Social security

@Marion

In my lifetime, SS has always been a political football. There is a party that fundamentally wants to undo EVERYTHING that was in FDR's new deal. Then they learned the simple cliche statement about voting. Take the first number of your age and multiply it by 10. That is the percentage of people in that age group that vote. So 10% of 18-19 year olds vote, 70% of 70-79 year olds vote. Shit, they realized that they can take away what their voters want, they would get voted out. So what did they do? They started to try and change the narrative. They wanted to build a long runway of stating that SS is the bad choice, it should be privatized. The goal, IMO, was to run the government like a business. Hell, I still think a lot of people want that. I do not want my government run like a business. What the fuck? I am not a profit center. When you start to run like a business, what happens? Things get cut. You try and maximize profits. Those two SS situations I mentioned, well, what happens then? The government, aka business, would look at it as a loss and cut that product. Even though it is used by 9mm people. That sounds like a lot, but we have ~350mm people, so we are talking less than 3% of the US is on this.

As I mentioned, I remember politicians every decade starting from when I can remember in the 1970s saying that SS will go bankrupt at some time in the future. They would run on a platform that they are there to FIX that. Some would want to tweak the levers (% and cap), some would want to tweak the expense (payouts) or move to privatize.

My mentor's in-laws were survivors of the great depression. They saw the worst of times. These are people who if they got junk mail, would open it up, cut the letter into squares to use the blank backside for notes. Unfortunately, and yes, I do mean that word, since I have been alive, there really has not been a bad time. Sure, there have been some minor hiccups, 9/11, 07-09 crash (which saw my house value cut down to 45% of the value in 06), then Covid. But there has not been a horrendous event like the Great Depression. Something that we could have lived through and seen the horrors. All we have, nearly 100 years later are videos and testimonials of what it was like. We have gone the same way that we have gone with wars. If it doesn't affect us, we don't care. Fuck the history of what it was like, it had better impact me before I give a shit is the new mentality. Fortunately, there are some in power who read history and study it and work to make sure that it doesn't happen again.

So right now, there was a report that was commissioned by the R's. They wanted to paint a picture of a shitshow so that they can run and say, "We are the party to FIX SS. Under BIDEN, it is going bankrupt!" Seeing that SS had to generate the report, they stated that if things stay the same in COLA payouts and the demographics go as expected, they feel it would be bankrupt in 2095. Think about that. Since SS has come into existence it has been modified a metric fuck ton of times. We are not even 100 years into. Hell think hard about this . . . some of our parents, parents were the first to get monthly payments. That happened in 1940. So from my perspective, congrats, 83 years of the payment and probably 50 different tweaks. To think that there will no tweaks between now and 2095 is . . . to steal a line, mularkey. It will be tweaked probably 40 to 50 different times between now and then. There will be politicians running on the platform that SS is bankrupt and they are the saviors until then as well.

You know what, I concede part of my argument. When I tuned in to this conversation, the general consensus was that SS is/was going broke. I took that information at face value, without fact checking it. As it seems, SS is in the black, according to recent posts... So, why are we trying to raise the cap again? I mean, if it's got plenty of cash flow!

Once they start eating, shitting and crying they're on their own. Get a job.

@Marion

Read.

There are tons of studies that show that flat tax systems are highly punitive to the poorest. There are NO studies that show that they are beneficial to society.

@Rlam

I really don't care what YOU think.

You speak for yourself. You do not speak for the religions or the races.

The religions have been in a numbers war for centuries. They are nervous as fuck about losing the numbers war. Thus it is in their best interest to have more kids.

And . . . btw, you are full of shit. You would fall for the game that is played where people ask, "Is this a fetus," and is shown a tic tac. Yes, fetuses start that small when they are aborted. At 12 weeks, IIRC, the fetus is about the size of a small plum. So don't start the horror bullshit line.

“I, like almost every other human who opposes abortion, do so because what abortion does to the unborn child is sickening.”

What about what we do to children after they’re born. Where is the same compassion?

If you truly cared about humans? Your stance should be from womb to tomb? No!

@Marion

I am not trying to be a dick. Do you understand how annuities or the insurance market even works?

By your definition of SSI and Ponzi scheme, all insurance would be illegal.

