years to get it all back.

Don't be silly ... Not sure how old you are, but if you stand by as a young person, and all the while within your view (the senior citizen's of this USA are simply disrespected, disregarded, abused, lied too, and worst of all stolen from), then don't expect anything to change when it's your turn to take their place, because unfortunately it's only going to get worse.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Don't be silly ... Not sure how old you are, but if you stand by as a young person, and all the while within your view (the senior citizen's of this USA are simply disrespected, disregarded, abused, lied too, and worst of all stolen from), then don't expect anything to change when it's your turn to take their place, because unfortunately it's only going to get worse.

If we don't take care of our senior citizens, we are a pitiful people.

 

[ding]

being somehow equal when it comes to their retirement

But it’s not. It’s based upon contributions into the fund.

 

[task0778]

The United States Social Security Administration (SSA) is an independent agency of the U.S. federal government that administers Social Security, a social insurance program consisting of retirement, disability and survivor benefits. The gov't does not run it or fund it per se, and the SSA trustees file reports on the financial status of the trust fund. There is no fraud involved, nobody is lied to or deceived and that is why describing SS as a Ponzi scheme is wrong. There are similarities, but a Ponzi scheme pays out to early investors right away, while SSA doesn't.

The other thing is, a gov't funded socialist program pays out to people whether they contributed anything or not. But if you didn't pay into SSA then you don't get to draw anything out, unless your spouse did and you can get paid based on his/her earnings.

And finally, Trump and every other politician living or dead has supported SSA cuz it's political suicide not to. For sure the program needs to be adjusted to meet the demands of the current society we live in, if we want to continue to support the current benefits. But the gov't shouldn't fund it, they just need to fix it to keep it solvent.

 

[beagle9]

But it’s not. It’s based upon contributions into the fund.

Yes that's ok, but it also should be set up and based on career fields also. If you are in a career field that only has a 35 year window that shows the person must get out or face debilitating factors if remain, then that person should be able to retire at 62 years of age once serves his or her full term in that specific career field.

Ok here's how it should be set up below going forward.

1. Underwater welder = Great pay, benefits and hazardous pay within the 35 year window time frame set to retire from that highly dangerous field. Note - This career field should have a higher pay check SS deduction than say a carpenter or mechanic in those career fields has.

Example - Underwater welder = $12.00 deduction as opposed to a carpenter or mechanic that would have a $9.00 deduction.

This allows the underwater welder to retire at 62 when the mechanic or carpenter might be required to go to 64 as is rated in their career fields at the lower $9.00 deduction per week for those career fields out of their paychecks.

This would do away with the socialist aspect of the program, and it recognizes that career fields are different, and certain careers all due to their intensity will not be held to the same time lines as the lesser intense careers that allow the person to retire at a slightly later date.

 

[ding]

Yes that's ok, but it also should be set up and based on career fields also. If you are in a career field that only has a 35 year window that shows the person must get out or face debilitating factors if remain, then that person should be able to retire at 62 years of age once serves his or her full term in that specific career field.

Ok here's how it should be set up below going forward.

1. Underwater welder = Great pay, benefits and hazardous pay within the 35 year window time frame set to retire from that highly dangerous field. Note - This career field should have a higher pay check SS deduction than say a carpenter or mechanic in those career fields has.

Example - Underwater welder = $12.00 deduction as opposed to a carpenter or mechanic that would have a $9.00 deduction.

This allows the underwater welder to retire at 62 when the mechanic or carpenter might be required to go to 64 as is rated in their career fields at the lower $9.00 deduction per week for those career fields out of their paychecks.

This would do away with the socialist aspect of the program, and it recognizes that career fields are different, and certain careers all due to their intensity will not be held to the same time lines as the lesser intense careers that allow the person to retire at a slightly later date.

As near as I can tell it’s based upon earnings and has built in flexibility to allow the individual to decide when he starts taking his benefits based upon what works best for him.

 

[beagle9]

As near as I can tell it’s based upon earnings and has built in flexibility to allow the individual to decide when he starts taking his benefits based upon what works best for him.

Yep I think so, but you see politicians attempting to say thing's and work in ways that attempts to place everyone regardless of their past career fields into the same timeline boats together, and if they have to break with the imposed blanketing timeline, then it punishes them equally if they are just worn completely out and want to go at 62 instead of 65, 67 or 70.

The deductions based on career fields should be highly considered in order to allow heavily intense highly dangerous career fields to retire earlier than those who are working easier career fields, otherwise that aren't as intense on their mind's or upon their physical being.

 

[ding]

Yep I think so, but you see politicians attempting to say thing's and work in ways that attempts to place everyone regardless of their past career fields into the same timeline boats together, and if they have to break with the imposed blanketing timeline, then it punishes them equally if they are just worn completely out and want to go at 62 instead of 65, 67 or 70.

The deductions based on career fields should be highly considered in order to allow heavily intense highly dangerous career fields to retire earlier than those who are working easier career fields, otherwise that aren't as intense on their mind's or upon their physical being.

