Hit piece for sure…

Cherry picking the high numbers that are a clear minority, etc etc.

Every generation blames the ones before for their issues.

No one is blaming anyone.

The US is insolvent. Burn all my Social Security taxes collected, heck collect them until I turn 65 if needed - I don’t care.

We have to eliminate Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid/Obamacare/Whatevercare, period.

This isn’t an old vs young issue, it’s a US national security and survival issue.

quote:

Originally posted by bigwagon:
I only watched a few minutes, but the argument in the video seems to be that SS and Medicare should be income or means tested. It may very well come to that in the future.

It already is adjusted heavily for income. The payout rate in retirement is higher for those who had low wages in their working years. They call it "bending the curve". SS is taxed very progressively, meaning that for those who have low other income during retirement their SS is either untaxed or very lightly taxed. Higher income, meaning actually modest income, in retirement is rewarded with steeply increasing income tax not only on the SS but on the other income. So when you take $ out of a 401k or IRA in retirement, you will likely trigger some steep taxes.

Medicare is also very means tested. IRMAA is what it's called. Sell your home you've lived in for 20 years and you'll likely get penalized big time. If you are lucky enough to have a significant reportable income in retirement (large 401k withdrawals, pension, capital gains in a regular brokerage acct) you'll get hit with IRMAA year after year.

quote:

Originally posted by 400m:
Robbing Peter to pay Paul. I just didn’t realize it was mismanaged as badly as every other piggy bank we give to congress. Yes I realize that makes me the fool. At least they are consistent crooks.

It didn't have to be that way. Several times there have been efforts to invest the money paid into SS so as to grow to cover the future costs, but it has been shut down by various forces in Congress (Dems iirc). Additionally, Congress has raided the actual cash in the Trust Fund to pay for other giveaways, leaving IOU's in their place! Government bonds which have to be paid back by, yes, the taxpayer! So they stole the money they promised us and now we have to reimburse it.

Blame Congressmen of both parties and The Swamp.

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:
Boy it sure is easy to see who didn't watch the video or read the article. You boy's keep on living up to the stereotype.

I watched the entire video. What I haven’t seen yet is a concrete solution.

If the argument is that the system is flawed, fine—but start by addressing what contributors are owed. Pay back what was paid in, then talk about alternatives. Your move king of intellect.

quote:

Originally posted by reloader-1:

Social security is welfare.

snip

No it isn't, it's a contract. I expect my .gov to honor its commitment.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:

quote:

Originally posted by 400m:
Robbing Peter to pay Paul. I just didn’t realize it was mismanaged as badly as every other piggy bank we give to congress. Yes I realize that makes me the fool. At least they are consistent crooks.

It didn't have to be that way. Several times there have been efforts to invest the money paid into SS so as to grow to cover the future costs, but it has been shut down by various forces in Congress (Dems iirc). Additionally, Congress has raided the actual cash in the Trust Fund to pay for other giveaways, leaving IOU's in their place! Government bonds which have to be paid back by, yes, the taxpayer! So they stole the money they promised us and now we have to reimburse it.

Blame Congressmen of both parties and The Swamp.

There is NO trust fund. There never was. FDR lied. Nothing even approaching the legal definition of a trust fund exists for SS. BY LAW all excess proceeds from SS go to the general treasury and replaced with treasury notes of a type that can only exist for SS.

This was just a current tax for FDR's various programs, since the first recipients were a small number in the 1930's so there was a big surplus. The program was overfunded for many years, but has become upside down now. They increased the tax in the 80's to prevent "insolvency" but again, they spend everything that is in surplus of current payouts every year.

Regardless of what anyone paid in or what they think they are owed, the FACT is that SS takes from the poorest age group and gives to the richest age group. Yes, individual situations vary, but on average, this is true. And it sucks.

In most other countries, elderly are supported and cared for by their children. Asian parents do everything to give their kids opportunity - they sacrifice a lot to get their kids the best education, and they push them to succeed. Successful kids then support their parents in retirement. Now we expect elderly to live alone, or in old folk's homes, but not with their children. When grandparents live with the family, they can watch the kids so you don't have to pay for day care.

The US has socially engineered this to disastrous results. Parents let their kids major in useless studies and rack up massive debt and it's their problem if they can't afford to live. In Asia, the parents lose if their kids don't succeed.

quote:

Originally posted by Bytes:

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:
Boy it sure is easy to see who didn't watch the video or read the article. You boy's keep on living up to the stereotype.

I watched the entire video. What I haven’t seen yet is a concrete solution.

If the argument is that the system is flawed, fine—but start by addressing what contributors are owed. Pay back what was paid in, then talk about alternatives. Your move king of intellect.

Burn down the entire system then burn the ashes. all payments and all taxes for these programs end, right now.

You got ripped off by the people you voted for? I'm not shocked and I don't care. I fundamentally disagree with the system to begin with. I've been an anarcho-capitalist since I was a teen and I view all governments as fundamentally evil.

there's your solution, brain trust.

I’m okay with ending it. But like you said, immediately and 100%. Not dishing it out as a favoritism scheme. Stroke of the pen, cry once, and it will never sting again. Balance can be discussed.

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:
Burn down the entire system then burn the ashes. all payments and all taxes for these programs end, right now.

You got ripped off by the people you voted for? I'm not shocked and I don't care. I fundamentally disagree with the system to begin with. I've been an anarcho-capitalist since I was a teen and I view all governments as fundamentally evil.

there's your solution, brain trust.

