Can anyone justify NOT having the Wall?

[mb227]

Why does that thing the left says never happens keep...happening?

Make Wood Chippers Great Again. Let me show you our new model...the PedoPulp2025. For those on a budget, we still offer the PedoPulpXL. It has a faster run-though time and people wanted the process to be a bit slower, hence the upgraded model. The new model also has a higher capacity for bulk clearings...

 

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

I'd tell the person that's a dumb argument. In terms of education, medical care, food stamps, the EIC, and other forms of public assistance, they cost a hell of a lot more than that.

Furthermore, if the trust fund runs out of money, Congress will bail it out with general revenue. It won't let benefits get cut. It shouldn't do that, but it will, because that's the easiest short term way to protect benefits going into the next election.

SS is a Ponzi scheme and a massive ripoff of younger people. I think it should be totally restructured, but if we're too dumb to do that but DO want to preserve SS benefits, the biggest concern should be the long term solvency of the United States government. Concern for the trust fund is fine, but it should never be prioritized over the government's overall solvency. Well, if you're worried about the $10B SS revenue when keeping that revenue costs a lot more, you're strengthening the trust fund but making the government broke. That's counterproductive.

Agreed. Saving $10B for Social Security is not a reason to tolerate the rest of the issues. SS has always been a problem that politicians are afraid to deal with, lest they be the ones that incur the wrath of the senior class that votes in large proportions. But we ALL know it is hosed the way it is. We built it poorly and made faulty assumptions about longevity and payouts. Most defined benefit plans suffer from this. But waiting to fix it has only made the problems worse. Just like waiting to implement E-Verify will only make the problem worse.

 

[HornHuskerDad]

We built it poorly and made faulty assumptions about longevity and payouts.

Key point, BOSD. When SS was initiated, the average recipient probably received benefits for 5 years or so. Thanks to advancements in healthcare over the years, life expectancy has increased a lot. Now we have recipients drawing benefits for 15-20 years. Sooner or later Congress will have to raise the age for drawing benefits - and it can be phased in over a period of time (just as it was when full retirement age was raised from 65 to 67). We simply can't afford to fund retirees for 20 years at a time when the younger workforce is not growing at a rate high enough to support the SS fund.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Key point, BOSD. When SS was initiated, the average recipient probably received benefits for 5 years or so. Thanks to advancements in healthcare over the years, life expectancy has increased a lot. Now we have recipients drawing benefits for 15-20 years. Sooner or later Congress will have to raise the age for drawing benefits - and it can be phased in over a period of time (just as it was when full retirement age was raised from 65 to 67). We simply can't afford to fund retirees for 20 years at a time when the younger workforce is not growing at a rate high enough to support the SS fund.

A few things to note. First, SS was never a good idea. Giving the government and politicians that much power over a big piece of people's retirement was never a smart thing to do.

Second, as it was designed, it was bad, because it never made use of the growth potential of investment. It was just cash-in-cash-out. Even when it was running surpluses, the surplus was only "invested" in treasury bonds - meaning it was a creative way for Congress to just spend the surplus. Whether in deficit, surplus, or even, it was always a horrible use of money that has cost us untold trillions in lost income.

Third, the Ponzi scheme was only sustainable if people kept dying in their 60s and if American women kept having a bunch of kids. All of those assumptions ended up being wrong. We've adjusted for that by raising FICA taxes, which are now about 6 times what they were in 1935. We've more than doubled the cap on income subject to FICA. We've now raised the retirement age. In spite of all that extra cash dumped into it, it's still falling apart.

At this point, we're running out of options. We can't raise the tax or the income cap much more, because they're already totally excessive. Maybe raise the retirement age a little, but that's going to get out of hand soon as well. And even if we tried to toy with these a little, it would only delay the inevitable a short period of time. We need an overhaul. It's that simple, and sooner we accept it, the easier and cheaper it's going to be.

 

[mchammer]

 

[ViperHorn]

A few things to note. First, SS was never a good idea. Giving the government and politicians that much power over a big piece of people's retirement was never a smart thing to do.

Second, as it was designed, it was bad, because it never made use of the growth potential of investment. It was just cash-in-cash-out. Even when it was running surpluses, the surplus was only "invested" in treasury bonds - meaning it was a creative way for Congress to just spend the surplus. Whether in deficit, surplus, or even, it was always a horrible use of money that has cost us untold trillions in lost income.

Third, the Ponzi scheme was only sustainable if people kept dying in their 60s and if American women kept having a bunch of kids. All of those assumptions ended up being wrong. We've adjusted for that by raising FICA taxes, which are now about 6 times what they were in 1935. We've more than doubled the cap on income subject to FICA. We've now raised the retirement age. In spite of all that extra cash dumped into it, it's still falling apart.