I’m not sure how that would be administered. The less they muck around with it the better as far as I’m concerned.

 

[task0778]

Yep I think so, but you see politicians attempting to say thing's and work in ways that attempts to place everyone regardless of their past career fields into the same timeline boats together, and if they have to break with the imposed blanketing timeline, then it punishes them equally if they are just worn completely out and want to go at 62 instead of 65, 67 or 70.

The deductions based on career fields should be highly considered in order to allow heavily intense highly dangerous career fields to retire earlier than those who are working easier career fields, otherwise that aren't as intense on their mind's or upon their physical being.

I am not sure that what you're proposing is practical or feasible. How do you handle people switching jobs into or out of a dangerous career field? How do you handle changes to the career field designation as dangerous or not? Who's going to make those calls? How are you going to authenticate somebody's designation to be accurate? Sounds like an increased chance of fraud to me. I think you would need a lot more SSA employees than you do now to verify the data. Plus it's going to cost a lot to rewrite the SSA programming and quite a bit of time to get it right.

I think people go into dangerous career fields voluntarily; they know what they're doing and no doubt they are highly paid to do it. In some cases, the people in those careers get an early pension, like the military does after 20 years of service.

 

[beagle9]

I’m not sure how that would be administered. The less they muck around with it the better as far as I’m concerned.

Nothing wrong with making it better, and far more of a righteous program that government and seniors can be proud of.

 

[beagle9]

I am not sure that what you're proposing is practical or feasible. How do you handle people switching jobs into or out of a dangerous career field? How do you handle changes to the career field designation as dangerous or not? Who's going to make those calls? How are you going to authenticate somebody's designation to be accurate? Sounds like an increased chance of fraud to me. I think you would need a lot more SSA employees than you do now to verify the data. Plus it's going to cost a lot to rewrite the SSA programming and quite a bit of time to get it right.

I think people go into dangerous career fields voluntarily; they know what they're doing and no doubt they are highly paid to do it. In some cases, the people in those careers get an early pension, like the military does after 20 years of service.

All the things you bring up are easy to work out, otherwise it's flat out amazing at what technology especially AI is capable of today.

Career fields would be rated, so if one goes in and out of the career fields, then the rate of deduction would be adjusted based upon the change made.

Example - Underwater welder is rated at risk level 12 in the SS system for one example vs. Matress tester that is in the furniture making business, and that would have a risk level rating of say 8.

Ok, so it depends on how long one serves in either career field that would then determine the time of departure for retirement out of the workforce.

Example 1 - Underwater welder if served for the majority of his time as an underwater welder (65% for example), and having a higher rate of deduction due to that high risk career field, then it should allow the person to retire at the age of say 59 to then draw his full retirement benefit at that age.

Example 2 - Matress Tester, if served in that career field for 65% of their time, and at the lower rate deduction, then that person will be forced to retire at a later age (65 for example), in order to draw their full retirement benefit.

So this is how the system should be operating out of fairness to the worker's.

High risk vs low risk is the big issue, and physical and mental degradation should absolutely be considered in the make up of these government run program's.

Socialism is a bad idea, and it screws people over bad in the end.

The system has seemingly been set up in hopes that people die on their job's before ever collecting their government managed pensions/retirement SS incomes that they had worked for.

 

[beagle9]

The United States Social Security Administration (SSA) is an independent agency of the U.S. federal government that administers Social Security, a social insurance program consisting of retirement, disability and survivor benefits. The gov't does not run it or fund it per se, and the SSA trustees file reports on the financial status of the trust fund. There is no fraud involved, nobody is lied to or deceived and that is why describing SS as a Ponzi scheme is wrong. There are similarities, but a Ponzi scheme pays out to early investors right away, while SSA doesn't.

The other thing is, a gov't funded socialist program pays out to people whether they contributed anything or not. But if you didn't pay into SSA then you don't get to draw anything out, unless your spouse did and you can get paid based on his/her earnings.

And finally, Trump and every other politician living or dead has supported SSA cuz it's political suicide not to. For sure the program needs to be adjusted to meet the demands of the current society we live in, if we want to continue to support the current benefits. But the gov't shouldn't fund it, they just need to fix it to keep it solvent.

So what about the billions that were being stolen or given to illegals without we (the working people's permission) ????

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Yes we are capitalist, but we also utilize socialist program's and such in ways to preserve capitalist wealth for the wealthy who don't want to share that wealth in ways that upholds a proper decently run civilized retirement plan for those who worked hard in life to give them the wealth that was generated by a capitalist system in their favor.

Then get wealthy. Capitalism doesn't stop anyone from getting rich. In socialism only the elite obtain wealth.

 

[initforme]

The only way to win is to retire very very early, like in ones 40s. Working into oness 60s is too long. Imagine if ten million people just walked off the job tomorrow en masse. No harm done.

 

[Moonglow]

Disability helped me through trying times with medical problems....I am grateful to the Department of Social Security, USDA/FMHA, and the Veterans Administration. You are better off having it than not having it