Critiquing the system is easy. Proposing a replacement that accounts for existing contributions is the hard part—and that’s the part I’m asking about. Einstein

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:

quote:

Originally posted by bigwagon:
I only watched a few minutes, but the argument in the video seems to be that SS and Medicare should be income or means tested. It may very well come to that in the future.

It already is adjusted heavily for income. The payout rate in retirement is higher for those who had low wages in their working years. They call it "bending the curve". SS is taxed very progressively, meaning that for those who have low other income during retirement their SS is either untaxed or very lightly taxed. Higher income, meaning actually modest income, in retirement is rewarded with steeply increasing income tax not only on the SS but on the other income. So when you take $ out of a 401k or IRA in retirement, you will likely trigger some steep taxes.

Medicare is also very means tested. IRMAA is what it's called. Sell your home you've lived in for 20 years and you'll likely get penalized big time. If you are lucky enough to have a significant reportable income in retirement (large 401k withdrawals, pension, capital gains in a regular brokerage acct) you'll get hit with IRMAA year after year.

Not the point. He seems to be suggesting that if you have over some amount of income or wealth you shouldn't get SS or Medicare at all. So call it a means threshold or whatever you want, but he's basically saying you shouldn't get anything if you can afford to not get it, however that would be measured.

You know what would go a long way towards shoring up these programs? Rooting out, vigorously prosecuting and obtaining restitution from fraudsters, like this one for $12 million from Medicaid. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...raud-scheme-n2669538 And that is the tip of the iceberg.

Welfare: federal government-sponsored assistance programs for individuals and families

Social Security meets that definition. You paid some extra taxes this year or some years in the past, and the government promised to pay you in the future.

Well, the government promised to end poverty, drugs, illegal immigration, and a whole host of other things.

Right now, in the USA, the government is out of money. It is bankrupt. When that happens, the people who are “owed” (which you are not), get a fraction of what they expect.

Simple solution: for 2 years, Social Security pays out exactly what it receives in taxes, nothing more (which will mean a percentage cut in “benefits”). Year 3, it’s gone entirely.

No one else should ever be robbed.

quote:

Originally posted by bigwagon:
Not the point. He seems to be suggesting that if you have over some amount of income or wealth you shouldn't get SS or Medicare at all. So call it a means threshold or whatever you want, but he's basically saying you shouldn't get anything if you can afford to not get it, however that would be measured.

Actually comrade Fender is suggesting confiscating all monies "invested" in social security for the good of all.

Social Security is a textbook pyramid scheme, not a savings account. And that pyramid is looking pretty upside down.

quote:

Originally posted by Bytes:

quote:

Originally posted by bigwagon:
Not the point. He seems to be suggesting that if you have over some amount of income or wealth you shouldn't get SS or Medicare at all. So call it a means threshold or whatever you want, but he's basically saying you shouldn't get anything if you can afford to not get it, however that would be measured.

Actually comrade Fender is suggesting confiscating all monies "invested" in social security for the good of all.

So who gets retirement money? Just the poor people? In other words, if you're "rich" and don't need it, you don't get it? Or does the SS tax just go away entirely and nobody get anything but what they save for themselves. I would be OK with that if I was 30, but not after having paid in for the past 40 years and being on the cusp of getting something back.

The article he wrote it doesn't get into any of that. He just rails against unfairness of rich old people having more than young people.

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:

Regardless of what anyone paid in or what they think they are owed, the FACT is that SS takes from the poorest age group and gives to the richest age group. Yes, individual situations vary, but on average, this is true. And it sucks.

For nearly 50 years I was part of that young, poorer group. It is false to describe SS as taking from the poor to give to the rich. The rich were all young and poor when they paid into it, and pay into it they did for decades.

quote:

Originally posted by bigwagon:

Not the point. He seems to be suggesting that if you have over some amount of income or wealth you shouldn't get SS or Medicare at all. So call it a means threshold or whatever you want, but he's basically saying you shouldn't get anything if you can afford to not get it, however that would be measured.

Means-testing isn't necessarily all-or-nothing. I was pointing out that there already are several penalties applied to those who earned more while working or who have moderate or higher tax-reportable income in retirement.

quote:

Originally posted by reloader-1:
Simple solution: for 2 years, Social Security pays out exactly what it receives in taxes, nothing more (which will mean a percentage cut in “benefits”). Year 3, it’s gone entirely.

What's your plan for the millions who will be in poverty without their SS? A ton of people rely on SS to have a very basic lifestyle. I posit that you and the rest of people working will be footing the bill for a whole lot more welfare and Medicaid.

A plan I've liked for a lot of years is a tapering rather than an abrupt cutoff. People on SS and those very close to retirement will get SS. Those a little further out will get a pro-rated decrease. Those under about age 52 will not get any. Structure the FICA taxes to taper off as well.

As to Medicare, I say get rid of it. It is expensive and it is crap coverage. That would save taxpayers a lot of money, but it would have to be done correctly, which it probably wouldn't.

quote:

Originally posted by reloader-1:
Social security is welfare.

You paid a tax, in the past, for the promise of welfare.

Show me what dictionary you used where the definition of receiving welfare is you have to first pay into it.

Part of the property tax I PAY is for fire services and if my house ever experiences a fire, I expect the firemen with their equipment working to put out the fire. Getting the firemen to put out the fire on my house is NOT welfare. I paid into social security and the pay out is spelled out on some schedule. Never mind that the payout is less than if I had not paid the tax and invested on my own. I paid into it and getting back what the schedule says is NOT welfare.

I thought you wanted to get away from blaming people and here you are calling people who get their social security benefits welfare recipients. And, btw, I’m not taking social security yet so I’m not taking it personally.