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

[Edge-]

I believe the overall goal is to get rid of the earnings cap, according to Fugus and Shadowferal. Fugus and I have been chatting about this for days.

As part of a comprehensive plan because there is no single "silver bullet" yes.

But why should the cap even exist?

Every year, the elderly become a bigger and bigger burden on the rest of society. If you really want to prevent poverty, then consistently making one generation pay for previous generations is the wrong way to go.

So what, are we going to flood the market with cheap, senior citizen labor to drive down wages since by your own argument, they're apparently worth less? Leave them on unemployment when they can't find jobs? They should have thought of this 40 years ago while they were working and the concept that SS/Medicare would be bankrupted in their lifetimes wasn't a thing?

Those senior citizens just need to pull themselves up by their shoehorns and walkers, I tells ya!

[Fugus]

Then, they sure as shit better prepare, like they should have prepared 20 years ago.


Guys, that iceberg is still coming.

So, like I said, your view to "Fuck Em" and all the consequences that come from that magically won't happen.

You are right, there is an iceberg coming, but you don't want to change the course, you just want to slow down so the damage is slower and over a longer period of time but the full damage is still done with the ship already mostly sunk before you even admit you hit it because the impact itself wasn't as strong.

Edit: AFK.

[Endus]

Guys, that iceberg is still coming.

The thing about icebergs is, they just drift with the current.

Everyone else is suggesting you change course to avoid it.

Your argument is to maintain course because you'd rather sink to the bottom of the sea than touch the helm. Or maybe even aim straight for it! Everyone should just learn to tread water. If they didn't prepare for this by learning how to swim and paying extra for lifeboat access, well, they deserve to drown, then.

While everyone else is saying "just turn 10 degrees and go around the damned iceberg."

Great, pay more. I even implored you to do it in order to claim that moral high ground.

Remember where I said you like to make this about individual choices, rather than societal problems?

This is you doing that, to deflect from the actual issue.

Forcing other to pay is neither kindness, nor generous.

That depends, obviously, on exactly what they're being obliged to pay for and why. Being expected to pay your taxes is not an unfair obligation, and you keep faking this aggrieved posture to pretend that it is.

Because, again, you can't handle discussing the societal scale of the problem, and have to make it about individuals.

[Machismo]

As part of a comprehensive plan because there is no single "silver bullet" yes.

But why should the cap even exist?



So what, are we going to flood the market with cheap, senior citizen labor to drive down wages since by your own argument, they're apparently worth less? Leave them on unemployment when they can't find jobs? They should have thought of this 40 years ago while they were working and the concept that SS/Medicare would be bankrupted in their lifetimes wasn't a thing?

Those senior citizens just need to pull themselves up by their shoehorns and walkers, I tells ya!

Nope, that was the other person's argument that they were worth less, I simply went with it for them.

We're talking about a very slow reduction, literally 1% a year.

We're talking about increasing the retirement age over the course of ten years.

Both of those seem perfectly reasonable.

Of course, this is the issue, and has been for 20-30 years, nothing will get done. And, in mid-2033, there will be a desperate attempt to fix it, and shit will be screwed once again.

I'm prepared to never receive a single penny in SS, I sure hope you are planning for that worst-case scenario.

- - - Updated - - -

So, like I said, your view to "Fuck Em" and all the consequences that come from that magically won't happen.

You are right, there is an iceberg coming, but you don't want to change the course, you just want to slow down so the damage is slower and over a longer period of time but the full damage is still done with the ship already mostly sunk before you even admit you hit it because the impact itself wasn't as strong.

Edit: AFK.

You mean like your view towards the wealthy?

Fuck em, right?

SO, what "income" are you talking about with those wealthy people?

- - - Updated - - -

The thing about icebergs is, they just drift with the current.

Everyone else is suggesting you change course to avoid it.

Your argument is to maintain course because you'd rather sink to the bottom of the sea than touch the helm.




Remember where I said you like to make this about individual choices, rather than societal problems?

This is you doing that, to deflect from the actual issue.



That depends, obviously, on exactly what they're being obliged to pay for and why. Being expected to pay your taxes is not an unfair obligation, and you keep faking this aggrieved posture to pretend that it is.

Because, again, you can't handle discussing the societal scale of the problem, and have to make it about individuals.

I've been suggesting we change course for more than 20 years. I've personally made sure i don't need SS, because I expect people to not have personal responsibility.

No, my alternative is to increase the retirement age, and/or reduce benefits slowly over time.

This is a huge scale, and has been for a very long time. On a societal scale, people are not being responsible, and making bad choices. As a society, we should not have to shoulder the burden of their poor choices.

[Edge-]

We're talking about a very slow reduction, literally 1% a year.

Which, again, would just drive more seniors into poverty since SS barely keeps up with inflation now.

