Ag with kids said:

---

Zobel said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

Change Detection said:

---

The system should stop now. Pay the $44K out to all retirees, and nobody pays income tax until all they put in is made zero in the ledger.

---

Dont hate that idea.

---

Note this also categorically will not make current retirees whole; they're largely zero income tax payers.

---

Well, yeah, NOW...

But for 50+ years they weren't.

There needs to be a phase out of the program over a period of time, so that people can adjust to it.

That way everyone gets ****ed somewhat...the olds lose some of their benefits, us Gen Xers lose more, but we paid in for fewer years, then the Gen Y/Z/Alpha folks also keep paying but at lower rates and also get lower benefits. ****ery for everyone.

What you apparently want is to **** the people that paid a **** ton into the system and then planned on it for retirement so that you younger people don't get ****ed nearly as much...

Sounds exactly like a Gen Y/Z/Alpha kinda plan...

---

I can agree with most of your first several paragraphs. Most of it, but not all. Everybody should be screwed in order to fix this dumb situation my grandfathers generation started.

In regards to the last paragraph, I am playing the worlds smallest fiddle for a generation that has experienced an appreciation of home values that this country will simply never see again, meanwhile, the subsequent generations ability to buy any meaningful land or any mineral rights have already been sold by the generation begging for their SS payments to keep flowing, while also asking for the most insane prices for said land/homes/mineral rights… etc. I'm not even mentioning the rise of the stock Market over the last 40+years that you have enjoyed (or is that considered mentioning it?)

You guys sold most of the other traditional avenues our generation could offset retirement income to the very corporations you created/worked for. A Majority of the younger generations have a low chance to receive said alternative avenues of retirement because these markets are priced so high now that the capital to acquire said assets, are exponentially higher, especially when you consider the relatively lower income increases over that timeframe.

Your generation pillaged our future then imported a massive amount of immigrants (of both legalities) to ensure GDP and tax inflows would cover your future SS incomes.

So yeah, I don't mind losing my future payments that I KNOW will never come close to what I have and will pay in, for the betterment of my country and kids future.

I don't want to continue to kick the can down the road.

This.

Zobel said:

---

Ok, perfect. I agree completely. Let's assume that's done.

Wed still be running a $300b annual deficit, and that will increase by something like another $1T over the next ten years, 90% of that coming from SS and Medicare.

Now what?

---

Wrong. Right now, SS collects $1.4 trillion in revenue and spends 1.5 trillion in cost. CURRENT DEFICIT 100 billion

An annual savings of over a trillion due to elimination of fraud and waste and there is an extra $900 million.

We don't need to cut SS. Just fix our spending.

I know math is hard, but damn!!

Science Denier said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Ok, perfect. I agree completely. Let's assume that's done.

Wed still be running a $300b annual deficit, and that will increase by something like another $1T over the next ten years, 90% of that coming from SS and Medicare.

Now what?

---

Wrong. Right now, SS collects $1.4 trillion in revenue and spends 1.5 trillion in cost. CURRENT DEFICIT 100 billion

An annual savings of over a trillion due to elimination of fraud and waste and there is an extra $900 million.

We don't need to cut SS. Just fix our spending.

I know math is hard, but damn!!

---

We need to gut entitlement spending of which SS is a large part.

Tom Fox said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Ok, perfect. I agree completely. Let's assume that's done.

Wed still be running a $300b annual deficit, and that will increase by something like another $1T over the next ten years, 90% of that coming from SS and Medicare.

Now what?

---

Wrong. Right now, SS collects $1.4 trillion in revenue and spends 1.5 trillion in cost. CURRENT DEFICIT 100 billion

An annual savings of over a trillion due to elimination of fraud and waste and there is an extra $900 million.

We don't need to cut SS. Just fix our spending.

I know math is hard, but damn!!

---

We need to gut entitlement spending of which SS is a large part.

---

This is just stupid. Youn you buy a service, the cost for the entity providing the service is not entitlement spending.

Paying the debt to bond holders is not entitlement spending. Psying the military their salary for work already perform is not entitlement spending. Paying for the service the country owes to those that already paid for SS is not entitlement spending.

