Social security is not socialism but it needs to be privatized

That's the "fund balance". How much of that is actually escrowed in real cash or marketable securities? We'll wait. Are you holding the IOU mason jar or did you bury it in your back yard?

 

Yes, senility is a curse. You didn't ask me any questions.

 

So you don't think your premiums for health insurance ever helped pay for other people's healthcare costs?

By what you said here, the only conclusion can be that you feel everyone should be responsible for all their own healthcare costs. And that is patently ridiculous of course.

 

You should read the SSA data by their accounting staff instead of The Heritage Foundation BS. You are really making a fool of yourself and you don't know it. The Trust Fund revenue is, BY LAW, invested in Treasury securities that bear interest like any Treasury security. THAT is what is in the Trust Fund. No, there are no dollar bills in a safe in the Trust Fund, -or in your IRA or your savings account. There is an "accounting entry" in your name.

 

Oh Kode............. how long do you think your cooked books will last? Just trotting this out there for you. Libs love Pew informational quips. This is the problem with socialist BS. I'm not against SSI especially for the ones that have paid ADEQUATE amounts into it, but libs love to raid the cookie jar for azzhats like illegals and others who haven't contributed one cent. Eff that.

The fund is on schedule to be broke in about 20 years. I can't say I blame young people for opting out. But who picks up the cost of the ones who paid? 2.8 trillion tis but a flesh wound considering the malfeasance of the government in administering this fund. Government at it's finest, kicking cans down the road. Government raiding the coffers of the working class. Screw socialism, the perpetrators of the robbery of SSI should be hung at sunrise.
Social Security’s combined reserves likely will be fully depleted by 2034.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/08/18/5-facts-about-social-security/

 

What does "operating at a deficit" and the national debt have to do with SS???? -nothing. Wanna debate that? I have a thread on the Social Security forum that discusses exactly that.

 

People should ONLY be responsible for paying into a healthcare pool that is funded by PEOPLE WHO ARE PAYING INTO A HEALTHCARE POOL. Not paying for deadbeats who don't pay a dime. Another fail, that's code for Kode.

 

Sounds like a canned rant from Breitbart or Newsmax. Which means "confused BS".

The payroll tax cap has been adjusted annually for many years and is going up to $127,200 for 2017. And it can be adjusted each year to prevent it going broke. So we have 20 years to make adjustments and change your prediction.

Exactly what "malfeasance" would that be?

You're outnumbered.

 

Sorry.........you are wrong. The government robs the fund annually and gives it "IOU's." It like the worthless underlying swapped mortgage collateral atrocities of the real estate market of the 2000's.
The payroll tax cap is capped for a reason. The maximum amount taxed is because the benefit is capped, and way below the value of maximum contributions.
Malfeasance is robbing a current tax base to to fund future retirees based on collections without regard to fiduciary care. It's a crime in the private sector, it's called a Ponzi scheme. The money goes back into the general budget, to be spent with just scrip put back into the cookie jar. You have not one clue about governmental accounting. There are funds that are fungible, this one that shouldnot be and escrowed and not pooled.

 

The clarity of your thinking is well illustrated by your post: "People should ONLY be responsible for paying into a healthcare pool that is funded by PEOPLE WHO ARE PAYING INTO A HEALTHCARE POOL."

Yes, and people who ride a bicycle to work should be those who ride a bicycle to work.

And people who golf should be those who golf.

See my point?

But aside from that, your objections to this or that means of structuring a healthcare system is precisely that: your objections; your thoughts. So what? You aren't expected to have the best or even a reasonable answer because (1) you aren't a professional and (2) you are biased against anything but right wing politics anyway.

I'll give you a hint: Do you REALLY want to walk around the town and go into grocery stores with "deadbeats who don't pay a dime" suffering from untreated tuberculosis or meningitis or other highly contagious disease??

 

Prove it. Document it. You're spreading lies and BS.

Document that. Prove it is true. The cap is up to $127,200 this year but the maximum benefit hasn't changed.

 

If you would like to subsidize those who don't contribute, the IRS has a line on your return to contribute in addition to your obligation . Knock yourself out. 1000 to 1 odds you don't. You prefer other peoples money.