We're talking about increasing the retirement age over the course of ten years.

Sure, there's room for raising the retirement age as part of an overall plan.

Both of those seem perfectly reasonable.

One is reasonable, but even combined they wouldn't address the issue which also requires more revenue.

I'm still curious why you think the cap on taxable wages for SS/Medicare is a remotely fair thing to begin with. It actively harms workers earning below the cap as their entire wages are taxed, while the wealthy who already enjoy the benefits of their wealth get to enjoy the added benefit of having thousands/millions of dollars of income earned without those SS/Medicare taxes.

I'm prepared to never receive a single penny in SS, I sure hope you are planning for that worst-case scenario.

Me too, but that's more because I think politicians are too chickenshit to do anything about it, and we have too many people like you who refuse to entertain a serious proposals to address the issue because you don't understand how taxation and societies work, apparently stemming from your unworkable political ideology that only works in a fantasy world.

[Endus]

I've been suggesting we change course for more than 20 years. I've personally made sure i don't need SS, because I expect people to not have personal responsibility.

No, my alternative is to increase the retirement age, and/or reduce benefits slowly over time.

Again, that's aiming for the iceberg.

The "iceberg" is not "social security's solvency as a program", it's "the welfare and support of the elderly as a society". Social security was a response to the iceberg, one that is turning out to be insufficient as conditions change. It is not and was never the iceberg, itself.

This is a huge scale, and has been for a very long time. On a societal scale, people are not being responsible, and making bad choices. As a society, we should not have to shoulder the burden of their poor choices.

Ascribing personal responsibility for societal failures of policy is a fundamentally and deeply dishonest approach.

Again, you're just ignoring basic realities I included in my first post here because, as I've said, the cruelty here isn't a bug, for you. It's the central and most important feature.

[Blur4stuff]

We already know what happens based on the suffering elderly went through prior to SS (and still do to a lesser extent) and what elderly go through in other countries today without support.

Reasoning with those who oppose SS or want to weaken it simply won't work. They know full well millions of people would eventually suffer and die. That's the point. They enjoy knowing that people they don't like will suffer. To them, those people deserve to suffer.

These people need to be completely ignored. No compromises. SS should be supported and expanded. There's more than enough wealth at the top in the US to pay for this.

[Machismo]

Which, again, would just drive more seniors into poverty since SS barely keeps up with inflation now.



Sure, there's room for raising the retirement age as part of an overall plan.



One is reasonable, but even combined they wouldn't address the issue which also requires more revenue.

I'm still curious why you think the cap on taxable wages for SS/Medicare is a remotely fair thing to begin with. It actively harms workers earning below the cap as their entire wages are taxed, while the wealthy who already enjoy the benefits of their wealth get to enjoy the added benefit of having thousands/millions of dollars of income earned without those SS/Medicare taxes.



Me too, but that's more because I think politicians are too chickenshit to do anything about it, and we have too many people like you who refuse to entertain a serious proposals to address the issue because you don't understand how taxation and societies work, apparently stemming from your unworkable political ideology that only works in a fantasy world.

Here's my point... when is enough enough?

At some point, even you will think to yourself that we are taking care of too many people, for too long, and with too much of your own money. When does it stop?

When do we expect people to be responsible for themselves?

The earnings cap is fair, because the entire point was about shared burden. I don't find it fair that people would be putting far more into it, and getting out the same amount (or nothing at all). It's why SS has long been a shitshow, because the first two generations paid way, way less into it than what they got out.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, that's aiming for the iceberg.

The "iceberg" is not "social security's solvency as a program", it's "the welfare and support of the elderly as a society". Social security was a response to the iceberg, one that is turning out to be insufficient as conditions change. It is not and was never the iceberg, itself.



Ascribing personal responsibility for societal failures of policy is a fundamentally and deeply dishonest approach.

Again, you're just ignoring basic realities I included in my first post here because, as I've said, the cruelty here isn't a bug, for you. It's the central and most important feature.

No it's not, it's trying to dodge the iceberg, while preparing people to be responsible enough to dodge the next iceberg.

It's not fundamentally dishonest. When it was started, people were paid for just a few years, on average. Now, people are getting older and older, and the costs are ballooning quite rapidly. Increasing the retirement ages makes complete sense.

[Edge-]

We already know what happens based on the suffering elderly went through prior to SS (and still do to a lesser extent) and what elderly go through in other countries today without support.

That's what gets me. SS was created as a solution to an existing societal problem, a problem that societies had been facing and finding ways to deal with for thousands of years.

Amusingly, it would be much less taxed and stressed if private businesses hadn't been allowed to take over and loot the pension systems which were common in the US through the mid 1900's, as that provided a big boost to individuals retirements.