I get the general statement "gut entitlement spending" sounds nice. But no recipients paid for welfare. No recipients paid for Medicaid. Those are entitlement expenditures.

Hope that helps.

Science Denier said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Ok, perfect. I agree completely. Let's assume that's done.

Wed still be running a $300b annual deficit, and that will increase by something like another $1T over the next ten years, 90% of that coming from SS and Medicare.

Now what?

---

Wrong. Right now, SS collects $1.4 trillion in revenue and spends 1.5 trillion in cost. CURRENT DEFICIT 100 billion

An annual savings of over a trillion due to elimination of fraud and waste and there is an extra $900 million.

We don't need to cut SS. Just fix our spending.

I know math is hard, but damn!!

---

We need to gut entitlement spending of which SS is a large part.

---

This is just stupid. Youn you buy a service, the cost for the entity providing the service is not entitlement spending.

Paying the debt to bond holders is not entitlement spending. Psying the military their salary for work already perform is not entitlement spending. Paying for the service the country owes to those that already paid for SS is not entitlement spending.

I get the general statement "gut entitlement spending" sounds nice. But no recipients paid for welfare. No recipients paid for Medicaid. Those are entitlement expenditures.

Hope that helps.

---

Google the formula for how SS benefits are calculated and paid. It is an entitlement. Price health insurance for someone 70 years old in the market. The premiums are being offset by those not on Medicaid. It is not as offensive as Medicaid, SNAP, TANF etc, but it is still entitlement spending and not the purview of the federal government. Save for your own retirement and pay for your own health care.

Paying government employees their salary in exchange for work to include the military is NOT entitlement spending.

Hope that helps.

Tom Fox said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Ok, perfect. I agree completely. Let's assume that's done.

Wed still be running a $300b annual deficit, and that will increase by something like another $1T over the next ten years, 90% of that coming from SS and Medicare.

Now what?

---

Wrong. Right now, SS collects $1.4 trillion in revenue and spends 1.5 trillion in cost. CURRENT DEFICIT 100 billion

An annual savings of over a trillion due to elimination of fraud and waste and there is an extra $900 million.

We don't need to cut SS. Just fix our spending.

I know math is hard, but damn!!

---

We need to gut entitlement spending of which SS is a large part.

---

This is just stupid. Youn you buy a service, the cost for the entity providing the service is not entitlement spending.

Paying the debt to bond holders is not entitlement spending. Psying the military their salary for work already perform is not entitlement spending. Paying for the service the country owes to those that already paid for SS is not entitlement spending.

I get the general statement "gut entitlement spending" sounds nice. But no recipients paid for welfare. No recipients paid for Medicaid. Those are entitlement expenditures.

Hope that helps.

---

Google the formula for how SS benefits are calculated and paid. It is an entitlement. Price health insurance for someone 70 years old in the market. The premiums are being offset by those not on Medicaid. It is not as offensive as Medicaid, SNAP, TANF etc, but it is still entitlement spending and not the purview of the federal government. Save for your own retirement and pay for your own health care.

Paying government employees their salary in exchange for work to include the military is NOT entitlement spending.

Hope that helps.

---

Well, you want to fix our spiraling debt? Eliminating $100 mm from the debt isn't going to do much.

Canceling a service millions have paid for is going to do alot of harm. And, fortunately, 90% of this country realized that there are debts we have to pay. We have to pay our military. We also have to pay our obligations, such as treasury loans and SS.

Fix spending. Cut programs that give zero back to this country. There are trillions there. Even talking about cutting SS should be item 7,461,993 on the list.

And, like I said, the vast majority of this country realizes this.

These threads are always humorous. We've fixed SS before by increasing the premiums for both the citizen and the employer while simultaneously increasing the retirement age. Result: new politicians come along a few years later, see the pot of money available and expand the benefits for those that have paid the lowest premiums.

It's genuinely cute that there are smart folks that think that if SS is "fixed", there won't be politicians that will later come and convince their constituents that they can vote to start taking their neighbors' money again. The only real fix for SS and all of the government overspending will be the eventual loss of faith in government debt and the resulting financial collapse.

