Unfortunately because we have redistributed so much it will take few decades to transition into a true safety net if we ever did. Spare me "fairness" as you think "fairness" is screwing your kids and their peers just because you were screwed. Well you might actually get what you paid for while your dad gets more than he paid for. In a general answer. We need to work towards lowering FICA taxes. And means test the benefits. Dont tell me your dad would need SS to stay out of poverty based on your definition of his situation earlier.
It’s not that you shouldn’t. It’s that the money was redistributed to your parents and are we willing to acknowledge that and not take more from our future generations like it was taken from us…
I posted earlier in the thread where the example you provided would fund the individual's SS benefits for 34 years when earnings on the SS fund investments in US Treasuries were considered. If you think the SS program is a ponzi scheme, okay ...... but I provided information that the retiree example you provided fully funded his/her SS benefit for over three decades. How many SS beneficiaries receive a monthly benefit for more than 408 months? Further, what needs to be considered is how many Americans fund into the SS program and never receive a benefit. I have two brothers-in-law who each worked and paid SS for more than 40 years yet never received any benefit due to early deaths. Now,I expect their spouses likely received higher "spousal" benefits upon their passing but that results in the funds their spouses paid into SS never being paid out. So, if I consider each brothers-in-law and their surviving spouse as a single SS beneficiary .... neither of those spousal units will ever receive what they jointly paid into SS plus the related compounded investment earnings on those deferrals. I'm not sure SS is a ponzi scheme but ... think the long-term financial viability of the fund may be in question due to mismanagement (providing lower earners much higher returns on their deferrals than higher wage earners) and lower than expected investment returns than anticipated in past actuarial calculations.
Zero specifics. Do you even have a concept of a plan? And is it fair for people to pay into a system and never receive a dime back because someone like you claimed they didn't "need" it? Your concept of a "true safety net" requires actual planning and specifics. So spill it. Otherwise, it's nothing more than an empty platitude signifying nothing. And why is it should someone like me plan for retirement, having used basic SS payments as part of that equation have the rug pulled out from under me when I'm about a dozen plus years away from retirement because, as part of my planning, I did save enough to stay above some poverty line? And you think I don't deserve SS? Our plans include traveling, which without SS income, likely won't happen. It changes the math completely. And my father would be above the poverty line, but forget sending each kid a $100 bill every Christmas. Or flying to see his grandkids and great grandkid who live in Phoenix when he lives in N. California. His entire pension would go to pay for necessities only. The SS covers the rest. And why shouldn't he get it back? He paid into to for four decades. Who are you to tell him he doesn't deserve anything back?
The example I made was using max taxable. The vast majority pay much less in. And the average check is around $2K I believe which is less than the number I used in my example but that was just to try and show what AZ’s dad was getting. I consider social security a redistribution program. And it should be reformed to means test and tax at much lower rates. But enough to support those who can’t help themselves. That way most can keep more of their money and have it later in their lives. Reality is we all need to sacrifice because we are paying AZ’s dad/my parents/millions of others every day as they never paid enough in to support what the government promised.
He has already gotten it all back. Why should he get more? Just because the government promised it? I have said many times I would over time reduce the rate and max taxable and means test it. Forget sending your kids $100? Come on man! Your neighbor is paying for that as your dad has already been paid everything he paid in and more.
Social Security is an insurance policy on retirement. Some people could do better, some worse and it moves people toward the center so there is a minimum level of retirement. How much of a dog eat dog country do you want to live in? A minimum level of decency for old folks seems worth 6%. I guess.
In terms of dollar figures, yes. He's getting more than what he paid. But factor in inflation? And no. He's getting back what he paid. Because $1 in 1960 is now worth over $10. If you think inflation doesn't matter, buy $100 worth of good today and stuff a $100 bill under your mattress. Then 30 years from now, take it out and see how much less you can buy for the same $100. What are the means test levels? Poverty rate? Is there a sliding scale? And who decides on said scale? And wouldn't be unfair for someone who paid into the system for decades might get nothing in return because their own savings puts them just above your scale?
