So It's Come To This: We Might Have To Worry About The Deficit

[Kathianne]

I'll give you a partially true. IMO, as previously stated, it can be fixed without cutting the throats of those who have involuntarily paid into it all their working lives (SSI). Suppose government decided one day to take all profits from any and all stockholders? Something they pay into with an expectation of return on investment? And no, when you blow away the smokescreen, there's no difference. Investment for return.

The reason there isn't a fix is because no one wants one. Poison for politicians. The hydra agencies that suck paychecks off government maintaining the albatross's keep a bunch of government dependent people employed. Down to the people themselves abusing the system simply so they don't have to work. The lengths people will go for the latter is amazing to me.

Not to be forgotten are those that actually are in need. Mark my words, they are the ones who will suffer the most.

Actually I've always wanted the phasing out. Young people today are justly blaming the 'boomers' for robbing their future and making them less likely to have children, which of course is exacerbating the basic problem in this pyramid scheme. Whether or not it's too late to work at phasing out and paying at least some of the confiscated monies from the younger folk is up for grabs, that moment may be past.

The only folks not wanting to end SSI and Medicare are those receiving or close to receiving. They DO need to be protected, but they too need to voice their desire for future generations.

[fj1200]

I'll give you a partially true. IMO, as previously stated, it can be fixed without cutting the throats of those who have involuntarily paid into it all their working lives (SSI). Suppose government decided one day to take all profits from any and all stockholders? Something they pay into with an expectation of return on investment? And no, when you blow away the smokescreen, there's no difference. Investment for return.

The reason there isn't a fix is because no one wants one. Poison for politicians. The hydra agencies that suck paychecks off government maintaining the albatross's keep a bunch of government dependent people employed. Down to the people themselves abusing the system simply so they don't have to work. The lengths people will go for the latter is amazing to me.

Not to be forgotten are those that actually are in need. Mark my words, they are the ones who will suffer the most.

Nobody is talking about kneecapping everyone that paid into it but ANY reform is going to be argued against reform as exactly that. It's inescapable that those will be the talking points. Just like Milei trying to fix Argentina is going to be protested even though the times that they are in are long-term fatal to their economy. I agree with the rest of your post but I'm completely correct about the reality of the political backlash. This is why a couple of bi-partisan Senators, likely at the end of their careers, need to start hashing out a workable solution that they can then start to sell to the larger audience.

[fj1200]

Actually I've always wanted the phasing out. Young people today are justly blaming the 'boomers' for robbing their future and making them less likely to have children, which of course is exacerbating the basic problem in this pyramid scheme. Whether or not it's too late to work at phasing out and paying at least some of the confiscated monies from the younger folk is up for grabs, that moment may be past.

The only folks not wanting to end SSI and Medicare are those receiving or close to receiving. They DO need to be protected, but they too need to voice their desire for future generations.

I don't know about that. I think that any reform needs to reflect the reality of modern life with working longer being, in my opinion, healthier for people but also healthier for people's and the nation's budgets. Incentive the positive and disincentive the negative and not legislate/encourage a one-time date of retirement. Of course not mentioning that Medicare is budgetarily worse I think than Social Security is long term.

[Gunny]

Actually I've always wanted the phasing out. Young people today are justly blaming the 'boomers' for robbing their future and making them less likely to have children, which of course is exacerbating the basic problem in this pyramid scheme. Whether or not it's too late to work at phasing out and paying at least some of the confiscated monies from the younger folk is up for grabs, that moment may be past.

The only folks not wanting to end SSI and Medicare are those receiving or close to receiving. They DO need to be protected, but they too need to voice their desire for future generations.

Again, you go back to "clear understanding". In general, I doubt anyone is truly educated on the matter without educating themselves. If I understood it when I was joining the workforce as I understand it now, I agree with phasing it out. Then again, in hindsight, I can think of a whole bunch of decisions that would be different

Perfect example of education on the topic: "young people today blaming boomers for their future" should be blaming government for not ensuring the solvency of a program it is responsible for. Who was it again robbing us of our future when we were the kids busting our butts for a dime and having to support retirees?

I don't believe it's too late to phase it out. What do you replace it with in a society more dependent on government than us? Blaming the contributors and punishing them for government's FUp is as wrong as anything else to do with the topic. I would not be surprised that misplaced blame begins with government/MSM propaganda. Government should be held responsible, not the people they've fleeced. But it's easier to screw the little guy than get government tio get it right.

