GOP coming for the "entitlements"
- Thread starter Chishawk1425
- Start date
If it is ‘successful’ then why will it drain the funds by 2034 (after over a dozen tax increases to fund it since you joined the workforce), and only collect enough money to pay 3/4 of promised benefits?
If it is ‘successful’ why is everyone born after 1975 looking to get back less than a buck for every buck they put in?
Oh, that’s right. It’s because previous generations ‘successfully’ robbed future generations with the support of useful idiots like the one I’m responding to.
Last edited:
This shit has been getting talked about since I was able to vote in 2006. Here we are talking about it again in 2022. #yawn
This isn’t correct.
When the Trust Fund (just IOUs from the Treasury) is depleted the program isn’t ‘gone’, but the current law stipulates that the benefits can only be funded by the payroll taxes. Those payroll taxes will meet just over 3/4 of promised benefits.
So, by current law, they will cut the payouts by 1/4 in some fashion (e.g. means test and see who needs welfare), and/or taxes will be raised (again).
The future isn’t lucky enough to wake up one day and find out it’s gone.
Reagan raised the cap and changed the age to collect, and said it would need changed every few decades. But of course, both sides ignored his advice.
Yep. Tax the corporations and the rich and fund the IRS as we miss out on a trillion of taxes owed annually. Oh but Biden is mobilizing 87k IRS agents with AKs to get us is the GOP countermeasures.
People like Ted Cruz push this grand lie because he knows people will believe it. Again, no critical thinking or logic.
With no change to current law benefits are only funded 77% after 2034.
That’s not ‘Republicans in Congress’, but immutable math at work.
Democrats foisted a Ponzi on the American public, and want to blame someone else when it blows up.
At least 23 separate tax increases since the Ponzi started. Any guesses to the solution Democrats are offering this time?
So there is only 12 years to change the law? Edit: What is this Ponzi scheme you speak of?
A Ponzi is a scheme where someone offers ridiculous returns to get rubes to invest. You pay off the initial investors not with earning generated with their savings, but by shoveling to them the money of latecomers to the Ponzi. Eventually the Ponzi grows to the point not enough new suckers can be enrolled to maintain the payouts.
When a scammer runs this scheme in the wild this is usually the point the scheme blows up, and the latecomers are left holding the (empty) bag.
When government runs the Ponzi they compel continued ‘contributions’ in ever increasing amounts to ensure the Ponzi at least survives the current crop of politicians that can be held accountable for the failure. Hence 23 tax increases since SSI was instituted.
It has already passed the point that anyone born after 1975 can expect to get back less than a dollar for every dollar put in, and that’s before accounting for inflation.
Now it’s just a screw job that idiots celebrate because they don’t understand what is happening.
All 23 tax increases were for SS? Were said increases on payroll taxes? Edit: I know what a Ponzi scheme is. Just making fun of your melodramatics.
Yes.
Yes.
And yet there is nothing sensational or exaggerated in explaining the Ponzi financing of Social Security, and the screw job those born after 1975 will endure.
Math isn’t caring or cruel, it just is.
May I ask why the need to increase the payroll taxes? You don't think changes won't be made to SS before 2034?
Democrats are forcing children to change their gender. Those sons of beochs.
My cousin is a Democrat. He just cut his son's penis off because he wasn't the best soccer player on his 1st grade team.
Do you not understand how a Ponzi works?
You said you know what it is, but that question suggests you don’t understand why they fail.
Of course, more taxes and benefit cuts, as in the past, should be expected.
The ‘deal’ will only get more rotten for the vast majority.
The people like joelbc and his momma made out like bandits in the past, but that isn’t in the cards for more recent generations.
Again. I understand you just like to not answer or changing to some BS. If you believe that our age (edit: assumed you were GenX) won't get 100% instead of the 70 something you stated .. you are nuts.
