Quick Poll

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by joeydb

One recipient was brave enough to be honest.

If you are on SS are you a recipient?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by bigrun

If you are on SS are you a recipient?

Unfortunately, yes.

I say unfortunately as all of us are forced into paying for this Ponzi scheme, which after paying for the typical 45 years from age 22 to age 67, wil not yield any gains. In fact, you will be paid a "benefit" less than you paid in, in principal only - no yield, and you will be taxed on it again. It was taxed the first time, and then it's taxed again. In addition, the original premise of "your employer pays half" is a farce. If you have a job paying $100,000 a year (just to keep the math easy), and the SS tax is 8%, you get $92,000 before all other taxes are subtracted, and your employer is presumed to pay another $8000. But the cost to your employer of retaining your labor is $108,000, not $100,000. The fact that you didn't see $108,000 as your gross pay is irrelevant.

It's also unfortunate in that this program breeds dependence, as it was designed to do. There is no trust fund, no lock box. The 22 year old young worker is paying for the guy who retired yesterday. There are many less new suckers coming into the system than the people retiring who, understandably, believe they are entitled to what has been sold to them as a benefit. Interestingly. even though most of us will not get back enough money to cover our "investment" (read that as "the amount we've been ripped off over our careers"), there are so many more retirees collecting than those paying, that the program still runs in the red all the time. This is why there are periodic calls to "fix" or "save" social security. Any fund yielding gains over the long term would not need this.

Social Security is the blurriest case, by design, in assessing recipient status because it's a social program trying to masquerade as a retirement investment. It fails on all counts.

The important part is that, as a recipient, the retiree collecting social security does have that necessarily play into his voting. This is why the Democrats love the program, and the Republicans are scared to ever mathematically get it in line so it does not run a deficit.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Unfortunately, yes.

I say unfortunately as all of us are forced into paying for this Ponzi scheme, which after paying for the typical 45 years from age 22 to age 67, wil not yield any gains. In fact, you will be paid a "benefit" less than you paid in, in principal only - no yield, and you will be taxed on it again. It was taxed the first time, and then it's taxed again. In addition, the original premise of "your employer pays half" is a farce. If you have a job paying $100,000 a year (just to keep the math easy), and the SS tax is 8%, you get $92,000 before all other taxes are subtracted, and your employer is presumed to pay another $8000. But the cost to your employer of retaining your labor is $108,000, not $100,000. The fact that you didn't see $108,000 as your gross pay is irrelevant.

It's also unfortunate in that this program breeds dependence, as it was designed to do. There is no trust fund, no lock box. The 22 year old young worker is paying for the guy who retired yesterday. There are many less new suckers coming into the system than the people retiring who, understandably, believe they are entitled to what has been sold to them as a benefit. Interestingly. even though most of us will not get back enough money to cover our "investment" (read that as "the amount we've been ripped off over our careers"), there are so many more retirees collecting than those paying, that the program still runs in the red all the time. This is why there are periodic calls to "fix" or "save" social security. Any fund yielding gains over the long term would not need this.

Social Security is the blurriest case, by design, in assessing recipient status because it's a social program trying to masquerade as a retirement investment. It fails on all counts.

The important part is that, as a recipient, the retiree collecting social security does have that necessarily play into his voting. This is why the Democrats love the program, and the Republicans are scared to ever mathematically get it in line so it does not run a deficit.

Great post joey, well written but i like dan's and riot's answers better...
My nickname in the AF was 'Joey' and i am originally from the western part of the great state of PA...

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by bigrun

If you are on SS are you a recipient?

no.
assuming you've paid in as an employee, and are now reaping your benefits that you paid for. you may get back all you put in, or more, or less....but you paid for it.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

no.
assuming you've paid in as an employee, and are now reaping your benefits that you paid for. you may get back all you put in, or more, or less....but you paid for it.

You were taxed, with that as the premise, to support a program destined to fail. You were lied to. One has nothing to do with the other.

We pay, as taxpayers, for a lot of stupid and useless stuff. In fact, that's a likely characterization of the majority of government expenditures.

The program will fail unless it is gracefully tapered off for future generations so they can be independently self reliant through their own investements. We do have to fulfill the promise to those retiring, but those young enough should be freed from the burden of this terrible program.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

The program will fail unless it is gracefully tapered off for future generations so they can be independently self reliant through their own investements.
.