In the meantime, we get to watch these cute, unrealistic debates about who should be favored in the interim. It's like watching folks argue over who gets which evening's dessert on the Titanic.

Science Denier said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Ok, perfect. I agree completely. Let's assume that's done.

Wed still be running a $300b annual deficit, and that will increase by something like another $1T over the next ten years, 90% of that coming from SS and Medicare.

Now what?

---

Wrong. Right now, SS collects $1.4 trillion in revenue and spends 1.5 trillion in cost. CURRENT DEFICIT 100 billion

An annual savings of over a trillion due to elimination of fraud and waste and there is an extra $900 million.

We don't need to cut SS. Just fix our spending.

I know math is hard, but damn!!

---

Math actually is pretty simple here.

You're talking about the deficit of the social security trust or the system itself. I'm talking about the whole federal government and including Medicare.

When I say "we" would still be running a deficit that is for the USG. And that's still just today, not counting future cost increases.

The whole "cut anything and everything except my personal direct benefits" attitude is the problem.

HarleySpoon said:

---

These threads are always humorous. We've fixed SS before by increasing the premiums for both the citizen and the employer while simultaneously increasing the retirement age. Result: new politicians come along a few years later, see the pot of money available and expand the benefits for those that have paid the lowest premiums.

It's genuinely cute that there are smart folks that think that if SS is "fixed", there won't be politicians that will later come and convince their constituents that they can vote to start taking their neighbors' money again. The only real fix for SS and all of the government overspending will be the eventual loss of faith in government debt and the resulting financial collapse.

In the meantime, we get to watch these cute, unrealistic debates about who should be favored in the interim. It's like watching folks argue over who gets which evening's dessert on the Titanic.

---

You're right, but for the wrong reason.

The reason this remains a problem is a lack of civic virtue. It's the root of the evil - the iceberg in your Titanic analogy. It doesn't matter what short term fix happens. As long as you've got a population that lacks civic virtue as a whole you can't have a republic. All political discussion is downstream of that.

Now you can say that it's a complete waste of time to try to talk about civic virtue, and maybe that's true.

Zobel said:

---

HarleySpoon said:

---

These threads are always humorous. We've fixed SS before by increasing the premiums for both the citizen and the employer while simultaneously increasing the retirement age. Result: new politicians come along a few years later, see the pot of money available and expand the benefits for those that have paid the lowest premiums.

It's genuinely cute that there are smart folks that think that if SS is "fixed", there won't be politicians that will later come and convince their constituents that they can vote to start taking their neighbors' money again. The only real fix for SS and all of the government overspending will be the eventual loss of faith in government debt and the resulting financial collapse.

In the meantime, we get to watch these cute, unrealistic debates about who should be favored in the interim. It's like watching folks argue over who gets which evening's dessert on the Titanic.

---

You're right, but for the wrong reason.

The reason this remains a problem is a lack of civic virtue. It's the root of the evil - the iceberg in your Titanic analogy. It doesn't matter what short term fix happens. As long as you've got a population that lacks civic virtue as a whole you can't have a republic. All political discussion is downstream of that.

Now you can say that it's a complete waste of time to try to talk about civic virtue, and maybe that's true.

---

We are on the same page.

The snow ball started its roll with universal suffrage. The founders had it correct when they required skin in the game for suffrage. They read their history….they knew that expecting "civil virtue" from the majority without skin in the game was hopeless. But, that cat isn't going back in the bag without some crazy times. Humans will be human.

The other thing that is interesting about this thread:

Some number of folks are lamenting that boomers aren't willing to give up what was promised to them and turn it over to strangers that are millennials. However, most will turn it over to millennials….just that they will give it to millennials of their choosing and not to strangers.

And, it's almost mathematically impossible and actuarially highly improbable for a "wealthy" boomer to ever collect more in real dollar terms than they paid in…..so that they in fact have been subsidizing the less wealthy their entire lifetimes…..as it was designed and as they were incentivized to do.

YouBet said:

---

agwrestler said:

---

HunterAggie said:

---

Pay into Social Security for 50 years

then get a pittance in return

and it is taxed.

