Social Security question, was asked to start a new thread on it.

[Machismo]

Your answer is to let over 20% of our elderly population to die and take those who attempt to survive and throw them in prison......

Great answer there..... Sounds like the great start of a dystopian flick.

Do you have the math to actually back that up?

Or is this just ass math that you managed to pull out?

- - - Updated - - -

Who's going to want to employ them all? They're doing fraction of the work a younger person does, while having half a century of salary growth. Lose-lose case for employers in many cases, with some exceptions of course.

Most will simply stay at their jobs longer. We saw the Boomers doing that during the Great Recession.

And people probably should work longer, if they haven't saved for retirement. It's not like SS insolvency is catching anyone by surprise.

afk

[Shadowferal]

Your answer is to let over 20% of our elderly population to die and take those who attempt to survive and throw them in prison...... Great answer there..... Sounds like the great start of a dystopian flick.

That's why I refuse to consider his faux outrage of the pandemic death toll.

[bladeXcrasher]

increase taxes on the wealthy, there i solved the thread what do i win?

That would require a restructuring of SS funding. The current 6.2% rate has been in effect since 1990 and they have only increased the cap on wages.

So currently SS gets 6.2% from the employee plus 6.2% from the employer on wages up to $137,700 for 2020 and $142,800 for 2021.

They need to increase the tax rates, and specifically the rate that the employer pays.

[Edge-]

Then you don't abandon them, and start a charity. Do it.

Charity is not a solution to a problem. Like...literally never is. Charity is a band-aide on a problem that doesn't have a resolution. It's a cop-out and bullshit that nobody but you takes seriously.

As for your granny, it is her fault. I get that it's not what you want to hear, but it's her fucking fault she's where she's at. Being a "poor ignorant woman" isn't a defense.

Again, ignoring social and societal norms of the time ain't a good look, bro. Women struggled to get decent jobs at the time even if they did work, and often (and still do) face extensive harassment and inequality. I'm not saying this because I love my grandmother, this applies to all women of the generation because they were all victims of a society far more sexist than the one we live in today.

If they had planned around the existing retirement system, then they'd know this cliff was coming. If they had planned, then there's no issue.

They did, actually. The problem is the existing retirement system wasn't designed around people living as long as they do, especially Medicare which has gotten more expensive due to the increased medical issues older people deal with. Which is again, not her fault because nobody at the time could have planned around insolvency that wasn't predicted, or warned about, until it was far too late for them.

[Fugus]

Do you have the math to actually back that up?

Or is this just ass math that you managed to pull out?

Look at the number of elderly who are considered poor and surviving on Social Security, now CUT that social security.

Look at those who have worked their entire lives and paid into it and retiring in the next 10-20 years, now take that into account knowing the majority of them won't be able to survive on it either because it was CUT to unlivable levels.

I will give you a hint, according to the CBPP about 37.8% of those over 65 are in poverty if not for their Social Security.

[Shadowferal]

Charity is not a solution to a problem. Like...literally never is. Charity is a band-aide on a problem that doesn't have a resolution. It's a cop-out and bullshit that nobody but you takes seriously.

During the turn of the 20th century...Victorian age, charity was very much a thing...child slave labor arose from it. That's what libertarians want.

[Machismo]

Charity is not a solution to a problem. Like...literally never is. Charity is a band-aide on a problem that doesn't have a resolution. It's a cop-out and bullshit that nobody but you takes seriously.



Again, ignoring social and societal norms of the time ain't a good look, bro. Women struggled to get decent jobs at the time even if they did work, and often (and still do) face extensive harassment and inequality. I'm not saying this because I love my grandmother, this applies to all women of the generation because they were all victims of a society far more sexist than the one we live in today.



They did, actually. The problem is the existing retirement system wasn't designed around people living as long as they do, especially Medicare which has gotten more expensive due to the increased medical issues older people deal with. Which is again, not her fault because nobody at the time could have planned around insolvency that wasn't predicted, or warned about, until it was far too late for them.

FUCKING BINGO. People are living longer.

