Social Security

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Boreas

There are persuasive arguments on both sides of this. The argument in favor of increasing the retirement age is that the system was never intended to provide benefits for 10 or 20 years as it does now because people live longer. When Social Security was introduced, average life expectancy was much lower. The government was figuring on only having to pay for a few years.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html

The argument in favor of lowering the retirement age is that, by doing so, we create more vacancies for young people entering the work force. this can be critically important during a period such as this one when young adults are graduating from college buried in debt and unable to find a job.

Good post

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by nailer

Social Security is an entitlement program (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entitlement) and is a conventional tax in that it's been around for a long time. I'm astonished that you don't understand this.

short and sweet, well done

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by noonereal

John, SS winds up in the general revenue. It's why it's broke.

Good post though in general for those that don't understand the issue although it "astonishes me that you don't understand" that I see the difference just because I prefer a different template.

My comment about moralities is just that, about moralities as that was used as a justification. I pointed out that it was trite to so do. (it was you who brought up morality, brother)

As to food stamps, Medicaid or .... of course many pay in 40 years before ever using it. Most never use it. So they are all earned benefits in a sense. Those who pay and how long is not a determinate factor. Social Security needn't be either. You said yourself, it's an insurance for the elderly. I don't collect my home insurance, my car insurance, my farm insurance if I don't need of it.

The SS portion of FICA is 6.2. Period. Well, unless you make over $118,500.
Hey, I loved it when I was doing well. I knew all I had to pay was $15,000 a year no matter how much I made. Good stuff when times are good. A back breaker when you make $40,000 to pay $5,000.

This is a philosophical difference we are having not a knowledge void issue one of us is suffering.

peace brother, vote Trump!

(you are supposed to laugh, if you don't, you are taking all this far too seriously)

You don't "pay in" to Food Stamps and Medicaid. You can avail yourselves of these entitlements even if you've never earned enough to pay income tax. Also, you have to apply for these and must demonstrate a need and you can be rejected (means test). You get it if you need it. You don't if you don't.

With Social Security and Medicare, you do pay in and, as a result, you automatically receive the benefits. Yes, you have to apply but that's mostly because you have a certain amount of discretion as to when your benefit will start.

[donquixote99]

My main irritation with Social Security is that both parties have continued the lie that SS taxes create a SS fund when they never have. But Reagan is the biggest offender in that he pushed through the largest SS tax increase with the lying promise that the money would make the program secure. What the money did, of course, was help with the huge deficit he had going.

Both parties also lie all the time and accuse the other of 'raiding' the trust fund. There has never, from the first day of the program on, been a real trust fund to raid. There's a more technical question, of course, as to whether a government with a permanent debt and a virtually-permanent deficit can or should in any way have funds of savings....

[nailer]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Weren't you the guy who used to warn your subordinates against using Wikipedia as a source? Social Security is an earned benefit.

Nope, not me. You're the most misinferring guy I've never met.

Where did I say anything about SS/earned?

[nailer]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

My main irritation with Social Security is that both parties have continued the lie that SS taxes create a SS fund when they never have. But Reagan is the biggest offender in that he pushed through the largest SS tax increase with the lying promise that the money would make the program secure. What the money did, of course, was help with the huge deficit he had going.

Both parties also lie all the time and accuse the other of 'raiding' the trust fund. There has never, from the first day of the program on, been a real trust fund to raid. There's a more technical question, of course, as to whether a government with a permanent debt and a virtually-permanent deficit can or should in any way have funds of savings....

If we're playing the blame the President game I'll go back to that great friend of the common man, FDR. SS has been a pay as you go social welfare program from the start.

It's a federal government trust fund. How much trust does any Congress deserve?

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by nailer

If we're playing the blame the President game I'll go back to that great friend of the common man, FDR. SS has been a pay as you go social welfare program from the start.

It's a federal government trust fund. How much trust does any Congress deserve?

Yes, a Ponzi scheme foisted on the common man by one of their worst enemies.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

But Reagan is the biggest offender in that he pushed through the largest SS tax increase with the lying promise that the money would make the program secure. What the money did, of course, was help with the huge deficit he had going.

Exactly.

What Reagan did was do a double whammy on Social Security by raising the payroll tax rate from 5.4% to 6.2%, while at the same time cutting benefits by raising the full retirement age from 65 to 67.

Actually it was a triple whammy in that he reduced the top income tax bracket from 70% to 28% which then led to huge deficits which the right wing is now trying to use as justification for more cuts.

These changes were phased in over time so personally I only got hit with a one year increase in my full retirement age. It went from 65 to 66. But I went ahead and started by Social Security at 65, because when I got my first job in 1963 that's what it was, and I consider that a contract that I had with the government which they are now in breach of. So by taking it at 65 I only got 93.3333% of what I should have gotten. That means that today my check is $138 a month less than it should be. I believe that gives me justification for a lawsuit against the US government.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Yes, a Ponzi scheme foisted on the common man by one of their worst enemies.

Try again.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

Exactly.

What Reagan did was do a double whammy on Social Security by raising the payroll tax rate from 5.4% to 6.2%, while at the same time cutting benefits by raising the full retirement age from 65 to 67.

Actually it was a triple whammy in that he reduced the top income tax bracket from 70% to 28% which then led to huge deficits which the right wing is now trying to use as justification for more cuts.

These changes were phased in over time so personally I only got hit with a one year increase in my full retirement age. It went from 65 to 66. But I went ahead and started by Social Security at 65, because when I got my first job in 1963 that's what it was, and I consider that a contract that I had with the government which they are now in breach of. So by taking it at 65 I only got 93.3333% of what I should have gotten. That means that today my check is $138 a month less than it should be. I believe that gives me justification for a lawsuit against the US government.

Your contract has changed. Pray they don't alter it further.