Put all the current and future "contributions" in a separate SS only fund and not in the general fund as it was before 1969.

YouBet said:

---

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.

---

Net cost is $100 billion.

If you do away with SS, you do away with the tax. Net gain to the budget is $100 million. There is nothing off about these numbers.

Cutting a program millions have paid for over decades of their lives to save $100 billion is dumb. Cut the budget elsewhere. There are trillions wasted.

And 90% of the country know this.

Science Denier said:

---

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.

---

Yep low IQ voters hate having agency. They should invest their money themselves. It will outperform SS.

We need less socialism, not more. Some things are just not that hard.

Tom Fox said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

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.

---

Yep low IQ voters hate having agency. They should invest their money themselves. It will outperform SS.

We need less socialism, not more. Some things are just not that hard.

---

Providing a service folks paid for is capitalism. Not socislism.

I agree. Some things are not that hard.

Science Denier said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

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.

---

Yep low IQ voters hate having agency. They should invest their money themselves. It will outperform SS.

We need less socialism, not more. Some things are just not that hard.

---

Providing a service folks paid for is capitalism. Not socislism.

I agree. Some things are not that hard.

---

The federal government was not intended to be Merrill Lynch. It is not that hard. Put in your own work homie.

And it certainly is where the first dollars are paid out at a higher percentage while every dollar is taxed the same aka progressive entitlement bs.

90%: of your first $1,226 AIME.
32%: of your AIME between $1,226 and $7,391.
15%: of your AIME above $7,391.

That is what paternalistic socialism looks like.

Science Denier said:

---

YouBet said:

---

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.

---

Net cost is $100 billion.

If you do away with SS, you do away with the tax. Net gain to the budget is $100 million. There is nothing off about these numbers.

Cutting a program millions have paid for over decades of their lives to save $100 billion is dumb. Cut the budget elsewhere. There are trillions wasted.

And 90% of the country know this.

---

Yes, you do away with the tax which is the whole point.

If we do away with SS, then our paychecks no longer have that line item. People get to keep the money for themselves. I would have made a **** ton more money on those contributions over the previous 25+ years of working than it would have in the government's hands.

We also know they raid this fund to cover other pork and crap. Getting rid of it streamlines government and personally saves everyone a lot of money from being stolen from their paycheck.

And I would say 90% of the country doesn't know dick or we wouldn't be in the predicament we find ourselves. Lol.

I wish I had to pay $250K a year in federal income tax.......what a problem to have

Tom Fox said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

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.

---

Yep low IQ voters hate having agency. They should invest their money themselves. It will outperform SS.

We need less socialism, not more. Some things are just not that hard.

---

Providing a service folks paid for is capitalism. Not socislism.

I agree. Some things are not that hard.

---

The federal government was not intended to be Merrill Lynch. It is not that hard. Put in your own work homie.

And it certainly is where the first dollars are paid out at a higher percentage while every dollar is taxed the same aka progressive entitlement bs.

90%: of your first $1,226 AIME.
32%: of your AIME between $1,226 and $7,391.
15%: of your AIME above $7,391.

That is what paternalistic socialism looks like.

---

What does the purpose of the federal government have to do with anything?

PEOPLE
PAID
FOR
SOCIAL
SECURITY

Was the federal government meant to pay interest?f Nope. Doesn't mean we are going go just say "Well, the government was never intended to borrow so we will just stop paying interest on our debt.

Government forced people into SS
People paid for SS
Would be the most liberal. socialistic thing ever to just steal that benefit because folks should be able to afford it.

YouBet said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

YouBet said:

---

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.

---

Net cost is $100 billion.

If you do away with SS, you do away with the tax. Net gain to the budget is $100 million. There is nothing off about these numbers.

Cutting a program millions have paid for over decades of their lives to save $100 billion is dumb. Cut the budget elsewhere. There are trillions wasted.

And 90% of the country know this.

---

Yes, you do away with the tax which is the whole point.

If we do away with SS, then our paychecks no longer have that line item. People get to keep the money for themselves. I would have made a **** ton more money on those contributions over the previous 25+ years of working than it would have in the government's hands.

We also know they raid this fund to cover other pork and crap. Getting rid of it streamlines government and personally saves everyone a lot of money from being stolen from their paycheck.

And I would say 90% of the country doesn't know dick or we wouldn't be in the predicament we find ourselves. Lol.

---

Those that "don't know dick" at least can understand that if you pay for something you should receive what they paid for.

Science Denier said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

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.

---

Yep low IQ voters hate having agency. They should invest their money themselves. It will outperform SS.

We need less socialism, not more. Some things are just not that hard.