Incredibly efficient use of my money.

And while it won't support me in my old age, it will allow me to not have to rely on my children or grandchildren for support.

It's too late to eliminate Social Security. But you can make changes to it to make it more efficient.

(And by the way, if you were smart enough to put back money into your own savings for retirement (401k, etc.), then the government jams you for higher Medicare payments. It's all a game).

---

Taxes on SS payment needs to be eliminated. You shouldn't be taxed 3 times for the same money(income/ SS payment/ sales tax).

Soft Communism accepted by our "Greatest Generation"!

---

It's 4 times if you live in the wrong state.

---

You guys are close to realizing the real purpose of SS. It's not a wealth transfer from one generation to earlier one nor is it some altruistic government program to support the elderly. It's a program to ensure that the government has you as a revenue stream until you die.

Science Denier said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Ok, perfect. I agree completely. Let's assume that's done.

Wed still be running a $300b annual deficit, and that will increase by something like another $1T over the next ten years, 90% of that coming from SS and Medicare.

Now what?

---

Wrong. Right now, SS collects $1.4 trillion in revenue and spends 1.5 trillion in cost. CURRENT DEFICIT 100 billion

An annual savings of over a trillion due to elimination of fraud and waste and there is an extra $900 million.

We don't need to cut SS. Just fix our spending.

I know math is hard, but damn!!

---

We need to gut entitlement spending of which SS is a large part.

---

This is just stupid. Youn you buy a service, the cost for the entity providing the service is not entitlement spending.

Paying the debt to bond holders is not entitlement spending. Psying the military their salary for work already perform is not entitlement spending. Paying for the service the country owes to those that already paid for SS is not entitlement spending.

I get the general statement "gut entitlement spending" sounds nice. But no recipients paid for welfare. No recipients paid for Medicaid. Those are entitlement expenditures.

Hope that helps.

---

Google the formula for how SS benefits are calculated and paid. It is an entitlement. Price health insurance for someone 70 years old in the market. The premiums are being offset by those not on Medicaid. It is not as offensive as Medicaid, SNAP, TANF etc, but it is still entitlement spending and not the purview of the federal government. Save for your own retirement and pay for your own health care.

Paying government employees their salary in exchange for work to include the military is NOT entitlement spending.

Hope that helps.

---

Well, you want to fix our spiraling debt? Eliminating $100 mm from the debt isn't going to do much.

Canceling a service millions have paid for is going to do alot of harm. And, fortunately, 90% of this country realized that there are debts we have to pay. We have to pay our military. We also have to pay our obligations, such as treasury loans and SS.

Fix spending. Cut programs that give zero back to this country. There are trillions there. Even talking about cutting SS should be item 7,461,993 on the list.

And, like I said, the vast majority of this country realizes this.

---

90% of our citizens are economically illiterate. That is why we are in this position in the first place.

Pay for your own healthcare and retirement. It is not that complicated. None of these are original roles for the Fed government but rather were FDR and LBJ payoffs to buy votes from an idiotic electorate.

Notice this bs didn't truly start until we had universal suffrage. That is not coincidence.

Why you keep conflating paying government employees with entitlements makes me think you might be in the 90%.

Not sure if it's been posted but there is a relatively easy way out of this whole scheme. Retire the program over time based age tiers.

If you are older then you keep all or most of what you put in. The younger you are the less you get back or get nothing.

Simultaneously, up the retirement contribution limits or make them more lucrative as an incentive to invest the money you are no longer paying into SS.

Done.

YouBet said:

---

Not sure if it's been posted but there is a relatively easy way out of this whole scheme. Retire the program over time based age tiers.

If you are older then you keep all or most of what you put in. The younger you are the less you get back or get nothing.

Simultaneously, up the retirement contribution limits or make them more lucrative as an incentive to invest the money you are no longer paying into SS.

Done.

---

I would add to that the option of cashing out if you are one of the people slated to get benefits during the phase out. Give me 75% of the money I put in, with no interest but also no taxes and you never have to send me a monthly check.

slaughtr said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Not sure if it's been posted but there is a relatively easy way out of this whole scheme. Retire the program over time based age tiers.