At this point, we're running out of options. We can't raise the tax or the income cap much more, because they're already totally excessive. Maybe raise the retirement age a little, but that's going to get out of hand soon as well. And even if we tried to toy with these a little, it would only delay the inevitable a short period of time. We need an overhaul. It's that simple, and sooner we accept it, the easier and cheaper it's going to be.

The US should have started forcing money into market-managed SS Savings Accounts 3 to 4 decades ago.

 

[Horn6721]

Not a GW Bush fan but didn't he want to phase in something like that?

 

[Mr. Deez]

Not a GW Bush fan but didn't he want to phase in something like that?

Yes. Even Bill Clinton expressed interest in some private investment of the surplus. No where near enough to fix its problems but at least a step in the right direction.

 

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

Yes. Even Bill Clinton expressed interest in some private investment of the surplus. No where near enough to fix its problems but at least a step in the right direction.

I guess we could go with ETFs now, but those weren't a thing back in the day. The challenge obviously is that the vast majority of Americans are woefully ignorant when it comes to any type of investment vehicle. So what kind of investment vehicle do you make available that is essentially set-it and forget-it, but simultaneously offers a decent return, and does not put the money in the hands of gov't to pilfer. Do we mandate a national 401K -type vehicle. As much as you want it to be an individual choice, the reality is that most people live check to check. If given the option to keep $200 more in the NOW, many will do that and not save for their future.

 

[SabreHorn]

Deez,

It was a form of "coach speak", which could be interpreted as "a waste of everyone's time" or "you're next move is to post bond & leave". The government grunts had and still don't have a response because they (1) won't admit there's a problem; and (2) they are too dumb to understand either (that's why they work for the federal government.

 

[Monahorns]

The US should have started forcing money into market-managed SS Savings Accounts 3 to 4 decades ago.

Government force isn't ever the answer. Better (and more honest) teachers, experts, churches, and parents is always the answer.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I guess we could go with ETFs now, but those weren't a thing back in the day. The challenge obviously is that the vast majority of Americans are woefully ignorant when it comes to any type of investment vehicle. So what kind of investment vehicle do you make available that is essentially set-it and forget-it, but simultaneously offers a decent return, and does not put the money in the hands of gov't to pilfer. Do we mandate a national 401K -type vehicle. As much as you want it to be an individual choice, the reality is that most people live check to check. If given the option to keep $200 more in the NOW, many will do that and not save for their future.

There are some complications. We'd need a social welfare program for truly broke elderly. We can't just have old people living in the streets, but if we have a good private system, very few would need or qualify for it.

You're right that many wouldn't save the money. Accordingly, it should be a forced savings plan. You still pay FICA, but instead of going to the government to waste, it goes to a real savings plan. I'd make that contribution tax free. If employees want to kick in more, I'd let them. I'd let them have a tax incentive for doing so, but it wouldn't be tax free.

As for how the plan is run, I'd keep it largely off limits until retirement, but I'd let employees have some control over how it's invested within some parameters. It would look a bit like the Thrift Savings Plan that federal employees use in that they could choose between investment options of various levels of risk.

Most of all, the money belongs to the individual and is totally off limits to the government. It can't tax or spend it. If the individual dies, his or her named beneficiary receives it tax free and outside of probate. I don't want probate courts or lawyers screwing with it.

 

[guy4321]

A few things to note. First, SS was never a good idea. Giving the government and politicians that much power over a big piece of people's retirement was never a smart thing to do.

Second, as it was designed, it was bad, because it never made use of the growth potential of investment. It was just cash-in-cash-out. Even when it was running surpluses, the surplus was only "invested" in treasury bonds - meaning it was a creative way for Congress to just spend the surplus. Whether in deficit, surplus, or even, it was always a horrible use of money that has cost us untold trillions in lost income.

Third, the Ponzi scheme was only sustainable if people kept dying in their 60s and if American women kept having a bunch of kids. All of those assumptions ended up being wrong. We've adjusted for that by raising FICA taxes, which are now about 6 times what they were in 1935. We've more than doubled the cap on income subject to FICA. We've now raised the retirement age. In spite of all that extra cash dumped into it, it's still falling apart.

At this point, we're running out of options. We can't raise the tax or the income cap much more, because they're already totally excessive. Maybe raise the retirement age a little, but that's going to get out of hand soon as well. And even if we tried to toy with these a little, it would only delay the inevitable a short period of time. We need an overhaul. It's that simple, and sooner we accept it, the easier and cheaper it's going to be.