---

Providing a service folks paid for is capitalism. Not socislism.

I agree. Some things are not that hard.

---

The federal government was not intended to be Merrill Lynch. It is not that hard. Put in your own work homie.

And it certainly is where the first dollars are paid out at a higher percentage while every dollar is taxed the same aka progressive entitlement bs.

90%: of your first $1,226 AIME.
32%: of your AIME between $1,226 and $7,391.
15%: of your AIME above $7,391.

That is what paternalistic socialism looks like.

---

What does the purpose of the federal government have to do with anything?

PEOPLE
PAID
FOR
SOCIAL
SECURITY

Was the federal government meant to pay interest?f Nope. Doesn't mean we are going go just say "Well, the government was never intended to borrow so we will just stop paying interest on our debt.

Government forced people into SS
People paid for SS
Would be the most liberal. socialistic thing ever to just steal that benefit because folks should be able to afford it.

---

There is no loss of benefit if you phase it out over time. That's the whole point of a phase out.

It sounds like you just want the government to own and manage a centralized retirement system.

Science Denier said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

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.

---

Yep low IQ voters hate having agency. They should invest their money themselves. It will outperform SS.

We need less socialism, not more. Some things are just not that hard.

---

Providing a service folks paid for is capitalism. Not socislism.

I agree. Some things are not that hard.

---

The federal government was not intended to be Merrill Lynch. It is not that hard. Put in your own work homie.

And it certainly is where the first dollars are paid out at a higher percentage while every dollar is taxed the same aka progressive entitlement bs.

90%: of your first $1,226 AIME.
32%: of your AIME between $1,226 and $7,391.
15%: of your AIME above $7,391.

That is what paternalistic socialism looks like.

---

What does the purpose of the federal government have to do with anything?

PEOPLE
PAID
FOR
SOCIAL
SECURITY

Was the federal government meant to pay interest?f Nope. Doesn't mean we are going go just say "Well, the government was never intended to borrow so we will just stop paying interest on our debt.

Government forced people into SS
People paid for SS
Would be the most liberal. socialistic thing ever to just steal that benefit because folks should be able to afford it.

---

Read the constitution and look at what the government did at our founding and you will see the role of the fed government.

Read my next post. That's not what I'm saying. Good lord.

Rattler12 said:

---

I wish I had to pay $250K a year in federal income tax.......what a problem to have

---

You had the same opportunity as me to have that problem. That is the beauty of our system.

I'm glad I was successful but it gets tiresome paying for my 20 Americans that pay nothing but yet still enjoy the exact same govt benefits, hell probably more than me.

matureag 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?

---

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.

---

Sure but I was generalizing.

Net cost is $100bn with the taxes, today. In five years it'll be 3 or 4 times that. In 2033 the ss trust fund will be zero, in which case it can only be covered by current revenues - which will pay for around 77% of scheduled benefits.

If you stopped the tax, the deficit impact isn't $100b today, it's $1.5T and the fund runs out next year.

I'm not sure what you're actually suggesting.

Science Denier said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

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.

---

Yep low IQ voters hate having agency. They should invest their money themselves. It will outperform SS.

We need less socialism, not more. Some things are just not that hard.

---

Providing a service folks paid for is capitalism. Not socislism.

I agree. Some things are not that hard.

---

The federal government was not intended to be Merrill Lynch. It is not that hard. Put in your own work homie.

And it certainly is where the first dollars are paid out at a higher percentage while every dollar is taxed the same aka progressive entitlement bs.

90%: of your first $1,226 AIME.
32%: of your AIME between $1,226 and $7,391.
15%: of your AIME above $7,391.

That is what paternalistic socialism looks like.

---

What does the purpose of the federal government have to do with anything?

PEOPLE
PAID
FOR
SOCIAL
SECURITY

Was the federal government meant to pay interest?f Nope. Doesn't mean we are going go just say "Well, the government was never intended to borrow so we will just stop paying interest on our debt.

Government forced people into SS
People paid for SS
Would be the most liberal. socialistic thing ever to just steal that benefit because folks should be able to afford it.

---

When you make a mistake when digging a hole.

Step 1 Stop digging.

Stop forcing people to pay into SS.

Minimize the damage to those that already paid in.

You have essentially advocated for the government continuing to run a boondoggle quasi retirement program.

It.Needs.To.Stop.

How long should we wait to cut out the cancer?

YouBet said:

---

There is no loss of benefit if you phase it out over time. That's the whole point of a phase out.