I’m trying to answer your question, but I have to first know what level of understanding you possess. If you didn’t understand why a Ponzi fails, I wouldn’t expect you to understand why SS is a bad deal.
You misunderstand.
Due to the tax rate currently enjoyed by those born 1975 and after, and the scheduled set of benefits, those folks are already facing less than a dollar of benefits paid out for each dollar they’ll pay in.
In addition to that, the outlays will exceed ‘contributions’ such that the IOUs held by the Treasury will be exhausted in 2034. Current assessment is that taxes will cover 77% of scheduled benefits beyond that point. Current law dictates that SS is funded from the payroll tax only, so a cut to benefits is already baked in.
I fully expect they’ll raise taxes and cut benefits, most likely moving retirement age (further screwing blacks) and/or introducing means testing.
Our children will not be so lucky as to see this Ponzi ended. Too few understand how it works, and the people that benefit coincidentally are the most likely to vote.
If you want more then future generations are responsible to fix it, or just keep crying, that will help.
This is a Baby Boomer problem. Too many to pay, not enough to pay them.
How does one fix a Ponzi scheme?
Unrealistic returns do not survive reality.
I’m only aware of one ‘fix’. To end it.
I expect that a welfare program for the indigent elderly would have support, be cheaper, and we’d be better off getting out from under the fiction we’d all be better off on welfare eventually.
That concept is not workable, and certainly worse than real returns from real income generating investment of savings.
Talking to people about this subject is kind of like that movie Don’t Look Up.
Dems trotting out all the classic scare tactics in a last ditch attempt to salvage the 2022 elections. Next Wednesday we are gonna see non stop election interference stories, threats in democracy, hide your social security the RS are coming etc. Same tired old playbook. And why they are about to get curb stomped.
The shortfall outlasts them. They’re not in the end of the current 75 year projections.
“Currently, the Social Security Board of Trustees projects program cost to rise by 2035 so that taxes will be enough to pay for only 75 percent of scheduled benefits. This increase in cost results from population aging, not because we are living longer, but because birth rates dropped from three to two children per woman. Importantly, this shortfall is basically stable after 2035”
-Stephen Goss,
Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration, Nov 3rd 2010
Note the date in case you think this is somehow a partisan determination and not a mathematical one.
Damn it, i want every nickel in the IOUs that the thieves in congress stole over the years and put back in the insurance program NOW, WITH INTEREST.
Last edited:
You are proving my point.
“Currently, the Social Security Board of Trustees projects program cost to rise by 2035 so that taxes will be enough to pay for only 75 percent of scheduled benefits.
This increase in cost results from population aging, not because we are living longer, but because birth rates dropped from three to two children per woman. Importantly, this shortfall is basically stable after 2035”
-Stephen Goss,
Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration, Nov 3rd 2010
Congress hasn’t taken anything.
The IOUs are still there.
They’ll be cashed out with publicly held debt over the next dozen years.
It’s not an actual insurance program, that would require income generating assets sufficient to pay outlays.
The IOUs do ‘earn’ interest, but in the form of taxes collected from the public, so there is no net benefit to society, just additional wealth transfer baked into the program.
To clarify, he’s stating that by 2035 (more current assessments move that date to 2034) until the end of their estimate period (2085 in this case).
Do you think there will be Boomers causing a 25% shortfall in 2055?
You literally skipped the reason in your highlighting:
This increase in cost results from population aging, not because we are living longer, but because birth rates dropped from three to two children per woman.
Not enough newcomers to the Ponzi to maintain the existing benefit schedule.
So, SS is not a ponzi. Got it.
It appears you have no understanding of the increased life expectancy, inflation or the impact of the baby boom has on all of this. Like all things financial you're antiquated views are ignorant of our modern society.
Can't wait for your litany of cut/pastes of nonsense and drivel to follow.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
HawkCast Ep 126 Iowa Women COMPETE w/ OSU, Will MBB Make the B1G Tourney?
- Latest: Eliot Clough
-