Though Machismo doesn't seem to have this in any part of his views on why SS has problems. Whether it's intentional or not, ignoring the expansive harm done to individuals by private businesses who were allowed to buy out companies and then liquidate their pensions is astronomical.

[Machismo]

We already know what happens based on the suffering elderly went through prior to SS (and still do to a lesser extent) and what elderly go through in other countries today without support.

Reasoning with those who oppose SS or want to weaken it simply won't work. They know full well millions of people would eventually suffer and die. That's the point. They enjoy knowing that people they don't like will suffer. To them, those people deserve to suffer.

These people need to be completely ignored. No compromises. SS should be supported and expanded. There's more than enough wealth at the top in the US to pay for this.

The other option is to do nothing,. It won't be weakened, it will simply demonstrate how it's been run poorly for decades.

Without compromises, we hit that iceberg, whether you like it, or not. 2034 is fast approaching.

[Blur4stuff]

You don't compromise with people who celebrate suffering and death. SS is not in danger if it's properly funded. There's more than enough wealth in the US to do that.

If someone on the right actually has good ideas then sure, those can be used. As long as those people are not part of the death cult. Anything remotely like increasing age, lowering benefits, etc... need to be outright rejected.

[Edge-]

Here's my point... when is enough enough?

That's far too open ended a question to have any meaningful answer to.

At some point, even you will think to yourself that we are taking care of too many people, for too long, and with too much of your own money. When does it stop?

I won't. And what happens with my money is my business, not yours. You've gone from saying that all of us don't want to pay more and just want the rich to pay more - which is false - to saying that at some point we won't want to pay more and that we'll be worried about other things.

You're making arguments on our behalf that none of us are making, and we have no obligation to respond to you projecting your views upon us. That's what's going on right here.

When do we expect people to be responsible for themselves?

People are responsible for themselves. SS alone doesn't leave someone living the high life, or even a comfortable life. It can cover the bare minimums, but it's a part of the overall financial retirement plans for many. It's crucial, yes, but it's not the only thing keeping them afloat financially.

They are being responsible for themselves usually, planning for retirement and saving/investing while, for many elderly now, assuming that they'd have the Social Security that they were promised all their lives, with warnings of insolvency coming far, far too late for them to do anything about it.

You're seem to be assuming that "responsibility" means, "This person can solve all their problems themselves without the help of others." which is a fairly silly notion.

The earnings cap is fair, because the entire point was about shared burden.

It is shared, but how does the cap somehow make it "shared better" rather than simply a benefit that the wealthy receive via a tax break?

I don't find it fair that people would be putting far more into it, and getting out the same amount (or nothing at all).

Well, they get social security regardless now so the "nothing at all" is pointless.

Beyond that, people already pay more into the system over their lifetimes than they get out of it. Many, many people. The cap doesn't somehow protect people from paying in more than they'll get out.

It's why SS has long been a shitshow, because the first two generations paid way, way less into it than what they got out.

No, because it was never designed for people to live this long, with medicare similarly not designed to support people for this long especially as they get more expensive in their older age.

That doesn't mean the programs are bad/broken, it just means they're in need of updating. Like software on a computer, as the needs of the users change the creators adapt the software to fit the needs of the current systems.

[Shadowferal]

These people need to be completely ignored. No compromises. SS should be supported and expanded. There's more than enough wealth at the top in the US to pay for this.

Yup. Warren's tax plan is looking a lot more like common sense. Although it's more lenient than I'd like. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/01/eliz...lionaires.html

[uuuhname]

At some point, even you will think to yourself that we are taking care of too many people, for too long, and with too much of your own money. When does it stop?

no, it continues to be just you thinking this. because to you "owning things" is the only metric that makes you free.

[Machismo]

That's far too open ended a question to have any meaningful answer to.



I won't. And what happens with my money is my business, not yours. You've gone from saying that all of us don't want to pay more and just want the rich to pay more - which is false - to saying that at some point we won't want to pay more and that we'll be worried about other things.

You're making arguments on our behalf that none of us are making, and we have no obligation to respond to you projecting your views upon us. That's what's going on right here.



People are responsible for themselves. SS alone doesn't leave someone living the high life, or even a comfortable life. It can cover the bare minimums, but it's a part of the overall financial retirement plans for many. It's crucial, yes, but it's not the only thing keeping them afloat financially.

They are being responsible for themselves usually, planning for retirement and saving/investing while, for many elderly now, assuming that they'd have the Social Security that they were promised all their lives, with warnings of insolvency coming far, far too late for them to do anything about it.

You're seem to be assuming that "responsibility" means, "This person can solve all their problems themselves without the help of others." which is a fairly silly notion.



It is shared, but how does the cap somehow make it "shared better" rather than simply a benefit that the wealthy receive via a tax break?