[Gunny]

Nobody is talking about kneecapping everyone that paid into it but ANY reform is going to be argued against reform as exactly that. It's inescapable that those will be the talking points. Just like Milei trying to fix Argentina is going to be protested even though the times that they are in are long-term fatal to their economy. I agree with the rest of your post but I'm completely correct about the reality of the political backlash. This is why a couple of bi-partisan Senators, likely at the end of their careers, need to start hashing out a workable solution that they can then start to sell to the larger audience.

There's no doubt in my mind those will be, and are, the talking points. Just as there is no doubt in my mind who's going to take it in the shorts when all is said and done.

[Kathianne]

I don't know about that. I think that any reform needs to reflect the reality of modern life with working longer being, in my opinion, healthier for people but also healthier for people's and the nation's budgets. Incentive the positive and disincentive the negative and not legislate/encourage a one-time date of retirement. Of course not mentioning that Medicare is budgetarily worse I think than Social Security is long term.

I think everyone should get what they put into it, but those who means test high perhaps over time, little or no interest. Means testing needs to be phased in, while percentages withheld from those working decreases slowly, as there's not enough $$$ already.

Don't pretend to know all pitfalls, but should have started phase out in 50s.

[Kathianne]

Again, you go back to "clear understanding". In general, I doubt anyone is truly educated on the matter without educating themselves. If I understood it when I was joining the workforce as I understand it now, I agree with phasing it out. Then again, in hindsight, I can think of a whole bunch of decisions that would be different

Perfect example of education on the topic: "young people today blaming boomers for their future" should be blaming government for not ensuring the solvency of a program it is responsible for. Who was it again robbing us of our future when we were the kids busting our butts for a dime and having to support retirees?

I don't believe it's too late to phase it out. What do you replace it with in a society more dependent on government than us? Blaming the contributors and punishing them for government's FUp is as wrong as anything else to do with the topic. I would not be surprised that misplaced blame begins with government/MSM propaganda. Government should be held responsible, not the people they've fleeced. But it's easier to screw the little guy than get government tio get it right.

IMO no replacement. If elderly persons need safety net for some reason, going to be like welfare. Again, I'm not for having starving, homeless. The standard of living though should not be what those working should get

[SassyLady]

If I collect SS for 20 years I will barely get back what I contributed. And that's without the interest it would have earned.

Don't forget .. for every penny you contributed your employer matched it.

[Kathianne]

If I collect SS for 20 years I will barely get back what I contributed. And that's without the interest it would have earned.

Don't forget .. for every penny you contributed your employer matched it.

Those above a means threshold should get their contributions back, not the employers. There needs to be every effort not to screw any group to the best way possible.

[Gunny]

IMO no replacement. If elderly persons need safety net for some reason, going to be like welfare. Again, I'm not for having starving, homeless. The standard of living though should not be what those working should get

I don't quite get why you want to go from either working or welfare with no in between. Granted, and as I have stated before, I could have done better than the government with what they withheld, IMO but that is not guaranteed nor fact.

You yourself pointed out where the problem lies: Jackson proved it nothing more than taxation and a means of revenue for the government. That means there never was any real attempt to manage the program in a manner that would give it a chance of success.

In my case, where my plans were disrupted and I had to leave the workforce early, I already had two retirement plans I earned to fall back on rather than needing handouts from the State; which, is where no SS would have put me.

I doubt you'll get many to agree with you on that standard of living thing. We live in a country where current knuckleheads entering the workforce believe they should be paid as CEO merely for their presence. I agree standard of living should be within means, but we don't do that either anymore.

There are lots of rules and standards I live by, as well as some others, but for the most part, this country is fiscally irresponsible. Where have the people learned to be that way? Watching the government that is supposed to set the example.

[Gunny]

FWIW. I didn't go looking for this. Just ran across it scrolling through the usual array of today's daily does of MSM depression

Social Security's Impending Bankruptcy Is Nothing More Than a Myth. Here's Why (msn.com)

[Kathianne]

FWIW. I didn't go looking for this. Just ran across it scrolling through the usual array of today's daily does of MSM depression

Social Security's Impending Bankruptcy Is Nothing More Than a Myth. Here's Why (msn.com)

I'm getting ready for work, but I will read this. Got through the opening, but problem is the 'working workforce.'

Since about 1975 or so the % of earnings taken by SSI and other fed and state taxes have been increasing at higher and higher rates, but not nearly as quickly as the expansion of benefits and rising costs of Medicare. Certainly the parents of baby boomers benefitted greatly, the money they collected in their later years, which were for far longer than anticipated when they were in their teens and began working after the war. Many of them didn't start paying into SSI until late 30s or even 40s.

