Tax, tax, tax... thats the plan

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.

[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.

[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

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.

Well according to you i'm just a whiny leftist b****h so what do you care anyways?

[tater]

Originally Posted by August

Well according to you i'm just a whiny leftist b****h so what do you care anyways?

I was pointing out the leftist nature of your argument—or at least the fact that your argument is exactly what they want—because overall you don't appear to be one.

Tribesman's point was actually very true. It's only a handout when it's someone you don't like getting it—or anyone other than you (not you personally, anyone). So you cannot complain about welfare, or illegals getting benis, etc, IMHO, if you don't at least admit that the largest welfare program is also just a handout, and should be on the table with everything else. Note that I'm not suggesting not paying out to people who have planned around SSI—I only propose modest changes in the retirement age that phase in over reasonable time periods that allow for altered planning. The specifics would clearly be up for grabs, the only absolute is to do it on a timeline that saves the system from going belly up and eating us alive.

Will you complain if the cost of living increases in SSI move from their bogus value now, to one that inflates at a lower rate (we're in deflation right now, after all, but the SSI formula doesn't even admit that as a possibility of course, it ONLY grows)?

My frustration is that if people on the right or center (presumably where you lie) treat entitlements with the same sense of inviolability that the welfare moms of the cities treat their "entitlements," we're toast as a country.

[August]

Originally Posted by tater

My frustration is that if people on the right or center (presumably where you lie) treat entitlements with the same sense of inviolability that the welfare moms of the cities treat their "entitlements," we're toast as a country.

And my frustration is with people who are all too willing to let government off the hook for the promises they have made. I firmly believe that if we let them get away with delaying SS payments they will find a way to get out of paying them altogether. I'm not just going to sit back and blithely accept that like some here seem to have resigned themselves to.

[FIREWALL]

The way to fix SS is, to work'em like a dog. Suck every cent out of em and, at a certain age put them to sleep like an unwanted pet.

As far as cutting SSI benefits goes. Why not just put them out of their misery. It's more merciful.

[tater]

Originally Posted by August

And my frustration is with people who are all too willing to let government off the hook for the promises they have made. I firmly believe that if we let them get away with delaying SS payments they will find a way to get out of paying them altogether. I'm not just going to sit back and blithely accept that like some here seem to have resigned themselves to.

How is getting Madoff to keep his promises going? That's where we're headed. I don't think SS has promised me anything aside from some sort of benefits. Specifics? What was the benefit package when you started work? You know it, right? What was it 10 years ago? Again, you know all the details, right? If you don't know every single particular, then you don't even know what to expect. The things we get in the mail show current benefits we can expect. If you got that exact number 15 years from now that would be fine, right?

[tater]

Originally Posted by FIREWALL

The way to fix SS is, to work'em like a dog. Suck every cent out of em and, at a certain age put them to sleep like an unwanted pet.

As far as cutting SSI benefits goes. Why not just put them out of their misery. It's more merciful.

Yawn.

Retirement is not a right, no one is forcing anyone to work. Allowing employers to force retirement is another story... that allows them to dump the most skilled, highest paid employees in favor of the least experienced, lowest paid who must replace them.

As for sucking every cent out of them, you're right. Screw the current FICA rate, let's go back to the SS tax rate as it was set when the law was first passed, I'm totally fine with that. It was ONE PERCENT until 1950. The SS tax alone is now 12.4%, a 1240% increase from the law as passed!

Cutting benefits—or, rather slowing the growth in benefits, which is NOT a cut—will happen one way or another. An orderly system designed to let people close to retirement get what they've planned for—perhaps a year later than expected in some cases—is hardly draconian.

[August]

Originally Posted by tater

How is getting Madoff to keep his promises going? That's where we're headed. I don't think SS has promised me anything aside from some sort of benefits. Specifics? What was the benefit package when you started work? You know it, right? What was it 10 years ago? Again, you know all the details, right? If you don't know every single particular, then you don't even know what to expect. The things we get in the mail show current benefits we can expect. If you got that exact number 15 years from now that would be fine, right?

Whatever tater, you're just ranting now. Like I said, twice, you advise your reps the way you want and i'll tell mine what I want.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

Well according to you i'm just a whiny leftist b****h so what do you care anyways?

The Pedantic Grammarian wishes to interject that you used one too many '*'s, unless of course you meant a word I've never heard of.

Back on topic, I think the accusation that August is asking for a handout because he wants back what is his is a bit extreme. It may never work that way, but I think it was mistaken nonetheless.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

The Pedantic Grammarian wishes to interject that you used one too many '*'s, unless of course you meant a word I've never heard of.

I was speaking rap so it has an "o" in there too.