If you are older then you keep all or most of what you put in. The younger you are the less you get back or get nothing.

Simultaneously, up the retirement contribution limits or make them more lucrative as an incentive to invest the money you are no longer paying into SS.

Done.

---

I would add to that the option of cashing out if you are one of the people slated to get benefits during the phase out. Give me 75% of the money I put in, with no interest but also no taxes and you never have to send me a monthly check.

---

Agreed. I would take that and run, but they wouldn't allow that due to fears of a run on the SS fund. That's happened with some pension funds in similar wind down schemes and they had to stop it.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

HarleySpoon said:

---

And, it's almost mathematically impossible and actuarially highly improbable for a "wealthy" boomer to ever collect more in real dollar terms than they paid in…..so that they in fact have been subsidizing the less wealthy their entire lifetimes…..as it was designed and as they were incentivized to do.

---

Which is virtuous in nature, yet some ignore that and insist on even more.

As someone approaching retirement who served my country and then gradually worked my way into higher income streams and paid income taxes and SS taxes in the highest brackets -- when 50% of people with an income don't pay net income tax -- I am beyond tired of anybody telling me I'm not paying my fair share or need to give up a benefit that's been in the pipeline for my entire life. I have some very choice words for those folks that I'll reserve to share with them in person.

---

Yup. All these years paying the max tax rate and the max SS payments, no millennial ever came up to me on the street to say "thanks mister for doing your part to have a functional country". But now that I'm about to collect SS, those millennials are all " you are so selfish, boomer", lol.

slaughtr said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Not sure if it's been posted but there is a relatively easy way out of this whole scheme. Retire the program over time based age tiers.

If you are older then you keep all or most of what you put in. The younger you are the less you get back or get nothing.

Simultaneously, up the retirement contribution limits or make them more lucrative as an incentive to invest the money you are no longer paying into SS.

Done.

---

I would add to that the option of cashing out if you are one of the people slated to get benefits during the phase out. Give me 75% of the money I put in, with no interest but also no taxes and you never have to send me a monthly check.

---

They don't even have to do that. Keep what I've paid in. Just give me a dollar for dollar reduction in my fed income taxes for every dollar that I have ever paid in for myself or anyone else along with never contributing another penny and I'm out right now.

In all honesty, I would be out if they just stop making me contribute.

slaughtr said:

---

Yup. All these years paying the max tax rate and the max SS payments, no millennial ever came up to me on the street to say "thanks mister for doing your part to have a functional country". But now that I'm about to collect SS, those millennials are all " you are so selfish, boomer", lol.

---

It's part of a larger victim mentality that the media and the Dems deliberately agitate. Black vs white. Old vs young. Men vs women. Gay vs straight. You name it. It's what drives controversy and moves people to the polls to vote for politicians who will make sure those evil (insert villain name here) "pay their fair share" or whatever the mantra is at the time. It's not unique to a gender, race, or age class.

We live in the greatest country on earth, and even our poor are well-fed with access to medical care. You would think we would be the happiest people on earth. Some of us are...and it's usually those who take ownership for their lot in life, play by the rules as they exist, and focus on what's good in life instead of what you think is bad.

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

The basic area we agree is that changes must be made to address the funding/benefits gap going forward. The OP is pushing a concept that people in or near retirement should forego some or all of their SS benefit out of a sense of civic duty. While he is welcome to do that himself, for 95% of people who've paid into SS for many years, that is a non-starter.

---

You won't answer but I'll ask anyway. Why is it a nonstarter for one segment of society to take a haircut but not another nonstarter for a different one?

---

Some of us don't have any hair left to cut?

Rattler12 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

The basic area we agree is that changes must be made to address the funding/benefits gap going forward. The OP is pushing a concept that people in or near retirement should forego some or all of their SS benefit out of a sense of civic duty. While he is welcome to do that himself, for 95% of people who've paid into SS for many years, that is a non-starter.

---

You won't answer but I'll ask anyway. Why is it a nonstarter for one segment of society to take a haircut but not another nonstarter for a different one?

