Social Security

[Boreas]

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.

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

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

That's a bogus argument that is being pushed by the Oligarchy who want us peasants to toil in the traces till we drop dead.

The main reason the average lifespan was so much lower back in the old days was due to the high rate of infant mortality and deaths from Childhood diseases. When you put a while bunch of zeros and single digits into the mix it tends to bring the average way down. People who made it to 65 back then had almost as many years left as they would today.

Partially but not entirely. The average age for people who survive into adulthood today is significantly higher than it was in the 1930's.

https://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h980.html

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Partially but not entirely. The average age for people who survive into adulthood today is significantly higher than it was in the 1930's.

Before you pour yourself another pitcher of that right wing Kool-Aid, you should read this:

http://www.salon.com/2012/11/20/gops..._security_lie/

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

Before you pour yourself another pitcher of that right wing Kool-Aid, you should read this:

http://www.salon.com/2012/11/20/gops..._security_lie/

What you're failing to grasp here is that I never said I favored either of the arguments that I described. For no logical reason, you've chosen to believe I support the argument that you disagree with.

So you can take your Trumpist hostility and shove it up your ass.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by Boreas

What you're failing to grasp here is that I never said I favored either of the arguments that I described. For no logical reason, you've chosen to believe I support the argument that you disagree with.

So you can take your Trumpist hostility and shove it up your ass.

I'm not much into "people skills".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZRUaDGW7WQ

[Oerets]

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.

My point is a simple on on age. When a person becomes or comes to a point where gainful employment is a thing of the past. Due to the cards they were dealt or working environment injuries ect ....

They go onto SS thru other means. No age requirement!

Why not just realize this and adjust the age. Eliminating the trouble and expense.

Must be noted not all Sixty year old's are created equally!

Barney

[MrPots]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Partially but not entirely. The average age for people who survive into adulthood today is significantly higher than it was in the 1930's.

https://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h980.html

Understood where you're going with this.

Yes, you do get back more than you pay in, some times significantly more, especially with Medicare. But with the stock market stacked against the average 401K and Roth plan and really lousy inflation, you cannot count on the stock market Besides, our leaders have been fucking with the SS fund to make themselves look good, otherwise it would be in good shape.

Applies to Medicare too. Who knew when I first started in the work force that the medical industry would turn into greedy financial opportunists. The government refuses to do anything about that, the government is in collusion, the government compelled me to pay into the system for coverage, they are bound to honor that contract with me.

So I don't care about that argument. The government made a contract with me. I expect it to be honored.

I have a lot of empathy for the younger generations that have to pay for this shit too. I'd be pissed off if I were them. Guess what? When I was younger I was pissed off that I had to pay into these programs too. Now I'm glad these programs are there. Maybe the younger generations will be pissed off enough to force the changes needed to make SS and Medicare solid again.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Those are entitlement programs. The people who receive these didn't pay into a fund for 40 or 50 years in order to receive Food Stamps, Welfare or Medicare commensurate with their previous contributions.

Social Security is an earned benefit, not unlike a sort of government annuity. People (over a certain age) receive benefits the amount of which is determined by the amount they paid in over their working lives. To means test an earned benefit is basically cheating people out of some or all of the compensation for the money they've paid in.

It astonishes me that you can't see the difference here.



All of this is totally irrelevant to a conversation about Social Security.



It's not really a tax in the conventional sense that the taxes go to fund government services. Social Security payroll deductions are basically invested by the government on your behalf as insurancce against poverty i n old age. It's in essence a retirement insurance premium. I justify it on the basis of the direct financial benefit that accrues from that payment.

I can also justify it on the basis that the premium is assessed on the basis of earnings. The more you earn, the more you pay so, actually, it isn't regressive. Sales tax is regressive since everyone pays their 8 or 10% on whatever they buy so it disproportionately impacts people with low incomes.

Yes, I realize there's an earnings cap on the amount that people pay into Social Security. What you seem to be overlooking is that there's also a cap on benefits. The benefits one receives are based on what one pays in.

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)

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

Before you pour yourself another pitcher of that right wing Kool-Aid, you should read this:

http://www.salon.com/2012/11/20/gops..._security_lie/

Great link Tom. Thanks!

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Oerets

I'm against means testing but in favor of increasing the cap on contributing to a higher level.

This is a forced system so a percentage based on the years and pay in should be the same for all no matter your net worth. Just with the increase in wealth and medium income so should the cap keep up.

Increasing the age? No they should lower it!

Barney

not my opinion but a very fair and reasonable philosophy on how the system should work