So, the payments become cost prohibitive. Which means you either pay less, or pay for less years. That's why raising the retirement age to 70 make sense. We've tried raising taxes... more than 20 times. Let's try something new.

[Fugus]

That would require a restructuring of SS funding. The current 6.2% rate has been in effect since 1990 and they have only increased the cap on wages.

So currently SS gets 6.2% from the employee plus 6.2% from the employer on wages up to $137,700 for 2020 and $142,800 for 2021.

They need to increase the tax rates, and specifically the rate that the employer pays.

Just raise the cap and tax all income as income after $250,000 a year like Sanders wanted to do. Then those living off stocks would be contributing to the system as well.

Would probably have a surplus that required us to lower the cap or rates after they started paying in.

[Machismo]

Look at the number of elderly who are considered poor and surviving on Social Security, now CUT that social security.

Look at those who have worked their entire lives and paid into it and retiring in the next 10-20 years, now take that into account knowing the majority of them won't be able to survive on it either because it was CUT to unlivable levels.

I will give you a hint, according to the CBPP about 37.8% of those over 65 are in poverty if not for their Social Security.

Nope, this is your claim, let's see the math.

Or, call it ass math.

I offered two solutions, decreasing benefits, or raising the retirement age. I stated I'm fine with either.

We have known this cliff was coming. It wasn't a secret.

[Fugus]

FUCKING BINGO. People are living longer.

So, the payments become cost prohibitive. Which means you either pay less, or pay for less years. That's why raising the retirement age to 70 make sense. We've tried raising taxes... more than 20 times. Let's try something new.

Love how you omit the solutions that would actually address the problems without actually forcing people into crime and homelessness to survive and actual making the system workable for the foreseeable future so people could actually work their entire lives and retire off what they paid into it.

[Azadina]

Most will simply stay at their jobs longer. We saw the Boomers doing that during the Great Recession.

And people probably should work longer, if they haven't saved for retirement. It's not like SS insolvency is catching anyone by surprise.

afk

Is that how it works? So when the employer calls a meeting where he/she says "look buddy, you're currently doing half the work these younger people do, but at twice the salary. Time for you to retire" the old person can just say "nah I'm staying, and next you'll pay me triple the salary for quarter of the work, deal with it".

[Fugus]

Nope, this is your claim, let's see the math.

Or, call it ass math.

I offered two solutions, decreasing benefits, or raising the retirement age. I stated I'm fine with either.

We have known this cliff was coming. It wasn't a secret.

Nope, the 37.8% isn't my claim, it is the number from another source that actually researched it.

You offered solutions that cause bigger problems and make them worse, while ignoring the issues your solutions cause. I have asked you to address the issues with your solution only for you to basically tell the elderly in this nation to fuck off and die because you didn't want to deal with the issues of taking care of them which, to be honest, they should have done when they were younger by they thought like you and pretended that the issues weren't real till it was.

- - - Updated - - -

But basically, your solution is to let the elderly population in the nation die and imprison though desperate enough to resort to less than legal means to keep on living.

That is your solution to this problem, you can try and repackage that turd any way you want, that is still the turd you are trying to pass off.


Edit: AFK, just wanted you to spell out your answer and it was every bit as ignorant, short sighted, and heartless as it sounded when you weren't asked the detailed bits.

Sorry man, but you are wrong on this stuff all the way around, refusing to admit it, won't change that fact.

[Edge-]

So, the payments become cost prohibitive. Which means you either pay less, or pay for less years. That's why raising the retirement age to 70 make sense. We've tried raising taxes... more than 20 times. Let's try something new.

There are a lot of solutions - ending the cap revenue which can be taxed taxed for SS/Medicare, slowly increasing the retirement age over time, allowing folks to opt-out of receiving SS if they don't want it and more. Nobody wants to really deal with it though, because any changes to save the programs will cost money and be unpopular.

But, "Just abandoning old people to die because they made bad choices, often as a reaction to societal pressures and ignorance that was not their fault." is bad.