The big change will be exclude people with too much private savings from receiving any SS (even after those people contributed to SS).

 

[Mr. Deez]

The big change will be exclude people with too much private savings from receiving any SS (even after those people contributed to SS).

Yep. We need to have a real leveling with people. It isn't "your money" anymore. You continously and elected people who wasted it, and you didn't care. Yes, it sucks. Don't make stupid decisions at the ballot box anymore.

 

[mchammer]

Yep. We need to have a real leveling with people. It isn't "your money" anymore. You continously and elected people who wasted it, and you didn't care. Yes, it sucks. Don't make stupid decisions at the ballot box anymore.

Raise payroll tax to 10% (8% SS and 2% Medicare). May eventually need to go 10% SS.

 

[nashhorn]

The big change will be exclude people with too much private savings from receiving any SS (even after those people contributed to SS).

Bull, only a non retired person would say that. Tell me, who decides what is ‘too much’ private savings? If I contributed, I should have access to that amount - minimum.

 

[HornHuskerDad]

The big change will be exclude people with too much private savings from receiving any SS (even after those people contributed to SS).

That would turn SS into another wealth reallocation program - even if you disguise it with another name. If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

 

[guy4321]

Bull, only a non retired person would say that. Tell me, who decides what is ‘too much’ private savings? If I contributed, I should have access to that amount - minimum.

That would turn SS into another wealth reallocation program - even if you disguise it with another name. If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

I didn't say I wanted it, but you can't put it past Congress. Democrats, of course, would be the ones deciding what's 'too much' saved.

 

[lkainer]

I didn't say I wanted it, but you can't put it past Congress. Democrats, of course, would be the ones deciding what's 'too much' saved.

I think they need to address disability fraud. I know several people that went on disability when they were 40 years old and spent their time golfing and fishing.

 

[nashhorn]

Key word there is 'fraud'. One can only hope DOGE is doing just that, AND that it produces some measurable results that are implemented.

 

[militaryhorn]

The problem with SS is that it wasn't designed for someone to retire and live solely on. It was designed to supplement your personal savings for retirement.

The government should be teaching us to save for our retirement and not rely solely on SS to live off of.

The answer to solving it isn't going to be pretty for anyone along with the solution to our debt problem which is why nothing is going to happen. Politicians are to worried about getting reelected to actually solve the problem because the real solution will suck for everyone.

This is the problem with Americans in general. They complain about not being truthful and when you are they blow up on you and go full tilt.

 

[Monahorns]

The problem with SS is that it wasn't designed for someone to retire and live solely on. It was designed to supplement your personal savings for retirement.

The problem is that it is literally a Ponzi scheme. Generation X will pay way more in than they will get out.

The government should be teaching us to save for our retirement and not rely solely on SS to live off of.

Someone should. Not sure we should trust the government for things like this.

The answer to solving it isn't going to be pretty for anyone along with the solution to our debt problem which is why nothing is going to happen. Politicians are to worried about getting reelected to actually solve the problem because the real solution will suck for everyone.

This is the problem with Americans in general. They complain about not being truthful and when you are they blow up on you and go full tilt.

The US will need one generation of politicians to actually do something for the country instead of themselves. If these guys are only worried about reelection then the US will crash hard and in 300 years we will be a tale of how far an empire can fall.

 

[nashhorn]

Ha, we will be ANOTHER tale of how far an empire can fall.

 

[Monahorns]

Ha, we will be ANOTHER tale of how far an empire can fall.

It's inevitable sadly.

 

[guy4321]

I think they need to address disability fraud. I know several people that went on disability when they were 40 years old and spent their time golfing and fishing.

Can you point me to directions for that? Asking for a friend.

 

[Horn6721]

Agree with Mona. Not sure it is the government's job to teach us to save for retirement. Parents should but not every parent will
Maybe it should be taught in school?

We see from the stats on credit card debt and lack of even emergency savings most people won't plan for the future.
You can't fix stupid.

 

[nashhorn]

I was not too good at instilling the economic facts to my kids but am proud to say I have with the Grandkids. Everyone has their own Roth or reg IRA established with their first employment. Best thing is they have all thanked me - feels good

 

[Mr. Deez]

Raise payroll tax to 10% (8% SS and 2% Medicare). May eventually need to go 10% SS.

Oh, f*ck that. That is the worst thing we could do.

 

[Horn6721]

Mr D
Realistically the too large majority of people have not do not and will plan for next month let alone for their retirement. If the ONLY way is to take the money before they see it maybe it can help fund for awhile longer.

 

[mchammer]

Oh, f*ck that. That is the worst thing we could do.

Why? SS is socialism. People should pay for it.