Anyone else annoyed by the SS outcry?

or Register to post new content in the forum

16 RepliesJump to last post

 

Comments

  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Oct 16, 2009 1:08 pm

I just saw an article titled "Seniors must now scrimp."  Give me an 'effing break.  They got a 5.8% increase last year in the midst of a huge recession and falling prices.  Those of us working have been hit hard and had to do with less.



The seniors on SS today are getting a HUGE rate of return on the money they put into this scheme and now there are squeals for more money?  Things seniors pay for:
 
- Food prices are way down
- Gas prices are way down
- Property taxes are down
- Healthcare is slightly up, but they're on the best health insurance plan in the country
 
Warren Buffett has a story he likes to tell about a simple tribe that decided it would be benvolent and provide food and drink for their elderly.  As time went by the rations were gradualy increased and the young that were working had to work more and more and accept less for themselves to provide the generous benefits setup by their forebearers.  I know I'm butchering it badly, if anyone has the actual transcript please post it.
 
Oct 17, 2009 12:35 am

The 5.8% increase was unwarranted...but, it is exactly what you would expect in an election year. The 0% COLA this year, makes perfect sense financially and politically; but, old people still are going to whine...

Oct 18, 2009 12:30 pm

Berk, I am annoyed by it as well.  As Congress contemplates INCREASING SS taxes to make up for their mistakes, the elderly are complaining.  Now, I'm all about helping the people that we made promises to and who have paid their share but what about us? For us in the business who are paying either 7.65 or 15.3 into this ponzi scheme, who is going to honor the promises to us? My plan is to not rely on SS at all and if anything is there, than it's icing on the cake.  People should have done a better job building their own support and now they want to complain. 

Oct 18, 2009 8:01 pm

SS benefits were designed to kick in at age 65 at a time when the average life expectancy was 63!!! The program really should have been re-vamped each year to keep pace with population and life expectancy...but it didn't.

I'm guessing, it is probably political suicide to make even the most logical change to Social Security...so they are going to keep pushing it along until it implodes...probably when I'm 64.

Oct 23, 2009 12:51 pm

They should have never called the program "Social Security", but "Social Insurance".  That's what it is.  It should not provide security or comfort, or support a standard of living.  It should only keep people from begging.  Some of the most appalling entitlement mentality out there comes from the 70+ set.  Remember, most of these people think they are entitled to all the free prescription drugs they can ingest, too.  It was never promised to them while they were working, but they think they deserve it anyway--just because. 

Oct 23, 2009 2:13 pm

Does it really matter, people who depend on SS as their sole income barely get by as it is.

Oct 23, 2009 7:26 pm
Squash1:

Does it really matter, people who depend on SS as their sole income barely get by as it is.



The average SS check is $1200/mo.  If they got a 2.5% increase would the extra $30/mo really do much to help someone get by?  By giving no increase this year will the hundreds of billions saved mean that the program could get the young who are paying in at least a little bit more of their money back?

Most of us on here are privileged that we won't need to rely on SS.  There are poor elderly people today, there will be poor elderly people 40 years from now who are currently in their late 20s who will need the money then as much as those getting it today need it.

Oct 23, 2009 8:17 pm

That's why we need to have an option to privatize SS.  I'd even be in favor of privatizing a portion of it.  I have no problem paying 2% for the people who are on SS benefits now but let me keep the rest of the 5.65% from my W2 income and 13.3% of my 1099 income.  SS is such a freaking ponzi scheme. 

Oct 23, 2009 8:22 pm

Its uh bribe ta da Senior Citizens so Obamacare can pass

Do dey th'o't money grows on trees?

Ya'll is mad stupid.

Oct 23, 2009 9:14 pm
army13A:

That's why we need to have an option to privatize SS.  I'd even be in favor of privatizing a portion of it.  I have no problem paying 2% for the people who are on SS benefits now but let me keep the rest of the 5.65% from my W2 income and 13.3% of my 1099 income.  SS is such a freaking ponzi scheme. 



If you let people opt out of social security we'd just be bailing them out in their old age and they'd have paid nothing toward it At least now they have to pay for SOME of their costs on society.

I'm with you on a lot of stuff Army13, but not here.  Paying 5.65% and only getting back 75% of what I put in when I do retire will be cheaper than having to pay higher taxes to shore-up everyone who would "opt out" of social security and blow themselves up financially and be on welfare/medicaid.

Oct 23, 2009 11:09 pm
BerkshireBull:
army13A:

That's why we need to have an option to privatize SS.  I'd even be in favor of privatizing a portion of it.  I have no problem paying 2% for the people who are on SS benefits now but let me keep the rest of the 5.65% from my W2 income and 13.3% of my 1099 income.  SS is such a freaking ponzi scheme. 