[Biglog]

This has been a recurring story that has been popping up since the ~80's that Social Security will run out by x date due to baby boomers. So it's definitely not a new claim, we've heard it for decades. And the story has always been the same, that 10-20 years from the date of the article Social Security will become insolvent. By the original stories it would already be insolvent because those dates that have passed, but the story today moves the goalpost to a new date of 2034.

It's similar to story that has made the rounds for just as long, which is the date when the world will run out of oil. EV's have made that less of a fear mongering point. But it's followed the same pattern of saying we'd run out by X date and then periodically moving that date forward.

Social Security won't go away, it's far too critically important to millions of seniors. Democrats will add funding to Social Security to cover shortfalls from population growth if eventually needed, and conservatives not funding Social Security would get them demolished for about the next 20 election cycles. At best conservatives might make a push to increase the eligibility age a year or two. The fear mongering articles about Social Security running out of money come up often because it's an easy article to write and it upsets people enough to give it view traction, but I really do not anticipate Social Security ever going away. Politicians know very well the voting power of the senior demographic, and the reason Social Security was put in-place was because of the seniors and disabled that suffered in The Great Depression. If the GOP wants to bring back soup lines and make millions of seniors homeless by not funding Social Security to fund corporate tax breaks, I'm sure that will work out real well for them.

So this is why this warning comes up often, yet it never happens and the dates always keep moving farther out. Make a mental note and in 5 years you're going to read another article about how Social Security will become insolvent in 2039.

[Shadowferal]

That is your solution to this problem, you can try and repackage that turd any way you want, that is still the turd you are trying to pass off.

His first post in that other thread regarding his indifference whether or not children get fed must have been a Freudian slip. Especially in light of the fact that children also collect ss.

[Ivanstone]

Homelessness has an actual cost associated with it. On average its about $36000 in government spending per year. Currently SS helps keep a lot of old people off the street. You could tell people to go take a hike for events that they may or may not be at fault for but even doing that costs money.

SS presently works. It could be better but people really don't want to fix it because certain people believe (not think) that a privatized option will work better.

[Machismo]

Love how you omit the solutions that would actually address the problems without actually forcing people into crime and homelessness to survive and actual making the system workable for the foreseeable future so people could actually work their entire lives and retire off what they paid into it.

If you are so intent on raising taxes, then let's raise them on everyone.

What percentage of their payroll do you want it to be? We see that 6.2% from both employees and employers isn't sufficient, so let's raise it. Is 8% acceptable for you?

- - - Updated - - -

Is that how it works? So when the employer calls a meeting where he/she says "look buddy, you're currently doing half the work these younger people do, but at twice the salary. Time for you to retire" the old person can just say "nah I'm staying, and next you'll pay me triple the salary for quarter of the work, deal with it".

Or, take a pay cut.

People work longer all the time.

Deal with it.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope, the 37.8% isn't my claim, it is the number from another source that actually researched it.

You offered solutions that cause bigger problems and make them worse, while ignoring the issues your solutions cause. I have asked you to address the issues with your solution only for you to basically tell the elderly in this nation to fuck off and die because you didn't want to deal with the issues of taking care of them which, to be honest, they should have done when they were younger by they thought like you and pretended that the issues weren't real till it was.

- - - Updated - - -

But basically, your solution is to let the elderly population in the nation die and imprison though desperate enough to resort to less than legal means to keep on living.

That is your solution to this problem, you can try and repackage that turd any way you want, that is still the turd you are trying to pass off.


Edit: AFK, just wanted you to spell out your answer and it was every bit as ignorant, short sighted, and heartless as it sounded when you weren't asked the detailed bits.

Sorry man, but you are wrong on this stuff all the way around, refusing to admit it, won't change that fact.

No, you made a claim, and if you are going to demand that I cannot answer something based on your conjured math, then either provide that math, or simply walk away.

I have sated how I'd s\address it. Once again, you not liking something isn't really my fault, nor my problem. Old people are the biggest welfare class int his country,a nd it's not even close.