You make a huge mistake when you speak in opinions and NOT in facts. Stop trying to think opinions are factual.

SS has taken in more money than it has sent out since its inception. /mic drop. SS is NOT underwater.

Now back to facts versus fiction, aka your opinions. SS brings in more money than it spends. What happens to the money? Do you even know? I doubt it. That excess is used to buy T-bills. Think about this. This is a LOAN to the government that collects interest. No, the SS can't just hold onto it. It has to go to T-bills. Why? Because Congress uses that money for the general fund. In essence, we are lending from our left pocket to our right pocket.

Now, read this from SS - ssa. gov/finance/2022/Highlights%20of%20Financial%20Position-.pdf bottom of page 28

Here they talk about the DECLINE in fertility starting in 1965, people living longer. It states, and this is to answer whoever asked the numbers, it states that one solution is to raise the tax 3.24 percent. Then we are good to 2095.

IMO, you are also suffering from taking the tiny tiny tiny tiny issue and using that to justify the judgemental bullshit that you have and then push the narrative that you want SS gone. All of the cash going out to programs you are bitching aboutis 58.6bn, out of a total of about 1.3tn. I have no idea why you feel that you should judge who is fucked or not. Let's see, here are some REAL scenarios that I deal with. My niece, died at 30. She had two kids. Her husband is now an alcoholic, works 10-15 hours a week at ARBY's. The oldest kid is now 15 and has autism. Has not said ONE word in his life. Still wears diapers. The second kid is normal. The parent gets some widow benefits and SS for the autistic kid, and dead parent benefits for the other one. Combined, the total income is about 2k a month. The other one I deal with is one that fucks with your head. He is 36. He gets $741 a month. He is on permanent disability. He has a fucked up background. His sister was murdered by her husband who killed her and then their 3 kids. The husband went after my friend and his parent in-laws. Well, the inlaws are dying and the guy and the inlaws were not home, so the killer offed himself. A year later, my friend is driving, got Tboned, and is paralyzed from the waist down. He is the sole provider for his dying parents. Want to take away his $741 a month? Ok, congrats. You did what? You either put him and the parents in the streets or towards a life of crime. Desperate people do desperate things.

Per EA: And you wonder why white's christains are against abortion. They want to play the numbers game.

Damn EA, I sure wish you'd go back on vacation, or wherever you were for a while. It was WONDERFUL not seeing your endless BS on here.

I am a white Christian who opposes abortion, and I truly do not give a darn about the "numbers game." I, like almost every other human who opposes abortion, do so because what abortion does to the unborn child is sickening. Period.

Flat tax will never happen...to many what if's even in the simple example you provided.

keeping on toplc..if itsxa wage by any definition Social Security is paid...employer contribution can have a cap....the but part of that is, if you can pay millions to an employee you can afford the tax

@fund*: easy fix. 35% flat tax at the point of purchase. Everyone pays an equal share, based on spending. Illegals, whores, dope dealers, cash based businesses... Everyone pays the exact same amount, based on spending. The overhead we'd save is amazing.. only businesses would file taxes. No $12,000 returns for people who only paid 8K into the system that year. Of course, there would be tax exempt/reduced cards for people making less than 20K a year or some shit. Seems pretty simple to me. We all make more money & the system is driven by spending, not earning.

Social security as a plan and as a structure made sense at the time, and continued to make sense as the baby boomers become the workforce. There was no way to anticipate a decline in the workforce. In fact, the great fear was that there would be a population explosion. Obviously, that did not happen and has not happened. Instead, we no longer see the breakeven 2.1 kids per marriage that would maintain the population constant.

There are really only three solutions. 1. Increase immigration and grow the workforce that way. Immigrants at all levels pay taxes including social security and Medicare. This would require lowering the barrier to legal immigration, but would help considerably. 2. Raise taxes, either specific to social security or generally. 3. Reduce/delay benefits.

It makes little sense to criticize social security or the other entitlements. Americans rely and even depend on them so that they can survive old age at a sustenance level. What we have to do is figure out how to sustain and shore up these programs.