---

Some of us don't have any hair left to cut?

---

If the richest generation which is currently hoarding homes and land cant afford a haircut; in what world do you think Gen X and Millennials can?

texagbeliever said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

The basic area we agree is that changes must be made to address the funding/benefits gap going forward. The OP is pushing a concept that people in or near retirement should forego some or all of their SS benefit out of a sense of civic duty. While he is welcome to do that himself, for 95% of people who've paid into SS for many years, that is a non-starter.

---

You won't answer but I'll ask anyway. Why is it a nonstarter for one segment of society to take a haircut but not another nonstarter for a different one?

---

Some of us don't have any hair left to cut?

---

If the richest generation which is currently hoarding homes and land cant afford a haircut; in what world do you think Gen X and Millennials can?

---

It was a double entendre response amigo ......do I really need to explain baldness?

Hoarding?! Lol. A home doesn't provide income.

The next generations will get those homes and land for free at a much higher value and will most likely sell them. Lots of wealth coming their way. I think they will be ok.

Logos Stick said:

---

Hoarding?! Lol. A home doesn't provide income.

The next generations will get those homes and land for free at a much higher value and will most likely sell them. Lots of wealth coming their way. I think they will be ok.

---

A home doesn't provide income. Have you heard of rental properties?

Tom Fox said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Ok, perfect. I agree completely. Let's assume that's done.

Wed still be running a $300b annual deficit, and that will increase by something like another $1T over the next ten years, 90% of that coming from SS and Medicare.

Now what?

---

Wrong. Right now, SS collects $1.4 trillion in revenue and spends 1.5 trillion in cost. CURRENT DEFICIT 100 billion

An annual savings of over a trillion due to elimination of fraud and waste and there is an extra $900 million.

We don't need to cut SS. Just fix our spending.

I know math is hard, but damn!!

---

We need to gut entitlement spending of which SS is a large part.

---

This is just stupid. Youn you buy a service, the cost for the entity providing the service is not entitlement spending.

Paying the debt to bond holders is not entitlement spending. Psying the military their salary for work already perform is not entitlement spending. Paying for the service the country owes to those that already paid for SS is not entitlement spending.

I get the general statement "gut entitlement spending" sounds nice. But no recipients paid for welfare. No recipients paid for Medicaid. Those are entitlement expenditures.

Hope that helps.

---

Google the formula for how SS benefits are calculated and paid. It is an entitlement. Price health insurance for someone 70 years old in the market. The premiums are being offset by those not on Medicaid. It is not as offensive as Medicaid, SNAP, TANF etc, but it is still entitlement spending and not the purview of the federal government. Save for your own retirement and pay for your own health care.

Paying government employees their salary in exchange for work to include the military is NOT entitlement spending.

Hope that helps.

---

Well, you want to fix our spiraling debt? Eliminating $100 mm from the debt isn't going to do much.

Canceling a service millions have paid for is going to do alot of harm. And, fortunately, 90% of this country realized that there are debts we have to pay. We have to pay our military. We also have to pay our obligations, such as treasury loans and SS.

Fix spending. Cut programs that give zero back to this country. There are trillions there. Even talking about cutting SS should be item 7,461,993 on the list.

And, like I said, the vast majority of this country realizes this.

---

90% of our citizens are economically illiterate. That is why we are in this position in the first place.

Pay for your own healthcare and retirement. It is not that complicated. None of these are original roles for the Fed government but rather were FDR and LBJ payoffs to buy votes from an idiotic electorate.

Notice this bs didn't truly start until we had universal suffrage. That is not coincidence.

Why you keep conflating paying government employees with entitlements makes me think you might be in the 90%.

---

lol. 90% realize if you pay for something, you should get it. Not sure that requires any special financial knowledge.

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

The basic area we agree is that changes must be made to address the funding/benefits gap going forward. The OP is pushing a concept that people in or near retirement should forego some or all of their SS benefit out of a sense of civic duty. While he is welcome to do that himself, for 95% of people who've paid into SS for many years, that is a non-starter.

---

You won't answer but I'll ask anyway. Why is it a nonstarter for one segment of society to take a haircut but not another nonstarter for a different one?