He has gotten everything and more. That is why we have to force your kids to pay more to receive less. And that will not actually solve the problem. It will just push it down the road. We have to means test. I get you don’t care about a true safety net. It sucks fdr created a redistribution program and not a safety net. Someone has to sacrifice now. Clearly you don’t care if it is our kids and grandkids.
If only lol. Sure 6% (three employee/three employer) and means testing. Let’s go. But that is not what we are doing.
Great idea. Run on that. Cutting social security in half. Seems as wise as any post you make on here.
I respect your position but ….. without verifiable substantive evidence to show “we are paying AZ’s dad/my parents/millions of others every day as they never paid enough in to support what the government promised” I can’t jump on that bandwagon especially when the example on this very discussion indicates otherwise. I believe mismanagement, inadequate investment returns, and inaccurate actuarial assumptions have likely contributed to a much greater degree to the projected deficiencies in the SS fund than deficiencies in the contribution of “taxes” by wage earners and their employers.
I 100% know you can’t run on what needs to be done. So we deal with it. I will work within the system knowing it is wrong and really criminal to future generations. But I am ready to discuss how to move this to what it should be. A true safety net. It’s a bipartisan problem. As it is human nature for all of us to want ours. And we should be upset. It is why fdr is arguably the worst President ever. He created a version of a Ponzi scheme we cannot fix now. If only he had created an actual safety net. And lol on the cheap shot. Maybe you think your daughter and granddaughter should compete against males and maybe you are still taking a covid shot (know those are two issues we disagree on). But you have plenty of puns that are not willing to correct the disaster fdr created. I understand that. I am just trying to get people to look at the real situation and then try to look their kids in the eye when they do so.
SS is not sustainable. Why? It did not collect enough to pay for its promises. The only solution is to make younger generations pay more. The actually is the technical definition of a Ponzi scheme by the way. So what is our solution increase cost to the younger generation and give them less. And reality is those things only push it down the road.
SS has always had children paying more when you look at it in just dollar number totals. But again, that's not a fair assessment. If I gave you $100 to spend 30 years ago, and you finally repay me today, in terms of dollar amount, we're equal. In terms of dollar value, I'm out about $110, because of inflation. A means test sounds great, but how do you make it fair? If person A and I make about the same during our lifetime, if I save enough to retirement but A doesn't, why should his retirement income be supplemented by my income not? Wouldn't that be screwing me over for paying into a system and receiving nothing in return? And again the system works in reducing poverty among American seniors. Do we use the poverty line as the means test? Is that really fair again to those of us who are middle class while working, but without SS, in the future, be much closer to the poverty line? Why would we want to pay into the system at all? SS isn't perfect. And I don't mind changing some ages for contributions. But overall, the system works. And kids have always been paying more for the last 90 years.
I am too manly to produce girl offspring, maybe you should have lifted more as a youth. All boys for me. Regardless, I rarely weigh in on those silly threads. If fact, I am not sure I every have other than to reiterate that all sports have a governing body that should regulate fairness and safety, not the federal government. That is a conservative viewpoint of mine. One of my manly boys is an ER doctor. Turns out, vaccinations supposedly work but since you are an internet poster I'll rethink that position.
SS has never collected enough to pay the promises it promised. Stop thinking inflation has anything to do with it. Your dad/my parents/millions of others are currently getting more than they paid for. If this was a company. It would have been bankrupt long ago. But it is the government. Which can force our future generations to pay more even though that never truly fixes the actuarial problem with the program. Just think if we were using inflation for the max taxable...right now the max taxable in dollars is more than double what it should be since inception.
He is a rare doctor if he still suggests taking the covid shot. With regards to vaccinations. My kids have taken many. I have as well. Now the flu shot is different. There are still more doctors that probably recommend it. But the nuance in medicine says it really is up to the patient. I personally do not understand why doctors still think the flu shot is so worthwhile other than there really is no safety concerns with it. The efficacy is terrible. And outside being elderly and not healthy. There is no real risk to the flu. But yes I have two Strong Daughters and Strong Son as well. All crushing it. Like…
Please explain why inflation has no impact on SS? Do you honestly think $100 paid into the system 30 years ago equals $100 today?