@AE: I will try to make it easier for you. We can either argue nuance or broad brush strokes. I'm game either way. We can discuss my situation which is a little bit outside the norm, or we can talk big picture. Let's try big picture. You and others have referenced SSI as "guaranteed retirement income" numerous times. I have referred to it as a ponzi scheme. Since it's set up FIFO & is currently underwater.... Looks like us poor suckers are gonna end up paying in to a failing system, that's going to return far less than has been invested. Nothing guaranteed there* SSI was a poorly convicted plan, from the good idea fairy. If it had never happened, we'd be better off for it, but it does. So, clean house.. revisit the list of "mental health disorderd" that qualify. Revisit the list of "diseases" that qualify. Personally I don't think trillotrochomania, agoraphobia or alcoholism should qualify.... Of course, that makes me inhumane..

EROTIC---->And if you want to get racist and why white peeps are getting nervous, look into that fertility rate by race.

Not sure what that has to do with SS. But, I'm looking forward to the day when my immutable characteristic label me as a minority. Can't happen soon enough if you ask me. It will be just downright hilarious to hear the culture talking points shift.

Here to add more fuel to the SS fire.

This is a snippet from an article about why China is having economic woes.

"The country’s total fertility rate, the average number of babies a woman will have over her lifetime, dropped to a record low of 1.09 last year from 1.30 just two years before, according to a recent report by state-owned Jiemian. com, citing a study by a unit of the National Health Commission.

That means China’s fertility rate is now even lower than Japan’s, a country long known for its aging society."

In the US, the rate is 1.6

And if you want to get racist and why white peeps are getting nervous, look into that fertility rate by race.

"In the United States, the highest fertility rates (per 1,000 women ages 15-44) during 2018-2020 (average) were to Hispanic women (64.8), followed by blacks (62.6), American Indian/Alaska Natives (60.8), Asian/Pacific Islanders (55.6) and Whites (55.3)."

And you wonder why white's christains are against abortion. They want to play the numbers game.

MCC , has to watch out he doesn’t get caught on EA’s squirrel wheel . don’t worry brother we have all been down that road once or twice before. LOL

KUDOS Marion... KUDOS!

@Marion

" And, of course you would concern Yourself with the details of my argument, instead of the point"

Wait. wut?

WTF does that mean? Isn't the details of the argument the POINT of the argument?

As a smartass once said, "I can read a mind where there is a mind to be read." All I can go by is what you write. I do not get tone, I do not get gestures, I do not get anything that we would in a face to face conversation. I get your written word.

So try again.

From what you have written that I have read, you are basically one of those Ayn Rand peeps.

Oh ..... E A... You rascal... You see, I don't fall for your shit... You want to cherry pick a certain line or word out of my argument and springboard off of it, instead of making a legitimate argument at face value. And, of course you would concern Yourself with the details of my argument, instead of the point. But, ok... I'll play that game too. Let me get my coffee down & to the office. I'll entertain you a little bit longer.

@Marion

Let's use this line as an understanding . . .

Almost half of these are below average. I didn't put what 'these' are. That is a line that people use. It is a cliche. That is a line that is so fucking stupid. Why? Because . . . NO SHIT, 49.9% should be below average and 49.9% (rounding of course) would be above average.

Congrats, you are above average. In more ways than one. One, your employer offers a 401k. Two, you are earning more, the last decade, then the highest that Indeed is showing for open jobs. AND . . . three, that your employer offers a self directed 401k. All three of those are ABOVE the average. The average employer does not offer a 401k. The average employer pays less than the highest in Hamilton. The average employer does not allow for self directed 401ks.

Now, if you were getting 18% on a bad year during 07-09, why are you even working? But wait . . . let's go back to that average statement. I chose the S&P, so you chose stocks. What happens if others follow you? If you buy shares and others buy shares. Well, if you get 18%, they will as well. Welcome to inflation. You just raised the average.

In regards to where you were educated, that was not relevant. You didn't read what I wrote. I stated the difference between facts and opinions. Notice the Kardashian comment versus what US news states.

So you work 3 jobs. Am I supposed to congratulate you or feel sorry for you? I don't understand the relevance.