---

Don't you mean "Why is it a nonstarter for one generation of society to take a haircut but not another nonstarter for a different one?" In that context, you should be able to figure it out yourself.

Science Denier said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Ok, perfect. I agree completely. Let's assume that's done.

Wed still be running a $300b annual deficit, and that will increase by something like another $1T over the next ten years, 90% of that coming from SS and Medicare.

Now what?

---

Wrong. Right now, SS collects $1.4 trillion in revenue and spends 1.5 trillion in cost. CURRENT DEFICIT 100 billion

An annual savings of over a trillion due to elimination of fraud and waste and there is an extra $900 million.

We don't need to cut SS. Just fix our spending.

I know math is hard, but damn!!

---

We need to gut entitlement spending of which SS is a large part.

---

This is just stupid. Youn you buy a service, the cost for the entity providing the service is not entitlement spending.

Paying the debt to bond holders is not entitlement spending. Psying the military their salary for work already perform is not entitlement spending. Paying for the service the country owes to those that already paid for SS is not entitlement spending.

I get the general statement "gut entitlement spending" sounds nice. But no recipients paid for welfare. No recipients paid for Medicaid. Those are entitlement expenditures.

Hope that helps.

---

Google the formula for how SS benefits are calculated and paid. It is an entitlement. Price health insurance for someone 70 years old in the market. The premiums are being offset by those not on Medicaid. It is not as offensive as Medicaid, SNAP, TANF etc, but it is still entitlement spending and not the purview of the federal government. Save for your own retirement and pay for your own health care.

Paying government employees their salary in exchange for work to include the military is NOT entitlement spending.

Hope that helps.

---

Well, you want to fix our spiraling debt? Eliminating $100 mm from the debt isn't going to do much.

Canceling a service millions have paid for is going to do alot of harm. And, fortunately, 90% of this country realized that there are debts we have to pay. We have to pay our military. We also have to pay our obligations, such as treasury loans and SS.

Fix spending. Cut programs that give zero back to this country. There are trillions there. Even talking about cutting SS should be item 7,461,993 on the list.

And, like I said, the vast majority of this country realizes this.

---

90% of our citizens are economically illiterate. That is why we are in this position in the first place.

Pay for your own healthcare and retirement. It is not that complicated. None of these are original roles for the Fed government but rather were FDR and LBJ payoffs to buy votes from an idiotic electorate.

Notice this bs didn't truly start until we had universal suffrage. That is not coincidence.

Why you keep conflating paying government employees with entitlements makes me think you might be in the 90%.

---

lol. 90% realize if you pay for something, you should get it. Not sure that requires any special financial knowledge.

---

They didn't pay for shilt. They paid a tax.

Just like the $250k I flush every year in fed income taxes. What am I getting for that that every other American is not getting? Especially when the vats major pay almost nothing.

The real answer is to cut taxes and let people determine their own fate. This nanny state bs needs to end even if it ends badly.

texagbeliever said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Hoarding?! Lol. A home doesn't provide income.

The next generations will get those homes and land for free at a much higher value and will most likely sell them. Lots of wealth coming their way. I think they will be ok.

---

A home doesn't provide income. Have you heard of rental properties?

---

The vast majority of homes owned by boomers are their residences, which don't generate revenue.

For those that do own rentals, the next generations will soon be inheriting that too.

Tom Fox said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Ok, perfect. I agree completely. Let's assume that's done.

Wed still be running a $300b annual deficit, and that will increase by something like another $1T over the next ten years, 90% of that coming from SS and Medicare.

Now what?

---

Wrong. Right now, SS collects $1.4 trillion in revenue and spends 1.5 trillion in cost. CURRENT DEFICIT 100 billion

An annual savings of over a trillion due to elimination of fraud and waste and there is an extra $900 million.

We don't need to cut SS. Just fix our spending.

I know math is hard, but damn!!

---

We need to gut entitlement spending of which SS is a large part.

---

This is just stupid. Youn you buy a service, the cost for the entity providing the service is not entitlement spending.

