cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Highlighted
Advisor

Re: it's not a system, its a tax

One of the tendancies of brainless little sheep like yourself is to always expect authority to tell them what they could know for themselves. Not totally your own fault, you've been trained that way since a youth, but it is your fault for not realizing the failing. Even a dog can learn to bite a cruel owner. Be as smart as a dog instead of the turnip you appear.
Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: so do many democrats


@schnurrbart wrote:

Since 1982, there are very FEW govt workers who do not pay into SS.  All new hires in the last 30 years pay into that system.  There are still a few old timers still working under Civil Service but not many.

 

If you read the full links, one of them gives a breakdown of how many private, and public workers are paying in, per benificiary.  Even with the public workers figured in, it is still far less than it was, and going down (I don't remember the exact figures, but I think it falls in that 3-4 payers in, for each drawer of SS).

 

 Do you believe that the tax money collected is just put into a zero interest can and buried behind the White House and given out each month?

 

 

 Not saying that things don't need to be tweaked but doing away with it doesn't make sense.

 

I never, ever said it should be done away with.  I was merely trying to point out, that it is on a course, that is unsustainable, without reform, and the sooner reforms are made, the less drastic they will have to be, and the easier the transition.

I was also trying to point out, that you do not pay into it, and then collect your money.  It is not, nor was it ever set up that way.  It was set up, so that the current payers, pay the way for the current collectors, with somewhat of a surplus factored in, for when the baby boomers retire.  Unfortunately, the boomers are ready to retire, and the surplus is gone.  I know, I know, the government has it all under control, right?  I have all the proof I need that they have it covered, by all the balanced budgets that they had in my lifetime (Im just guessing here, but I think it was under 3).

 

 

 Means testing makes sense if you make it so that people making  say $250K/yr don't draw anything  IF you give them back what they have paid into it and call it good.  People who paid into it deserve to get that money back if they aren't going to get the benefits of SS.  If they wish to have Medicare, then they should pay the premium for it.


 

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: it's not a system, its a tax

Hey, dirtbag, why do you insist on calling me names for asking a question?  You offered the fact that the govt has no LEGAL obligation to pay such and such and that implies that you have some sort of legal training that allows you to know what is legal and what is not.  Now to give the devil his due--I would rather be a "brainless little sheep" that a huge "Misthaufen" like yourself.  (if you don't know what that means, ask craig)

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: so do many democrats

If you google "ss surplus", you will get a mixed bag of surplus broke or not.  The consensus is that there is a $2.5 trillion surplus but that it will be gone in 22 years.  Maybe or maybe not.  You guys who are worried about it and who are against it should just continue to work like owlwy and a bunch of others and then you won't have to worry about it not being there.

Highlighted
Senior Advisor

Re: so do many democrats


@schnurrbart wrote:

If you google "ss surplus", you will get a mixed bag of surplus broke or not.  The consensus is that there is a $2.5 trillion surplus but that it will be gone in 22 years.  Maybe or maybe not.  You guys who are worried about it and who are against it should just continue to work like owlwy and a bunch of others and then you won't have to worry about it not being there.


What good is a 2.5 trillion dollar surplus if it is tied up in bad loans?

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: so do many democrats

Where's your source for that?

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: so do many democrats

I agree, the 'fund' has a surplus, and theoretically would be able to run for quite a while, on the surplus, except that the 'surplus' is not there.  It is long ago spent, with IOUs in the place of the money.  Yes, the government is 'backing' it, but keep in mind without the SS 'sruplus' of 2.5 trillion, the government debt would be 18.5 trillion, instead of 16 trillion.  It is kind of like saying, yea, my wife has $10,000 in credit card bills, but not to worry, I have $2500 in the bank.

 

Also, let's say you are right, and in 22 years, it will be defunct.  However, in 22 years, I will not be collecting, unless I get run over by a truck or something, and get disability benefits.  So, what do you tell someone, who has 30+ years to go, before he will collect, to not worry, because there is enough money there, to last another 20.   (provided the Federal General Fund makes good on its IOUS, but that's another story)

Do the math out, and tell me, exactly where the SS fund will be in 30 or 35 years, unless some sort of reform is made?

Also, is it not easier to steer the bus away from the ditch, when you first see it veering off that way, or would you rather wait until the bus goes off the road, and is buried in muskeg, up to the frame? 

I know there are plenty of people out there, who say 'who cares, in 20 years I'll be dead, give me my benefits now, and let someone else worry about it after I'm dead', but you don't seem the type, I think you really want to do the best for everyone. 
However, those of us, who won't be collecting until after SS goes under, kind of feel like someone on a ship going down, with 3 kids, being told the lifeboat will only hold 2.

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: so do many democrats

Well, for one thing, the credit rating of the entity that is to pay off the notes, has just had their credit rating lowered.