Well, they get social security regardless now so the "nothing at all" is pointless.

Beyond that, people already pay more into the system over their lifetimes than they get out of it. Many, many people. The cap doesn't somehow protect people from paying in more than they'll get out.



No, because it was never designed for people to live this long, with medicare similarly not designed to support people for this long especially as they get more expensive in their older age.

That doesn't mean the programs are bad/broken, it just means they're in need of updating. Like software on a computer, as the needs of the users change the creators adapt the software to fit the needs of the current systems.

I think it's a perfectly valid question. Our costs continue to go up, and we're taking care of more and more people every year (Covid may have an impact on that). Right now, we have 3 paying into the system, for every 1 person taking out. By 2050, that will likely be 2:1 That means the problem will get exponentially worse, especially for Medicare. So, is there a point where you believe that their well being is no longer solely the responsibility of society?

I'm glad you agree, what happens with your money is your business, and what happens with my money, is mine. Which is why I'm tired of people like you choosing to take more of my money (and everyone else's money) to pay for all these things. The people who want to raise taxes over and over again, sure as shit want to have everyone else's money be their business.

SS SHOULDN'T be the only thing people have for retirement, but due to piss-poor planning on their part, it is for tens of million of people. That means there's the constant push to have society increase SS benefits, to cover for their poor decisions. As for insolvency, we've known about the 2030's since the 1990's. It was 2037, but crept forward a bit. Once again, that's plenty of time.

I also agree they were never created for people to live this long. That's why the retirement age should have been increased many years ago... but it wasn't. That' just another example of previous generations dicking over future ones.

- - - Updated - - -

no, it continues to be just you thinking this. because to you "owning things" is the only metric that makes you free.

Self determination is also a thing. It's not just about ownership, but about freedom to choose how I spend my money, how I save it, and how I live out the last years of my life.

- - - Updated - - -

Yup. Warren's tax plan is looking a lot more like common sense. Although it's more lenient than I'd like. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/01/eliz...lionaires.html

Of course you think that, because you don't seem to understand how bad the math is for it.

https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/ultra-millionaire-tax

[Edge-]

Of course you think that, because you don't seem to understand how bad the math is for it.

https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/ultra-millionaire-tax

How bad is the math for it, though? What should I be looking at in that link?

[Machismo]

How bad is the math for it, though? What should I be looking at in that link?

That's in the other thread, and the math was done for it. Feel free to see the math over there, because it's off-topic over here.

[cuafpr]

... lower benefits?? yeah no they are already less than unskilled labor jobs in the current market (based off my Grandmothers benefits).

The retirement age should be adjusted every few years to align with life expectancy, it goes up retirement age goes up, it goes down retirement age goes down.

The best way to help fund it is to do away with the annual salary cap, start with that, and see where it gets us. Also, make it a federal law that the money can't be used for any other reason than benefits (assuming its not already).

[unfilteredJW]

At least we have objective proof that Machismo is a terrible human being.

There’s no wiggle room. No dishonesty. Just naked selfishness and misanthropy.

[Endus]

No it's not, it's trying to dodge the iceberg, while preparing people to be responsible enough to dodge the next iceberg.

It is not. You're condemning those who can't "prepare" to drown in the icy sea for failure to properly prepare themselves for an avoidable catastrophe you deliberately created, to "test" them.

Your entire position is built around deliberately ramming that iceberg to sink the ship and see who can keep themselves above water, while feeling smugly superior to those who drown. Even if you're a rich guy who pushed kids off a lifeboat so he could get in.

It's not fundamentally dishonest. When it was started, people were paid for just a few years, on average. Now, people are getting older and older, and the costs are ballooning quite rapidly. Increasing the retirement ages makes complete sense.

Given that the purpose of social security was never to pay people out for "just a few years", in the first place, you're continuing to be deliberately dishonest.

If the costs are ballooning, that does not mean that the system is unsustainable, it just means that the system needs better funding.

It's like when libertarian types condemn the postal service for "not bringing in enough revenue to pay for its costs". It's not meant to. It's a service that's paid for by the government, because provision of that service is itself the point.

There's plenty of money to carry social security through the Boomer retirement bubble. It's an iceberg that's eminently avoidable. But here you are, trying to force people to steer right for it.

- - - Updated - - -

At least we have objective proof that Machismo is a terrible human being.

There’s no wiggle room. No dishonesty. Just naked selfishness and misanthropy.

Like, his position is literally that retirees should be made to either return to work or suffer hardship, as punishment for "poor planning", in a circumstance where the failure in planning was on the part of the government who made them promises Machismo does not want the government to keep.

It's just pure sadism; a desire to foster and encourage human suffering. Not for some big end goal; as I said earlier, the cruelty isn't a bug, it's the point.