Paying the debt to bond holders is not entitlement spending. Psying the military their salary for work already perform is not entitlement spending. Paying for the service the country owes to those that already paid for SS is not entitlement spending.

I get the general statement "gut entitlement spending" sounds nice. But no recipients paid for welfare. No recipients paid for Medicaid. Those are entitlement expenditures.

Hope that helps.

---

Google the formula for how SS benefits are calculated and paid. It is an entitlement. Price health insurance for someone 70 years old in the market. The premiums are being offset by those not on Medicaid. It is not as offensive as Medicaid, SNAP, TANF etc, but it is still entitlement spending and not the purview of the federal government. Save for your own retirement and pay for your own health care.

Paying government employees their salary in exchange for work to include the military is NOT entitlement spending.

Hope that helps.

---

Well, you want to fix our spiraling debt? Eliminating $100 mm from the debt isn't going to do much.

Canceling a service millions have paid for is going to do alot of harm. And, fortunately, 90% of this country realized that there are debts we have to pay. We have to pay our military. We also have to pay our obligations, such as treasury loans and SS.

Fix spending. Cut programs that give zero back to this country. There are trillions there. Even talking about cutting SS should be item 7,461,993 on the list.

And, like I said, the vast majority of this country realizes this.

---

90% of our citizens are economically illiterate. That is why we are in this position in the first place.

Pay for your own healthcare and retirement. It is not that complicated. None of these are original roles for the Fed government but rather were FDR and LBJ payoffs to buy votes from an idiotic electorate.

Notice this bs didn't truly start until we had universal suffrage. That is not coincidence.

Why you keep conflating paying government employees with entitlements makes me think you might be in the 90%.

---

lol. 90% realize if you pay for something, you should get it. Not sure that requires any special financial knowledge.

---

They didn't pay for shilt. They paid a tax.

Just like the $250k I flush every year in fed income taxes. What am I getting for that that every other American is not getting? Especially when the vats major pay almost nothing.

The real answer is to cut taxes and let people determine their own fate. This nanny state bs needs to end even if it ends badly.

---

Wrong. And 90% of the country knows part of their withholding is specifically for a SS check in the future. They have paid for it.

And cutting a program people already paid for in order to save a few billion is one of the dumbest things ever proposed on here.

And 90% of the country agrees with that also.

Snd this phasing out crap is dumb also. You say we don't have the $100 billion today to keep SS? Phasing it out will take away contributions and the expense would be the same. And that would go in for decades. And 90% of the country knows that also.

Some things are just not that hard.

I agree with you. Give me everything back that I have paid into SS thus far and I'll be happy to take complete responsibility for my own care.

Quote:

---

And cutting a program people already paid for in order to save a few billion is one of the dumbest things ever proposed on here.

---

It's about $1.5T per year which is almost 25% of our annual spend. You are off by many orders of magnitude.

It absolutely could be phased out if done correctly. It's math. You can make it work.

YouBet said:

---

Quote:

---

And cutting a program people already paid for in order to save a few billion is one of the dumbest things ever proposed on here.

---

It's about $1.5T per year which is almost 25% of our annual spend. You are off by many orders of magnitude.

It absolutely could be phased out if done correctly. It's math. You can make it work.

---

Wrong. That would be the cost if we collected zero in contributions. We collect about $1.4 trillion. Net is about $100 million.

A few months of tariffs would probably pay that.

Science Denier said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Quote:

---

And cutting a program people already paid for in order to save a few billion is one of the dumbest things ever proposed on here.

---

It's about $1.5T per year which is almost 25% of our annual spend. You are off by many orders of magnitude.

It absolutely could be phased out if done correctly. It's math. You can make it work.

---

Wrong. That would be the cost if we collected zero in contributions. We collect about $1.4 trillion. Net is about $100 million.

A few months of tariffs would probably pay that.

---

Huh? We spent about $1.5T in benefits in 2024. We collected about $1.4T in tax receipts.

We are talking about ending SS which means the $1.5T goes away which means that everyone that gets their wages garnished for it get to ratchet down their existing contribution or not have it deducted it all based on an orderly phase out plan that I suggested.