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.
Yes, they can. The government does it for them for Social Security. If you can't save, then do what they did in the "old days" -- work till the day you die. For those who lament their low economic station in life, it's like Judge Smails said in the movie Caddyshack -- Yeah, well. The world needs ditch diggers, too."It's not foolproof"... I mean, you just about summed up why most governments have a safety net.
Some people can't afford to save 7.6% of their income.
Yes, they can. The government does it for them for Social Security. If you can't save, then do what they did in the "old days" -- work till the day you die. For those who lament their low economic station in life, it's like Judge Smails said in the movie Caddyshack -- Yeah, well. The world needs ditch diggers, too.
Not a taunt. Just the reality some people make for themselves.
Actually it's not just some people.Everyone on social security uses more than they personally paid into it.Thing is that some people might get more out of social security than they've put in.
Inflation causes HUGE PROBLEMS for your argument. Imagine I save 7.6% and then inflation hits 200% for 6 months... all of a sudden everything I saved is worthless.
They aren't supposed to get more than they put in. Your inflation argument is irrelevant. Save more. Doesn't suffice? That doesn't entitle you to other people's money. Americans survived for the first 170 years without Social Security. It was rough, but they simply dealt with it as best they could. There is no right to retire.Thing is that some people might get more out of social security than they've put in.
Inflation causes HUGE PROBLEMS for your argument. Imagine I save 7.6% and then inflation hits 200% for 6 months... all of a sudden everything I saved is worthless
Actually it's not just some people.Everyone on social security uses more than they personally paid into it.
They aren't supposed to get more than they put in. Your inflation argument is irrelevant. Save more. Doesn't suffice? That doesn't entitle you to other people's money. Americans survived for the first 170 years without Social Security. It was rough, but they simply dealt with it as best they could. There is no right to retire.
www.statista.com
I decline of the church in the mid-sixties coincides with the broadening of government social welfare programs.
Yes, Americans "survived" for 170 years without social security.
Dueling definitions of survival, inflation, and life expectancy aren't the central issue. The central issue is self reliance. No one has a Constitutional right to someone else's money -- I don't care how badly they SAY they need it. Poverty and adversity are relative. Poverty isn't about driving around in an SUV while they complain about their financial struggles. Hunger isn't about a woman 50 pounds overweight standing before media cameras talking about how her children are going hungry. Take a "poor person" in this country and force them to live in the Sudan for six months. Then see if they still think they are poor. It's as the saying the saying goes -- I felt sorry for a man who had no shoes until I met a man who had no feet. If I want to help, that should be my business and mine alone. Can't make it? Well, you can serve as an example for others to learn from.No, my inflation argument is not irrelevant at all.
If you save money, and then you lose money because you're saving it, then it means you need to save more.
Also, saving money means money isn't circulating. It's better for poor people to be spending their money now, than saving it up. The govt takes the money, and spends it, then when inflation goes up, they take money at the inflated rate to pay for things.
Yes, Americans "survived" for 170 years without social security.
Life expectancy has risen from below 40 in 1880 to 78 in modern times. A huge difference.
United States: life expectancy 1860-2020 | Statista
Over the past 160 years, life expectancy (from birth) in the United States has risen from 39.4 years in 1860, to 78.9 years in 2020.
Life expectancy has increased because people don't die from not being able to work.
So the "survive" part is WRONG, a lot of people simply did not survive.
Dueling definitions of survival, inflation, and life expectancy aren't the central issue. The central issue is self reliance. No one has a Constitutional right to someone else's money -- I don't care how badly they SAY they need it. Poverty and adversity are relative. Poverty isn't about driving around in an SUV while they complain about their financial struggles. Hunger isn't about a woman 50 pounds overweight standing before media cameras talking about how her children are going hungry. Take a "poor person" in this country and force them to live in the Sudan for six months. Then see if they still think they are poor. It's as the saying the saying goes -- I felt sorry for a man who had no shoes until I met a man who had no feet. If I want to help, that should be my business and mine alone. Can't make it? Well, you can serve as an example for others to learn from.
Yes, ban ALL subsidies. Eliminate student loans (go to a bank). Eliminate small government loans (go to a bank).The issue is that many people who are on programs like medicare and social security have already used.Not only every single penny they've ever paid into the programs, But every penny their children have paid into them as well.
If this were Inactive The vast majority of people on medicare and social security would immediately lose their benefits because they've already used up all the money they themselves have paid into it. Are they going to have to pay back the money that they used that was more than their personal contribution?
Also with this include corporate welfare as well. Are we going to ban all government subsidies to private interests And all government grants?
Wealthier.I think the question is outside the scope of what I was asking -- or at least irrelevant. For the sake of discussion, simply assume the program is eliminated and a payout given to each individual passed on the amount they contributed. I'm looking for a description of what America would look like. If it helps, then I'll redefine as follows: If our current federal and state government were compelled to limit their spending to the outlays type done by those governments in 1920, what would America look like from cultural standpoint in 20 years?
Rhetoric. If we hadn't stolen $33 trillion from countless future generations because "self reliance isn't possible", then those precious entitlement programs would have died long ago. They will die within the next 30 years (or shrivel to virtually nothing). It is inevitable. No one has "died from poverty" in this country for the past 100 years (probably much longer) -- even before the entitlements. Yes, some died of medical problems. But I refuse to believe that someone who smokes and drinks to excess should get a free heart transplant.And, as just about every civilized country has realized, sometimes self reliance isn't possible when you're DEAD.
It’s too late for old people like me, but if you started that among the 20, to 30 something’s, it would have a chance.Yes.
Rhetoric. If we hadn't stolen $33 trillion from countless future generations because "self reliance isn't possible", then those precious entitlement programs would have died long ago. They will die within the next 30 years (or shrivel to virtually nothing). It is inevitable. No one has "died from poverty" in this country for the past 100 years (probably much longer) -- even before the entitlements. Yes, some died of medical problems. But I refuse to believe that someone who smokes and drinks to excess should get a free heart transplant.
Bush wanted to try that with a fraction of the SS withholding…It triggered the left.Agree completely. Sadly, we have sucked aways trillions from their futures courtesy of that humongous national debt.