See, you are talking about opinion and thinking it will become a fact. If SS goes broke. For a person who proclaims to study the market, SS is one thing you should be looking into. I remember in the 70s the anchors interviewing some politician stating how the SS is going to go broke in X years. X was generally 15 to 25 years. Guess what I saw on TV in the 80s? The same shit. Guess what about the 90s, the 00s, the 10s, and now the 20s. It is a football that is often talked about. The party of sucking up to the top 1/10th of a percent claims it should be privatized. The rational people realize how fucking crazy that is. Again, it is all about averages. And again, math is the fucking nemesis of conservatives. Go look at a bell curve. How much does a standard deviation encompass on either side of the mean?

Your math is so far off. Again, proving my point about math and conservatives. $10 of WMT in 1995 would be worth less than 160 today. But if you are arguing that, had a person invested all of their money into WMT in 1995, they would have earned ~14x their money. That is a different scenario. That is also destroying your 'constitutional' concept that all the government is there for. The stock market is heavily regulated, FEDERALLY. You are getting the benefit of that.

But, just imagine, you did the same with GE stock. Just imagine you did the same with Toys R Us. Just imagine you did the same with Sears, Kmart, Lehman, Silicon Valley Bank, WamU, Enron, Cit Group, Chryslar, etc. Now, go back to the 'average' comment. Mathematically, your probability of keeping up this pace is near impossible. It is akin to the casino. You may win 30 hands in a row and walk out rich as fuck. Play 1000 hands and you will not.

The 6.2% that the employer pays is a burden? ROFL. Ok, yes, the accounting term, it is a burden. The reality, without the employees there is no company. So is it a burden? What did Sam Walton say about his employees? I am trying to remember the exact word, so paraphrasing a bit here, "Be thankful for all the work that the employees do for the business."

I have seen your type a lot. The belief system that you are espousing is akin to the people that claim to be conservatives when convenient, but libertarian when convenient. It is all about them and no one else. They fail to realize without everyone else, they are nothing.

Ah, yes.... Opinions*... It's your opinion that I'm an undereducated Alabama hick, who doesn't understand math. It's a fact, that you are wrong. It's an opinion of some, that Democrats or Republicans care about the citizens of this country. It a fact, that they do not. It's your opinion (I believe) that the rich don't pay enough in taxes. It's a mathematical fact, that they pay more. (1:1 is a scary fact) although there is a cap on the S.S. tax, you actually helped me with that. Staying earlier that the 6.2% the employer pays is a net loss of profit, subsequently raising that cap places a burden on the company. A burden that could cause them not give raises to the blue collar workers. I'll let you respond to this, and get back with you tomorrow. It's bedtime around here.

@E.A. you have made a few errors, but that's ok. 1: I wouldn't get out of bed for 58K a year. (There are more & much better paying jobs within 30 minutes of Hamilton) 2: my average return on my 401k is usually 18% on a bad year and my all time best was 43% (only thing trump ever did for me). 3: I should have specified "federal government" in that's statement, who's only defined role in the Constitution is to provide for the general defense & settle disputes between states. 4: I wasn't educated in Alabama, I got a Yankee education (benefits of an army brat) . 5: cost of living adjusted* 58K in Hamilton Alabama is not a bad salary around here. But, since you seemed to really dug in on this, and researched my local area.. you are obviously vested in you choices. Again, peacocking in front of your Internet friends & dollar will get you a cup of coffee in most truck stops. So... Let's do some real math. I work 3 jobs. One 9-5 and two side gigs.. I manage my 401k very closely & have gotten pretty good at reading the triple rise algorithm. So, let's assume for a second, that I understand the market a little bit. Given that I've made $80K or better for the last decade... I have better than average returns (thank God for election years) and between me & my employer I average 30% of my gross invested in my retirement yearly... I'm doing alright. Secondarily.... And also the most relevant piece of information.... If S.S. goes broke & my generation ends up drawing little to nothing out of the system.... $10.00 worth of Walmart stock, bought in 1996 would be worth more than my total S.S. payout.. food for thought. That's a hint BTW.. imma go back and read your post again, to see if I missed anything important.

@Hump

Since, the end of June, I did a 10 day away thing, where we went to Joshua Tree and Palm Springs. Then, had a LOT of friggin code to write, a LOT. Then back to Palm Springs for a 3 day thing, then did a trip to Yosemite, Sequoia National Park, King Canyon National park. Then did a trip to San Diego and Tijuana. We finally got back to somewhat normal last night, just before the hurricane was supposed to hit here. All the models but one had it hitting us, but somehow, it decided to hook a right and go up into Palm Springs!

