Why exactly are lefty boomers so interested in tricking us into thinking we'll get social security?

[Mac1958]

I've always kind of wondered. It's not like we're going to stop paying for their benefits just because we won't get any at their age. We legally couldn't if we wanted to. We're not going to start demanding cuts to their benefits just because we won't get any either. The only effect I can see this having is convincing as many of us as possible not to invest in our own futures, with the only reason I can see for that being one last "**** you" to the grandkids before they pass on and let us try to figure out how to start cleaning up after them shitting all over us, our society, and our planet their entire lives in peace.

Social Security isn't going anywhere. There are plenty of tweaks that can be made.

Health care as the baby boomers age concerns me far more, and both parties have completely failed us there.
.

 

[SwimExpert]

Social Security isn't going anywhere.

One way or another, it's going somewhere. Whether by choice, or by virtue of bankruptcy.

There are plenty of tweaks that can be made.

Well, I suppose that technically we could "tweak" it so that you can't start collecting until you're 150, and limit the benefit to $4.25/month. But by that time, I think people will be painfully aware that it just don't work.

Health care as the baby boomers age concerns me far more, and both parties have completely failed us there.
.

And how is that any different than Social Security? Both are going broke. Both are impossible to maintain indefinitely. In both cases the only possibility is to delay the problem by increasing the degree to which tax payers are getting raped for an ever diminishing return upon retirement.

 

[Mac1958]

Social Security isn't going anywhere.

One way or another, it's going somewhere. Whether by choice, or by virtue of bankruptcy.

There are plenty of tweaks that can be made.

Well, I suppose that technically we could "tweak" it so that you can't start collecting until you're 150, and limit the benefit to $4.25/month. But by that time, I think people will be painfully aware that it just don't work.

Health care as the baby boomers age concerns me far more, and both parties have completely failed us there.
.

And how is that any different than Social Security? Both are going broke. Both are impossible to maintain indefinitely. In both cases the only possibility is to delay the problem by increasing the degree to which tax payers are getting raped for an ever diminishing return upon retirement.

Increase or eliminate the income cap and move starting benefits back a few years.

No big drama. Once the baby boomer population has peaked and is heading back down, the numbers can get better.

.

 

[kaz]

Conservatives have been predicting the demise of Social Security for 75 years

Bull. I'd ask you to back that up, but we both know you won't

 

[kaz]

And the solution is so simple: eliminate the earnings cap.

That and raise the age to 70 and SS is solvent

Better yet, raise the age to 170, and it'll be even more solvent!

You liberals always have the same solution for everything. Transfer even more wealth. You want to know how to make SS solvent? Simple: Eliminate it. Today. Everyone use the tax money they save and invest it in a 401K.

How can social security be "solvent" when it has no money? Not a dime has been saved. It was confiscated and spent on the spot

 

[SwimExpert]

And the solution is so simple: eliminate the earnings cap.

That and raise the age to 70 and SS is solvent

Better yet, raise the age to 170, and it'll be even more solvent!

You liberals always have the same solution for everything. Transfer even more wealth. You want to know how to make SS solvent? Simple: Eliminate it. Today. Everyone use the tax money they save and invest it in a 401K.

How can social security be "solvent" when it has no money? Not a dime has been saved. It was confiscated and spent on the spot

Did you even read what I wrote?

 

[my2¢]

I don't see Social Security going away, what else are we going to do, spend an even greater amount to bring back the county homes which the program eliminated? Just curious, have you young'uns even heard of "ending up in the poorhouse"?

 

[kaz]

And the solution is so simple: eliminate the earnings cap.

That and raise the age to 70 and SS is solvent

Better yet, raise the age to 170, and it'll be even more solvent!

You liberals always have the same solution for everything. Transfer even more wealth. You want to know how to make SS solvent? Simple: Eliminate it. Today. Everyone use the tax money they save and invest it in a 401K.

How can social security be "solvent" when it has no money? Not a dime has been saved. It was confiscated and spent on the spot

Did you even read what I wrote?

Yes, it doesn't contradict what I said. You said it's "solvent" and it isn't, it's broke now

 

[SwimExpert]

And the solution is so simple: eliminate the earnings cap.

That and raise the age to 70 and SS is solvent

Better yet, raise the age to 170, and it'll be even more solvent!

You liberals always have the same solution for everything. Transfer even more wealth. You want to know how to make SS solvent? Simple: Eliminate it. Today. Everyone use the tax money they save and invest it in a 401K.

How can social security be "solvent" when it has no money? Not a dime has been saved. It was confiscated and spent on the spot

Did you even read what I wrote?

Yes, it doesn't contradict what I said. You said it's "solvent" and it isn't, it's broke now

I guess the problem then is reading comprehension. If I'm saying that the only way to make it solvent is to get rid of it, then that means it has no ability to actually be solvent. This type of irony is typically understood at a 4th grade reading level. I guess you still have some work to do.

 

[SwimExpert]

I don't see Social Security going away, what else are we going to do, spend an even greater amount to bring back the county homes which the program eliminated? Just curious, have you young'uns even heard of "ending up in the poorhouse"?
View attachment 49392

What do you think modern day nursing homes are?

