Social security is not socialism but it needs to be privatized

FALSE.

NOBODY is interested in open borders.

NOBODY.

And, that is a well known fact.

- - - Updated - - -

That's why I like SS more than welfare.

 

They say the same thing in different words. If you like I can fetch you a SSA website where these things are clarified.

 

No. If a person has not contributed to S.S. through income taxes and they are not a surviving spouse of someone who did collect S.S. retirement benefits, they cannot collect SS retirement benefits. But how many people does that cover? How many people have not worked and paid payroll taxes AND are not the surviving spouse of someone who did?

 

Correct.
From a SSA website:
"When you work and pay Social Security taxes, you earn “credits” toward Social Security benefits. The number of credits you need to get retirement benefits depends on when you were born. If you were born in 1929 or later, you need 40 credits (10 years of work).

If you stop working before you have enough credits to qualify for benefits, the credits will remain on your Social Security record. If you return to work later, you can add more credits to qualify. We can’t pay any retirement benefits until you have the required number of credits."

https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10035.pdf

 

-if they can.

Welfare as we knew it and think of it no longer exists from what I see. Instead it has been broken down into WIC benefits, SNAP, rent assistance, etc.

 

Then explain why the government itself says it will soon run out of money to pay full benefits. The old elephant in the room you keep running from.

 

True.

I think the idea has been that targeting the aid to specific known needs is better than going the "guaranteed income" route.

 

That's still government assistance, and people should do something to earn it if they can. If they're disabled, okay. If they're able to work, they should do something to pay for it.

 

Repeat that all you want but it's meaningless in this debate as to how SS will be funded when it cant pay out benefits as the government says will occur in 2034.

 

And if you get your way SS will be yet another division of welfare.

 

Oh I know! Corporate taxes for Social Security. They say corporations are people. Well, now we can tax them to secure the SS fund.

 

Right, and Walmart is the largest employer in the country and Walmart's employees are usually paid so little that they qualify for public assistance!!!

The liberal/left answer to this is a higher minimum wage.

The right wing answer to this is to make public assistance less available.

 

I don't buy that.

 

As explained to you about TWELVE times previously...in 2032 the Trust Fund will be exhausted but payroll deductions will be able to pay 75% of existing obligations with no change to benefits.

The remaining 25% can be made up simply by raising the cap on payroll deduction. Currently people making over about $110K only pay into the system on THAT amount of their income. Most people (myself included) pay into it on every penny we earn

It's that simple

Right about that time the demand for benefits will decrease as Baby Boomers die off.

An added benefit is that when the Trust Fund runs out taxpayers will no longer be paying it back so the deficit will be decreased by that amount

 

So you admit SS will need a new tax on the rich to survive in name only which makes it a new welfare program instead of a self funded retirement program. That's fine if that's what you want but the demographics will never be what they were when SS was designed in the 1930s and it will never be self sustaining again. I'm not sure why the snowflakes are so resistant to modernizing an archaic system like SS but they definitely seem to be. I think it's that they have come to rely on mom and a nanny state and have become risk averse to a fault. JMO. Now let me ask you this, how about giving people a choice instead of mandatory government control of your funds? Those that want the supposed safety of the government could go that way and those that want a higher return and don't want other people paying for their retirement could invest in private annuity funds or even a combination thereof. Would you be OK with that or would you insist on 100% government control?

 

Admit it? I've told you about 12 friggin times...and it's a tax that can well be afforded because it comes from the people most able to afford it.

These would be the people who only contribute into it with a portion of their (rather large) incomes while most of us contribute based on every penny we earn.

We should all realize that the poster attacking Social Security is a recipient who "claims" he wants reform in order that his descendants have a decent retirement.

You don't attack a system based on this supposed lack of fairness if that's your aim. That's how ideologues attack.

 

Which leads to...
More automation and fewer minimum wage jobs.
http://www.freep.com/story/money/business/2017/02/27/ordering-kiosks-coming-1000-wendys/98496644/
http://fortune.com/2016/11/18/mcdonalds-kiosks-table-service/
https://www.designweek.co.uk/issues...erior-design-introduces-self-ordering-kiosks/

 

As I've said "about 12 times" I don't care what you guys do, I'll be dead by then. Since you won't answer my question about mandatory government contribution or a private option I'll ask you a simpler one. Why would I want to deny your generation a sound fiscal SS retirement program? What's in it for me? You think I'm just a big old mean meanie or something?

 

Typical conservative. I got mine and I don't care if anyone else gets the same. Pull up the ladder baby.

Why do you do this?

You're an ideologue

 

As I thought you can't come up with a reason I'd want to deny you as good or better a retirement system than I had. I'm just a big mean meanie. LOL

 

As Thomas Paine once said, "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason... is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by Scripture. Enjoy, sir, your insensibility of feeling and reflecting."

No, I am actually not sure why you've chosen to ignore the fact that the Federal Reserve is, to a significant extent, a private banking entity; thus, the decision made in McCulloch v. Maryland is plainly irrelevant.

You have also not effectively responded at all to the fact that the FDIC is an independent, government-commissioned corporation with virtually unlimited borrowing authority.

It it does not take a Constitutional scholar to understand that both the Federal Reserve and the FDIC have exhibited gross overreach and harmful interference in what is supposed to be our free market.

For anyone else reading this, see my earlier posts for details, but my opponents' argument is painfully circular at best and is unbelievably wrong.

 

I can think of a lot of descriptives for someone who is collecting Social Security but would deny it to his own children and grandchildren but board rules prohibit me from listing them

 

If all revenues go to the General Fund...

1) Why does the Trust fund need to do anything if payroll taxes don't meet what's due to be paid out? Payroll taxes go into the same pile, right? Is the Trust fund automatically entitled to all payroll taxes?

2) If all tax receipts go to the general fund, then what's in the Trust fund?

 

Thomas Paine?

The guy who wrote that retirement ought to be COMPLETELY funded by the wealthy?

THAT guy?

 

This assumes that Social Security is intrinsically good and makes everyone better off. As I stated elsewhere, if you take the same money which must be paid in payroll taxes and put that into Treasuries, most people are better off to invest in Treasuries over the long run.

Why can't someone be opposed to Social Security, collect it since he's paid payroll taxes his whole life, and think future generations would be better off without it? I'm quite young and feel this way, Sawyer is (apparently) old and feels this way. Maybe people aren't trying to be evil and we just have very sincere disagreements.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah Paine was a Georgist but I still think he had a much smaller vision of government than modern progressives like.