We have a very busy schedule moving forward as well. This weekend, gone. Next weekend, labor day, gone. The following weekend, gone. Then I get to spend a whole week in San Fran speaking at a nerd show. Then we have a trip to Seattle for 4 days, then are heading to Florida for the end of the month. We will be home the first week of October. Then, as it looks now, we have another big trip right after that, going to Denver to go to the Rocky Mountain National Park, Black Canyon National Park, Arches National Park, Capitol Reef National Park, Mesa Verde National Park, and Great Sand Dunes National Park. Basically a ~1300 mile road trip.

So this is just a quick window of time that we are not moving around.

Ok to play with you . . .

@Marion

Your statements are full of shit that makes no sense.

It is the government's job to support you. They do it every fucking minute. You have a military, you have cops, you have fire, you have emt. You have roads, you have drugs that are not snake oil. So don't try the bullshit that government is not there to support you.

You do not have a difference of opinion. You have a disregard for facts. That is a huge difference. Here, this is even a reach but may help you along. Want to argue that the list I gave you above is a financial benefit or not? Here is where you could say it is 'opinion.' Even there, you would be wrong. It would be the difference between direct and indirect payment.

Now in regards to your laughable non-backed up by math comment about 'doing better.' Let's have some fun and do math. You know, the nemesis of conservatives.

Assuming your age is correct, at 18, you 'opted' out of SS. For the next 28 years, you have worked. Let's do something that makes NO sense. Let's find what the highest salaries are in Hamilton. Let's put you there. Per Indeed, that would give you a salary of 58k at Hamilton Bathware. Congrats, you are now below the average salary in CA :) Let's assume that, somehow, someway, you had that salary for 28 years. You started at the top and never got a raise :) YOU are paying 3,596 per year in SS. The S&P since Aug 1995 has an annualized return of 7.702%. You could have 351k in an account. But wait . . . TAXES. But wait, that annualized return is linear. It assumes 7.702% every year. But what happened in 2007-2009? In Sept 95, the S&P was 650, Mar of 07 it hit 1550. But somehow, all of that money got cut in half by Feb 09. It was 750 then. The ~14 years you were putting in 3596 a year just lost 1/2 of it's value. Would you want to retire then? But let's keep playing. You have 351k. Welcome to taxes. This is cap gains taxes. This is what Congress likes to mess with. It's a nice lever. This is what your state politicians like to play with as well. Using TODAY as the day, and giving you the best of the best scenarios, you are getting 351k with 25% state and federal taxes, you now have 263k.

When are you going to die? That is the million dollar question. No one knows when or what from. We can guess. Will I be like my grandfather - father side who died at 65 or like my grandfather - father side that died at 92. See your cash is YOUR cash, you have to play a game to see how long it lasts and the best you can do is die with the account at zero. So if you pull SS at 70, live to 90, that is 20 years. Congrats, you have 240 months of the 263k. That is 1,096 dollars. Didn't PHX or 5 point out that it is 4k a month now at 70? Last I checked, 240 x 4,000 is greater than 240 x 1,096.

Again . . . MATH. That is not an opinion.

An opinion is if you or I think Kim Kardishian is pretty. An opinion is not if the sky is blue, the food is poison, etc. An opinion, could be this, "Alabama public education is shit." A fact would be, "US News states that Alabama's public education ranks 43rd." Try speaking in facts, then you will realize that opinions don't mean shit.

@erotic.Where have you been?

@ea: I believe you have only proven that when faced with a logic argument, you will respond with negative comments about the person, instead of arguing logically. And I will reiterate my original point. IT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENTS JOB TO SUPPORT YOU. I would also like to acknowledge that while there is absolutely nothing gained by arguing/discussing these points here (I've said this many times) so, I'm not sure why people get so heavily vested in their argument. We have a difference of opinion. You interpret things one way, I see them another way. You're not going to change my mind, I'm not going to change yours... And to be damned sure, nothing said here will ever have real world consequences... So, it's mental masturbation at best... If I had it to do over, I would have opted out of SSI when I turned 18 and invested the money. I'd be way ahead...