- - - Updated - - -

There are a lot of solutions - ending the cap revenue which can be taxed taxed for SS/Medicare, slowly increasing the retirement age over time, allowing folks to opt-out of receiving SS if they don't want it and more. Nobody wants to really deal with it though, because any changes to save the programs will cost money and be unpopular.

But, "Just abandoning old people to die because they made bad choices, often as a reaction to societal pressures and ignorance that was not their fault." is bad.

That's specifically targeting "other people" to shoulder the burden. Once against his is why it came up in the other thread, because it's always about making someone else pay more.

It's not abandoning old people, it's warning the to watch the fuck out for the iceberg... over the course of 35 years, and being ignored.

Seriously, guy... the iceberg is still there, be ready for it.

[Edge-]

What percentage of their payroll do you want it to be? We see that 6.2% from both employees and employers isn't sufficient, so let's raise it. Is 8% acceptable for you?

You're asking us to make the projections? That's pretty ludicrous. We don't have all the necessary data, much less time/expertise, to figure that out.

But would most of us be fine with a progressive tax on social security? Yeah. I'd pay more into it, but I'm a weirdo that doesn't mind paying taxes that are necessary both for the normal operation of this country and to make sure we can be a proper functioning society that doesn't just leave people suffering in the streets because they're poor.

Or, take a pay cut.

People work longer all the time.

Usually pay increases over time because the experience adds value. This is essentially an extra tax on the elderly employee, except the tax is being paid directly to the employer.

So it's literally just exploiting the elderly. Which is...uh...not a great look.

[Machismo]

This has been a recurring story that has been popping up since the ~80's that Social Security will run out by x date due to baby boomers. So it's definitely not a new claim, we've heard it for decades. And the story has always been the same, that 10-20 years from the date of the article Social Security will become insolvent. By the original stories it would already be insolvent because those dates that have passed, but the story today moves the goalpost to a new date of 2034.

It's similar to story that has made the rounds for just as long, which is the date when the world will run out of oil. EV's have made that less of a fear mongering point. But it's followed the same pattern of saying we'd run out by X date and then periodically moving that date forward.

Social Security won't go away, it's far too critically important to millions of seniors. Democrats will add funding to Social Security to cover shortfalls from population growth if eventually needed, and conservatives not funding Social Security would get them demolished for about the next 20 election cycles. At best conservatives might make a push to increase the eligibility age a year or two. The fear mongering articles about Social Security running out of money come up often because it's an easy article to write and it upsets people enough to give it view traction, but I really do not anticipate Social Security ever going away. Politicians know very well the voting power of the senior demographic, and the reason Social Security was put in-place was because of the seniors and disabled that suffered in The Great Depression. If the GOP wants to bring back soup lines and make millions of seniors homeless by not funding Social Security to fund corporate tax breaks, I'm sure that will work out real well for them.

So this is why this warning comes up often, yet it never happens and the dates always keep moving farther out. Make a mental note and in 5 years you're going to read another article about how Social Security will become insolvent in 2039.

It has been 2035-2037 for about 20 years. Tat date hasn't changed too much. It would have shifted further to the left, but they increased the earnings cap faster than benefits or wages.

In this case, the date moved to the left by a year, from last years assessment.

[Fugus]

If you are so intent on raising taxes, then let's raise them on everyone.

What percentage of their payroll do you want it to be? We see that 6.2% from both employees and employers isn't sufficient, so let's raise it. Is 8% acceptable for you?

I would say just tax all income as income regardless of source so the top have to pay into the system as well like they were originally supposed to till they learned to dodge it and just remove the cap entirely.

Then after the system is taken care of and stabilized, we can look into re-implementing a cap but we make sure that all income is taxed as income regardless so the top can't dodge it.

That is what I would accept, the actual rate it is taxed, I wouldn't touch at all.

And since 100% of the money brought into it is separate from the general budget, everything after that they aren't allowed to use and must be given back after it is stabilized.

I prefer solutions that actually solve the problems and doesn't ignore reality. Not ones that ignore important stuff or kick the can down the road.