Baloney. It won't fail at all for the next 50 years. Get a grip on effing reality. Do you have any idea how many times those that want to privatize it have said,"OMG, imminent failure!" At least 40. Wrong every time.

BTW, do you know what just happened to those "independently self-reliant through their own investments?" Thank god our Social Security funds are not in the market. What do you want to say to all those between the ages of 50 and 90, living off their investments - "Sorry, you lost up to 1/3 in the past 10 years. Good luck with that!"

Social Security is not an investment program, it is not a retirement program. It is a social safety net.

So stop treating it as if it were an investment program, or a retirement fund, because of course it will fail if you try to pretend it is something it is not, and measure it against a false standard.

[Antitrust32]

baloney that it wont fail at all for 50 years.

paying out 78% is epic failure. 2037 is 26 years away. basically a hop, skip and a jump away.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

baloney that it wont fail at all for 50 years.

paying out 78% is epic failure. 2037 is 26 years away. basically a hop, skip and a jump away.

BTW, they just changed that date to 2038.

I'm tired of the right wing screaming "fake fail" show.

"Epic failure" when the system would still pay out 78% for decades into the future - with us doing nothing at all - is a completely ridiculous hyperbolic characterization, especially compared to the history of the system and how many times it's been adjusted already (from far worse predictions) It literally takes only a small tweek (sorry, 'Zig, but that's the truth of it) to adjust Social Security. As we have already done many, many times before.

Geesh, it's like you guys know absolutely zero about Social Security and it's history.

Try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_...ited_States%29

The right wing is screaming failure, they have been since the day of inception, it's always been nonsensical baloney, and the system is terrific, has paid out 100% of it's benefits, and always will. As long as we do our due diligence in management.

Of course, the Republicans want Social Security to fail, because they want those trillions given to Wall Street to "invest".

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

baloney that it wont fail at all for 50 years.

paying out 78% is epic failure. 2037 is 26 years away. basically a hop, skip and a jump away.

26 more years!...yippee, i accept!....all you guys 40 and under are on your own...good luck with your investments...

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by bigrun

26 more years!...yippee, i accept!....all you guys 40 and under are on your own...good luck with your investments...

just listen to Riot. she knows everything.

all we have to do is tax people more and we will be fine forever.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

baloney that it wont fail at all for 50 years.

paying out 78% is epic failure. 2037 is 26 years away. basically a hop, skip and a jump away.

according to the cbo report i read yesterday, entitlements already take 60% of the federal budget... according to the one i linked to the other day from '09, in about 70 years, entitlements and interest payments will absorb 100% of the federal budget.
no money for interior, defense, energy, all that 'discretionary' spending.

yeah, it just needs a little tweak.
ss might need a little tweak, the entire system needs a complete overhaul.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

according to the cbo report i read yesterday, entitlements already take 60% of the federal budget... according to the one i linked to the other day from '09, in about 70 years, entitlements and interest payments will absorb 100% of the federal budget.

Yeah, if we don't do anything about either entitlements OR interest payments. We do have an exploding population compared to 40 years ago. Of course our social programs will increase, we have more people. We also have more paying in.

no money for interior, defense, energy, all that 'discretionary' spending.

How could there be "no money" for those things, when the taxable population is increasing, even if rates stayed the same as now? That would be only relatable to interest compounding (mostly to interest compounding) The budget won't stay at X = value in 2011, when it's 2070. The budget will increase. Percentage of budget devoted to things will change, of course.

yeah, it just needs a little tweak.
ss might need a little tweak, the entire system needs a complete overhaul

I've agreed that SS just needs a little tweek, but Medicare needs attention, and Medicaid is in deep trouble due to the states being broke and unable to contribute their portions.

The answer is not just to get rid of the programs, no matter how much Ron Paul would like to. They are valuable programs that help our citizens, help those in need. We have to ask the question, "Do we want to remain a first world country, or not?" Because remaining first world is an investment in ourselves - and we don't even do as much as other first world countries do for their citizens now. We already are no longer in the Top Ten or even Twenty for health, education, happiness, longevity, innovation, etc.

I'm tired of people calling these programs "entitlements" and speaking as if they are welfare, or something evil, they most certainly are not. We care about our fellow Americans, and that is what these programs are about, and that is why WE, as a country, decided to do them. I'm sick and tired of people demonizing these programs and attempting to characterize them as evil.