Tax, tax, tax... thats the plan

[tater]

Originally Posted by August

Look tater SS is nothing compared to the rest of the Federal budget. Believe me when I say they'll be able to afford it when the time comes. Just because they might get to a point where they are paying out more than they are taking in doesn't mean they suddenly won't be able to afford paying any of it. That's where you entire "accept less or get nothing" argument falls apart.

Wrong. "Programatic" spending—entitlements—like SS, medicare, and medicaid are currently TWO THIRDS of the total federal budget.

The rest of the budget is in fact nothing compared to SS. You have it backwards. The entire discretionary budget (you know, stuff like all military spending) is only 1/3 of spending. Medicaid is in fact small, the lion's share is "retirement" crap—SSI and Medicare.

Solving the budget problems requires SSI/Medicare cuts, period.

[August]

Originally Posted by tater

Wrong. "Programatic" spending—entitlements—like SS, medicare, and medicaid are currently TWO THIRDS of the total federal budget.

But I wasn't talking about medicare, medicaid or any other "programmatic" spending, just SS. Nor do you address the fact that any revenue shortfalls will be at first be small and easily covered. Nor did you address the millions of new taxpayers paying their share as the population grows.

But whatever, it looks like neither of us are gonna change the others mind so you tell your reps to vote your way and i'll tell mine to vote the way I want and we'll see who gets what.

[tater]

SS and medicare together are about 50% of spending. SS is more than defense alone.

For 2007:
SS: 581.4
Medicare: 436
Medicaid: 196
Income security (ERISA): 202
other retirement: 158.7

Defense: 547.9

(all in billions)

I have no care about people getting out more than they paid in. None of it was invested, the expectation of ANY return is asking for something for nothing. It's a Ponzi Scheme.

I don't want the cap raised to pay for your retirement, because I don't want to put more in when I'll get nothing meaningful back. For SS, we'll get back less than what we'll pay already. Not some small interest, less. And what we'll get for a year is trivial.

Anyone getting more than what they paid in is NOT getting something they earned, they are taking from someone else as long as the pay outs exceed revenues with no investment (and so far there has not been SS investment).

What you are asking for is a handout, plain and simple.

What you are asking for is a handout, plain and simple.

Its only a handout when someone else gets it, when its yourself it becomes an entitlement.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Its only a handout when someone else gets it, when its yourself it becomes an entitlement.

True, that's what the liberals count on. They'll add new entitlements because they know even people who post as fiscal conservatives will whine like welfare recipients when someone wants to curtail their benefits.

It's a slippery slope to insolvency.

[August]

Well I guess we have nothing to talk about then tater.

[tater]

Originally Posted by August

Well I guess we have nothing to talk about then tater.

Well, when SS is up for discussion, and one side of the argument is open to alternative ideas, and the other side disallows touching it at all, you're right, there is nothing to discuss.

In fixing SS, some age bracket gets some "in between" stuff. Has to happen unless you start the fix so far in the future it happens for the next generation—in which case it's too late to fix it. That's really the choice, start a fix with people now 18 who have not paid in yet—in which case the fix doesn't happen for over 50 years—or someone takes a minor hit in each of a few age brackets.

Or we do nothing, which I guess is what you want.

[August]

Originally Posted by tater

Anyone getting more than what they paid in is NOT getting something they earned, they are taking from someone else as long as the pay outs exceed revenues with no investment (and so far there has not been SS investment)

Well if you want to change the contract at this late date then I don't see me getting interest for the money i've put in is unreasonable. You took my money for a particular reason. Through your mismanagement you are unable to meet the commitments you made. Had I been allowed to invest my money in the stock market I would be in far better shape for retirement than SS would ever leave me.

Note you can avoid all of this by meeting your obligation so I have no sympathy at all.

[tater]

Originally Posted by August

Well if you want to change the contract at this late date then I don't see me getting interest for the money i've put in is unreasonable. You took my money for a particular reason. Through your mismanagement you are unable to meet the commitments you made. Had I been allowed to invest my money in the stock market I would be in far better shape for retirement than SS would ever leave me.

Note you can avoid all of this by meeting your obligation so I have no sympathy at all.

I agree that you should have been allowed to invest it 100%.

Regardless, something needs to be done, the bulk of our spending is on "retirement" programs. The claim that SS was ever "solvent" is bogus, as a ponzi scheme it was only working because there were more payers than payees.

What's with this "you took my money" crap? I didn't take it, I'll be subsidizing someone else's SS, actually. I don't vote for people who want to take it, though none have had the balls to do anything about it in either party (the dems don't WANT to do anything about it—they count on YOUR leftist reaction to prevent any changes. It's funny, you want a privatized system (conservative), but whine like a b**** at the thought of delaying SS retirement when the current benefits are grossly in excess of what you should have expected when you paid in.

Meeting MY obligation? We pay a ton in FICA, and are in the range where we we actually get back less than we pay in. We are in effect being robbed, not like most who just get a guaranteed return—but a lower return, perhaps.

Regardless, you can whine all you want, but if the entitlements push the US over the brink, something will have to give. A small sacrifice on the part of younger workers—delaying their retirements on a sliding scale by a year or two—is hardly a draconian way to avoid insolvency.

Seriously, it's pretty whiny to complain about having to delay your retirement by a few years when it is 15 years away anyhow.

Again, as I said, the specifics of the retirement age increase could vary arbitrarily (everything else in SS has changed since you started paying in (benefits increased, etc), why is retirement age off the menu?). Maybe the switch from 65 to 66 happens after 8 years, then 67 in 4 more, then 68 in to more, etc. That would mean that people aged 51 would retire at 68. People like me would be stuck with 72.

Oh, wait, I guess what you prefer is for my taxes to massively increase, instead. So there is financial sacrifice in your world, it's for younger people to lose even more to SS than you did. Gotcha. I'm in favor of changing it so that my kids don't get stuck with the same problem. Cut benis slightly by raising the age, then cut the taxes once the bubble of boomers passes and go privatized (option) for the younger folks.

PS—the way medicare is going, good luck with finding a doc that will take it. My wife's group stopped taking any new medicare a few months ago, others have done the same, here in NM people on medicare now need to wait til they need an ER visit, or head to another state to see a specialist, lol (not sure they'll have much luck in other states as well). Oh, or they can go to the U I guess, they take indigents there.