And I'll guarantee you I am a professional, and there's no way in hell you were ever a financial adviser. We can compare designated letters following our names if you like,

 

Have you lost your mind? The maximum eligible to be taxed can go up, but the maximum benefit doesn't go up in proportion with the rise. You are WAY out in left field. Why SHOULD the amount exposed to SSI go up without a proportional increase in benefit Herr Stalin? There's a reason THERE IS A CAP. Because the benefit doesn't go beyond a certain point. Herein lies another left wing nut job fantasy. Maximum taxation, minimal return. LMAO

 

No, the point is that I'm not an opinionated, selfish tightwad. I trust experts to tell me what is the best way to do things and I'm smart enough to know the truth when I read or hear it, –and, I don't harbor a grudge against the obligations of life in society.

You give me reason to doubt you. I never said I was a financial advisor.



.

 

I'll look, but I'll take your word for it. My apologies if I got you confused with someone else. You guys are like sand gnats, hard to tell you apart. Good night Kode.

 

You seem to be contradicting yourself. I suspect that is because you, Mr. "Professional", are a poor writer. What I got out of your vague statements was that the cap is as it is because the benefit is limited to a defined maximum.

Let's just do this: tell me your version of why the cap is raised more or less annually.

- - - Updated - - -

No, fella, I didn't say I was a financial advisor. I said I was a FINANCIAL PLANNER. The two are very different. I had a Series 6 Securities license, and a life insurance license so I could place clients in annuities.

 

I don't. You seem insistent on debating with yourself, I'll leave you to it.



​

 

I see that you like donations to those who don't contribute voluntary. I don't and I think that it is important that people are covered who never paid into the system.

Let's assume the following scenario: I am the only bread winner in my household. I worry about what happens to my wife and kids should I die a premature death. Thus, I have life insurance. In addition, my kids will be covered by a SS benefit in case of my premature death. Did they ever pay into the system? No. Yet, it makes me sleep better at night knowing that they won't have to live on the street, even if my life insurance wiggles out of paying.

My point is: It is okay and actually desirable that the system protects those who were unfortunate to never pay into it. Those ones you call "deadbeats" could be you at an older age or after becoming incapacitated, or you children, should the same unfortunate things happen to them.

 

Should we also mandate weight control and proper exercise and what food people eat? It's your life and it's your responsibility to live it wisely.

 

Like this? Maybe it's you who doesn't know about the SS trust fund.



REPORT Social Security Misleading the Public: How the Social Security Trust Fund Really WorksSeptember 2, 2004 4 min read Download Report

David John
Senior Research Fellow in Retirement Security and Financial Institutions
Copied
Select a Section 1/0
Toggle open close
As political leaders debate how best to fix Social Security, many policymakers are focusing on the wrong issue. Their sole concern seems to be the date when the Social Security retirement and survivors trust fund will run out of its paper assets. This mistaken emphasis misses the fundamental point about Social Security's problems: There is no cash in the Social Security trust fund, and there never has been any.

"The Social Security trust fund is merely an accounting device filled with IOUs that future taxpayers must repay. Far too soon, payroll taxes will be insufficient to pay all of the promised benefits. Unless Congress promptly takes action, taxpayers will have to pump hundreds of billions of additional tax dollars into Social Security to pay the promised benefits."

http://www.heritage.org/social-secu...w-the-social-security-trust-fund-really-works

 

Annuity companies are heavily regulated and have a stellar record whereas the government regulates itself (fox guards chicken coop) and has an abysmal record. They have squandered decades of SS money.

- - - Updated - - -

Where's the decades of excess money that was paid into SS as more was coming in than going out? It's missing and it was embezzled by our politicians to finance their political careers.

 

And when the government fails to perform they come to the taxpayer to make it good. Circular firing squads are suicide.

 

Which is why it can't be privatized unless they borrow all the money back or tax $3T immediately from the top 1% and then soak them for an extra $800B a year to cover people already drawing. Good luck getting $4T from the people who think their taxes need to be cut.

 

Then they work until they die. Your life, your choice.

 

Absolutely! My wife and I planned for old age. We skrimped saved and invested and now we have a very comfortable retirement. My wife's brother lived beyond his means his entire life and is suffering in poverty now trying to survive on nothing more than his SS check. He made way more money than us in his working life but didn't plan for old age and that's his call. You make choices and you live with the results.