If you let people opt out of social security we'd just be bailing them out in their old age and they'd have paid nothing toward it At least now they have to pay for SOME of their costs on society.

I'm with you on a lot of stuff Army13, but not here.  Paying 5.65% and only getting back 75% of what I put in when I do retire will be cheaper than having to pay higher taxes to shore-up everyone who would "opt out" of social security and blow themselves up financially and be on welfare/medicaid.

 
That's why I believe if you do take the option to take the dollars and invest it yourself, you have to show some kind of financial/investing literacy test.  And the people who do opt out and want to invest it should not get bailed out later on our tax dollars if they invest it stupidly.  I know that would be hard to enforce, as well as requiring people to use FA's if they took that route. 
 
Berk, do you really think that we'll be getting back 75% of our tax dollars by the time we retire? As Congress contemplates increasing the SS tax and pushing out the retirement age again, I don't see us getting that much back and especially for the younger generation.  I would have no problem if I knew for a fact that Congress was wisely spending our tax dollars.  But we all know that is not true.  These guys who actually make tax and finance laws have very little to none experience in these issues as a majority of them were lawyers. 
Oct 23, 2009 11:24 pm
army13A:
BerkshireBull:
army13A:

That's why we need to have an option to privatize SS.  I'd even be in favor of privatizing a portion of it.  I have no problem paying 2% for the people who are on SS benefits now but let me keep the rest of the 5.65% from my W2 income and 13.3% of my 1099 income.  SS is such a freaking ponzi scheme. 



If you let people opt out of social security we'd just be bailing them out in their old age and they'd have paid nothing toward it At least now they have to pay for SOME of their costs on society.

I'm with you on a lot of stuff Army13, but not here.  Paying 5.65% and only getting back 75% of what I put in when I do retire will be cheaper than having to pay higher taxes to shore-up everyone who would "opt out" of social security and blow themselves up financially and be on welfare/medicaid.

 
That's why I believe if you do take the option to take the dollars and invest it yourself, you have to show some kind of financial/investing literacy test.  And the people who do opt out and want to invest it should not get bailed out later on our tax dollars if they invest it stupidly.  I know that would be hard to enforce, as well as requiring people to use FA's if they took that route. 
 
Berk, do you really think that we'll be getting back 75% of our tax dollars by the time we retire? As Congress contemplates increasing the SS tax and pushing out the retirement age again, I don't see us getting that much back and especially for the younger generation.  I would have no problem if I knew for a fact that Congress was wisely spending our tax dollars.  But we all know that is not true.  These guys who actually make tax and finance laws have very little to none experience in these issues as a majority of them were lawyers. 
 
I don't care if i don't get mine back... I consider it the debt i pay to living in this society.. I didn't have to work in crappy work conditions, do hard labor or anything else some people use to have to do, so if I can donate some money to them great...
 
They should push out the retirment age again and again til it gets to the point where you never get it, then you just have to wait for a % to die, then you solve SS. It was never meant to be ongoing is the problem. It was suppose to be a stop gap.
 
On your other idea about the test.. Good luck with that... index or managed, fee or no fee.. how would you make a test... And of course someone would cry wolf if it didn't work out, this is america, where someone can spill coffee on themselves and sue and win for millions of dollars, but it beats living in some african tribe country, iraq or some other crap hole.
Oct 24, 2009 9:09 am
army13A:

Berk, I am annoyed by it as well. As Congress contemplates INCREASING SS taxes to make up for their mistakes, the elderly are complaining. Now, I'm all about helping the people that we made promises to and who have paid their share but what about us? For us in the business who are paying either 7.65 or 15.3 into this ponzi scheme, who is going to honor the promises to us? My plan is to not rely on SS at all and if anything is there, than it's icing on the cake. People should have done a better job building their own support and now they want to complain.





Since when does the government keep its promises. As far as SS being a ponzi scheme, I could not agree more. It is the definition of a ponzi scheme. I think we should call the SEC and blow the whistle Madoff was like stealing a pack a gum, compared to this.

Oct 24, 2009 9:44 am

You page it what ya wants

I page it uh tax

If it walks like uh duck, talks like uh duck an' looks like uh duck, its uh duck



Oct 24, 2009 10:02 pm

Army13, we would still have to bail out those who lost their SS doing stupid things.  A hungry population is difficult to control.

Oct 25, 2009 2:47 pm
BerkshireBull:

Army13, we would still have to bail out those who lost their SS doing stupid things.  A hungry population is difficult to control.



And if you look at most of the people receiving SS benefits, they use most of it for food & shelter...stuff we would end up paying for regardless. If you want to collect from the people who are milking the system, just lower the estate tax...but not until after my inheritance comes in...