Here and there folks have mentioned the looting of the pension fund, which never should have happened. It did. Sort of the same as investing your own money in a Ponzi scheme and losing it all, I guess that would be worse, but by degree. The government forces the taking, as is the very nature of government. Being duped by one's own bad decisions, to me is certainly not good, but I made the choice if caught up in such. The government hasn't the right to pull such on the citizens, but has done worse. Spending the money with no attempt to truly have it grow over time. Robbing not just the workers, but the future generations while continuing to take.
@Gunny mentioned that the young shouldn't be blaming the 'boomers' but the government. They are, they are rejecting the government, they want change more than the most virulent Trump supporters.

[fj1200]

FWIW. I didn't go looking for this. Just ran across it scrolling through the usual array of today's daily does of MSM depression

Social Security's Impending Bankruptcy Is Nothing More Than a Myth. Here's Why (msn.com)

At that point, Social Security might have to cut benefits to the tune of about 20%. That's not great. But it's also a far cry from the program going bankrupt and benefits disappearing entirely.

I'm not sure "bankruptcy" has been the cry but the ~20% cut is written into the current law when the trust fund runs out. I do think that the later years of what scheduled SS payments will do to the budget is the real problem and is not reflected in the article that I saw.

It needs to be fixed. "Getting mine" or "what I paid in" is the exact phrase that is going to be repeated to 535 Congressmen and Senators ad infinitum and the real reason that an actual fix will not occur.

SS needs to be seen as welfare IMO and not a retirement plan. People thinking it's a retirement plan is the reason that so many did not see a need to plan for retirement. When people see "cradle to grave" they will act accordingly, and when you start telling people that if they don't have savings then they're going to be on welfare when they retire, then hopefully they'll act accordingly. Unintended consequences... or intended depending on your level of cynicism.

And don't get me started on reverse mortgages.

[Gunny]

I'm not sure "bankruptcy" has been the cry but the ~20% cut is written into the current law when the trust fund runs out. I do think that the later years of what scheduled SS payments will do to the budget is the real problem and is not reflected in the article that I saw.

It needs to be fixed. "Getting mine" or "what I paid in" is the exact phrase that is going to be repeated to 535 Congressmen and Senators ad infinitum and the real reason that an actual fix will not occur.

SS needs to be seen as welfare IMO and not a retirement plan. People thinking it's a retirement plan is the reason that so many did not see a need to plan for retirement. When people see "cradle to grave" they will act accordingly, and when you start telling people that if they don't have savings then they're going to be on welfare when they retire, then hopefully they'll act accordingly. Unintended consequences... or intended depending on your level of cynicism.

And don't get me started on reverse mortgages.

I do not disagree with some of your reasoning. At the same time, I take serious issue with the idea that those who have paid into it for all their adult lives should just take it in the shorts and smile about it.

Not sure how you come up with SS should be seen as welfare when it is an investment, like any other, with the exception that investing is/was not an option. That latter, IMO, making it even more correct to pay those who have had to pay in.

You believe the people should pay for something they've already paid for, when I believe government should can and should take it out of their taxpayer spending money they waste on everything in the alphabet.

Seems where we do agree is that regardless your idea or mine, neither have a chance in Hell

[Gunny]

I'm getting ready for work, but I will read this. Got through the opening, but problem is the 'working workforce.'

Since about 1975 or so the % of earnings taken by SSI and other fed and state taxes have been increasing at higher and higher rates, but not nearly as quickly as the expansion of benefits and rising costs of Medicare. Certainly the parents of baby boomers benefitted greatly, the money they collected in their later years, which were for far longer than anticipated when they were in their teens and began working after the war. Many of them didn't start paying into SSI until late 30s or even 40s.

Here and there folks have mentioned the looting of the pension fund, which never should have happened. It did. Sort of the same as investing your own money in a Ponzi scheme and losing it all, I guess that would be worse, but by degree. The government forces the taking, as is the very nature of government. Being duped by one's own bad decisions, to me is certainly not good, but I made the choice if caught up in such. The government hasn't the right to pull such on the citizens, but has done worse. Spending the money with no attempt to truly have it grow over time. Robbing not just the workers, but the future generations while continuing to take.
@Gunny mentioned that the young shouldn't be blaming the 'boomers' but the government. They are, they are rejecting the government, they want change more than the most virulent Trump supporters.

From everything I've read, they want "change" at boomers' expense rather than calling government to task.