 

[Granny]

So ... I'm not a boomer (thank God). I'm what is called a "war baby" - born during WWII. I think Social Security began in the 1930s and contrary to popular belief it is not an "entitlement" in the sense that "entitlement" is so freely tossed around these days. It is "earned" by employers paying into Social Security an amount based on current salary of each employee and each employee has a matching amount taken off the top of their paycheck ("FICA tax") along with federal, state or other applicable income taxes.

Not too long ago, DOL issued new regulations regarding home healthcare workers who were previously classified in the same category as babysitters who get paid whatever they get paid, period - no overtime time. The new regs. make it so that home healthcare workers would now be paid time and a half for everything over 40 hours a week. My boss threw an absolute fit right in front of me when I stopped by one day to turn in my time sheet. She was not going to pay anybody overtime pay and was going to have to reschedule everybody's hours so that no one would have more than 40 hours a week. Well, having worked for labor lawyers, I came home, turned on my computer and looked up the DOL regs. Hmmm - does not apply to independent contractors - and everybody who works for my boss is an independent contractor. I just kept my mouth shut and let the boss stew in her own juices until a few months later when she learned apparently from the state auditor that the regs. did not apply to independent contractors. They don't want to be bothered with the issue of having to deduct taxes and reporting FICA, etc. So at the end of the year we all get 1099s. That means, for IRS purposes, I am a business owner. I have to pay FICA taxes as an employer AND as my only employee in my non-existent "business." I have to pay a matching employee FICA in addition to my federal income taxes. In other words - roughly 15% of my tax dollars is FICA taxes. I do not see ONE PENNY of those FICA taxes going toward an increase in my base Social Security. Every penny of it goes into the Social Security Trust Fund to help cover those future retirees who come long after I'm dead and gone. If current Social Security recipients are lucky, we might get a 1 or 1-1/2% COL increase - provided Congress decides a cost of living increase is necessary. They're going to give themselves a raise, COL or not.

Social Security IS a Trust Fund, and as such, should not be borrowed from or otherwise tampered with and managed wisely with growth in mind as other Trust Funds are managed. I think we all know that Congress has borrowed money from this Trust Fund with empty promises to repay such borrowed money - which has never be repaid. So, yes, there is a problem with Social Security and maybe the time to end (or phase it out) has come. There are so many retirement plans these days, whether employer sponsored or private plans, that were not available back when Social Security was established. On the other hand, jobs are damned hard to come by these days and today's young workers don't stick around one job long enough to establish a good retirement benefit. They job hop every year or so hoping to get higher pay for today as opposed to looking to the future income they might need. I don't know the answer.

First, as a war-baby you haven't paid 15.3% your whole career, which started in 1990. You likely started work when the rate was about 5% of your first $5,000. Yes you have paid for it - just not close to the actual price.

The Trust Fund is separate, and hasn't been temppered with since 1939.

Why should we phase it out? Just end it. If we phase it out, it is we get ours because we paid in. You get nothing, having paid in substantially more.

I think one of us is confused here. First, my work career started one week after high school graduation in June, 1962 and my starting pay was $52/week plus overtime and holiday pay. Good job, too. Second, I didn't say I paid in 15% my entire career. I've only been doing that the last 3 years as an independent contractor for the same company to supplement the Social Security payments I've been receiving and because I don't to sit home on my ass doing nothing. The pay sucks compared to what I was making when I quit the rat race, but the reward in knowing that I made someone else's life a little better for one more day is priceless.

I think my post was partially a retort to all these children of entitlement who ***** and moan about how much the old useless geezers like me are "robbing" from them because they have to support us and there will be nothing left for them. And our Medicare coverage is not free, either. Roughly $100 a month is taken right off the top of our Social Security payments. NOTHING in life is free - somewhere along the line, somebody paid for something right down to the little freebies and fliers passed out at the county fair.

 

[Buzz Jenkins]

They want us to keep funding SS because if political will shifts and we stop funding it because it is a black hole, then they will not get any upon retirement.

 

[Buzz Jenkins]

I've always kind of wondered. It's not like we're going to stop paying for their benefits just because we won't get any at their age. We legally couldn't if we wanted to. We're not going to start demanding cuts to their benefits just because we won't get any either. The only effect I can see this having is convincing as many of us as possible not to invest in our own futures, with the only reason I can see for that being one last "**** you" to the grandkids before they pass on and let us try to figure out how to start cleaning up after them shitting all over us, our society, and our planet their entire lives in peace.

The Baby Boomers are the most self centered, greediest generation ever. Their parents made huge sacrifices during WWII, but all the Boomers know how to do is take, take, take and leave a path of destruction in their wake.

You are absolutely right about the baby boomers. These ******* creeps differed from their parents substantially. They are spendthrifts. They generally have no respect for marriage, as they divorce and re-marry at will unlike their ancestors). The Boomers seem to be the first generation that normalized divorce and broken families.

Boomers moved us to the left in the 60s, then abandoned their ideals in favor of mini vans and stock options..,total lack of character. They enabled the leftist movement in this country. They caused the normalization of illegal and dangerous drug use. They were the first generation to normalize social relativity, where there is no right or wrong; there are no absolutes anymore thanks to Boomers.

STDs were ushered in as normal thanks to Boomers, when before them STDs were only prevalent among whores and Sailors. Boomers also gave us legal abortion thanks to their compromised and corrupted sense of morality. Narcissism was made a cultural normality by the Boomers; it never was before them.

I can probably go on and on. Suffice it to say that there is a palpable irony here: the Greatest Generation gave birth to the Shittiest Generation.

 

[francoHFW]

I've always kind of wondered. It's not like we're going to stop paying for their benefits just because we won't get any at their age. We legally couldn't if we wanted to. We're not going to start demanding cuts to their benefits just because we won't get any either. The only effect I can see this having is convincing as many of us as possible not to invest in our own futures, with the only reason I can see for that being one last "**** you" to the grandkids before they pass on and let us try to figure out how to start cleaning up after them shitting all over us, our society, and our planet their entire lives in peace.

The Baby Boomers are the most self centered, greediest generation ever. Their parents made huge sacrifices during WWII, but all the Boomers know how to do is take, take, take and leave a path of destruction in their wake.

You are absolutely right about the baby boomers. These ******* creeps differed from their parents substantially. They are spendthrifts. They generally have no respect for marriage, as they divorce and re-marry at will unlike their ancestors). The Boomers seem to be the first generation that normalized divorce and broken families.

Boomers moved us to the left in the 60s, then abandoned their ideals in favor of mini vans and stock options..,total lack of character. They enabled the leftist movement in this country. They caused the normalization of illegal and dangerous drug use. They were the first generation to normalize social relativity, where there is no right or wrong; there are no absolutes anymore thanks to Boomers.

STDs were ushered in as normal thanks to Boomers, when before them STDs were only prevalent among whores and Sailors. Boomers also gave us legal abortion thanks to their compromised and corrupted sense of morality. Narcissism was made a cultural normality by the Boomers; it never was before them.

I can probably go on and on. Suffice it to say that there is a palpable irony here: the Greatest Generation gave birth to the Shittiest Generation.

What a load. The GOP and BS Reaganism HAVE wrecked the middle class and the country, but we are beginning to reform again. Choice is better than having 5k+ women DYING from illegal abortions a year, and free birth control FINALLY will make abortions rare. Blaming Boomers for being fooled by Reaganism is idiotic. Reaganism is the problem. Stupid, hypocritical, and only supported by lies at this point.

 

[francoHFW]

They want us to keep funding SS because if political will shifts and we stop funding it because it is a black hole, then they will not get any upon retirement.

SS is fine. You are of course ridiculously misinformed.

 

[TooTall]

Social Security isn't going anywhere.

One way or another, it's going somewhere. Whether by choice, or by virtue of bankruptcy.

There are plenty of tweaks that can be made.

Well, I suppose that technically we could "tweak" it so that you can't start collecting until you're 150, and limit the benefit to $4.25/month. But by that time, I think people will be painfully aware that it just don't work.

Health care as the baby boomers age concerns me far more, and both parties have completely failed us there.
.

And how is that any different than Social Security? Both are going broke. Both are impossible to maintain indefinitely. In both cases the only possibility is to delay the problem by increasing the degree to which tax payers are getting raped for an ever diminishing return upon retirement.

Increase or eliminate the income cap and move starting benefits back a few years.

No big drama. Once the baby boomer population has peaked and is heading back down, the numbers can get better.

.

If you eliminate the income cap you have done nothing. Benefits are paid at retirement based on the amount paid in so if you raise or eliminate the income cap you must raise the maximum benefit.

 

[Mac1958]

Social Security isn't going anywhere.

One way or another, it's going somewhere. Whether by choice, or by virtue of bankruptcy.

There are plenty of tweaks that can be made.

Well, I suppose that technically we could "tweak" it so that you can't start collecting until you're 150, and limit the benefit to $4.25/month. But by that time, I think people will be painfully aware that it just don't work.

Health care as the baby boomers age concerns me far more, and both parties have completely failed us there.
.

And how is that any different than Social Security? Both are going broke. Both are impossible to maintain indefinitely. In both cases the only possibility is to delay the problem by increasing the degree to which tax payers are getting raped for an ever diminishing return upon retirement.

Increase or eliminate the income cap and move starting benefits back a few years.

No big drama. Once the baby boomer population has peaked and is heading back down, the numbers can get better.

.

If you eliminate the income cap you have done nothing. Benefits are paid at retirement based on the amount paid in so if you raise or eliminate the income cap you must raise the maximum benefit.

In this scenario, we probably couldn't raise benefits. Not exactly fair, no, but I'd guess that's what would happen, at least for a while.
.

 

[bripat9643]

There is no doubt you'll get your Social Security.

There's plenty of doubt, fool.

 

[francoHFW]

Only on Pubworld, dupe. AARP's #1 Myth...

 

[bripat9643]

Only on Pubworld, dupe. AARP's #1 Myth...

AARP is a socialist propaganda organ.