---

Your point is actually the most realistic that minimizes harm to everyone. Don't cut SS payments to people already in retirement and let the very young (18-30) gradually wind down their SS taxes to zero and allow them to invest their money privately to replace SS when they retire. Everybody in between gets put on a graduated schedule in between those extremes. There is a way to do it -- the math can work -- and give everybody plenty of time to adjust to the gradual change.

What you see on this thread and the public dialogue are often the most extreme statements that range from killing it cold turkey tomorrow (or giving up your benefit in retirement) to actually expanding it and getting the government even deeper into our lives.

We need the serious people to help reform it. We could have easily made these adjustments 30 years ago and not even be having this conversation today. But our political system is too often driven by extremes and not practical-minded leaders.

Zobel said:

---

Net cost is $100bn with the taxes, today. In five years it'll be 3 or 4 times that. In 2033 the ss trust fund will be zero, in which case it can only be covered by current revenues - which will pay for around 77% of scheduled benefits.

If you stopped the tax, the deficit impact isn't $100b today, it's $1.5T and the fund runs out next year.

I'm not sure what you're actually suggesting.

---

He is suggesting that the federal government continue to run a boondoggle quasi retirement program in perpetuity.

Tom Fox said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

I wish I had to pay $250K a year in federal income tax.......what a problem to have

---

You had the same opportunity as me to have that problem. That is the beauty of our system.

I'm glad I was successful but it gets tiresome paying for my 20 Americans that pay nothing but yet still enjoy the exact same govt benefits, hell probably more than me.

---

Yeah I'm sure they all maintain the same lifestyle also........some on here might say it's your civic duty to do such and shouldn't complain about it and you are displaying a serious amount of civic virtue by contributing such amount.

Correct. And it's logically and mathematically feasible and the obvious way out of it, but there is no way the government will cede this responsibility because it's a major lever of control over the populace.

Also, you have too much of the population that does not want the responsibility of having to manage their own money. When you have half the country already paying nothing in income tax and then tell those people they have to be more accountable for their own life...they won't accept that.

To W's credit, he's the only POTUS that has ever even attempted to do anything about it and he was castigated for it by the "1984" Democrats.

It will never happen but it's the obvious and most logical way forward.

Rattler12 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

I wish I had to pay $250K a year in federal income tax.......what a problem to have

---

You had the same opportunity as me to have that problem. That is the beauty of our system.

I'm glad I was successful but it gets tiresome paying for my 20 Americans that pay nothing but yet still enjoy the exact same govt benefits, hell probably more than me.

---

Yeah I'm sure they all maintain the same lifestyle also........some on here might say it's your civic duty to do such and shouldn't complain about it and you are displaying a serious amount of civic virtue by contributing such amount.

---

It is all about choices. And not my job to support others involuntarily. I went to Iraq 3 times and was a fed Leo for over a decade. I've more than done my civic duty to my country.

The government is not supposed to be in the wealth redistribution business. I don't mind paying my share, which for a family of 4 is around $57K/annually.

What are those not paying providing?

Agree on all counts.

Sorry I thought you said you paid $250K annually.

Rattler12 said:

---

Sorry I thought you said you paid $250K annually.

---

I do. Usually between $240k to $255K annually for the past 3 years.

I didn't go to law school until almost 40. Opened my own law firm 7 years ago. All after my time in public service.

The debt owed by every American to fund our current budget is $14K per person. I have a family of four (two minor daughters). My share is $56-57K.

Amazing how one of the essential debates in the 2000 presidential election was what to do with the projected federal budget surplus. Al Gore wanted to pay down the debt and shore up social security.

Bush wanted a tax cut and then spent like a drunken pirate on shore leave. Presidents have been following the Bush model ever since.

One could argue a fiscal conservative hasn't been nominated by a major party since 2000.

Quote:

---

Your point is actually the most realistic that minimizes harm to everyone.

---

But it's the most costliest. And the whole point of this incredibly dumb tops is that we can't afford it anyway.

So, we either pay $100 billion per year and keep this thing as is, or we spend $1.5 trillion every year for the next 20+ years and finally end it.

Dumb.

How about cut wasteful and corrupt spending? Then something can actually be done.

Nope. These guys in their liberal, socialist utopia would rather just steal benefits from millions in order to save $100 billion. He'll, we gave the Democrat party $1 trillion to spend on Kamala's election run. $250 million of that was handed to Soros.

Fix that **** and maybe the country will be willing to talk about killing SS.

Maybe.

Tom Fox said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

Sorry I thought you said you paid $250K annually.

---

I do. Usually between $240k to $255K annually for the past 3 years.

I didn't go to law school until almost 40. Opened my own law firm 7 years ago. All after my time in public service.

---

So you think your fair share should be $57K.....got it. Please tell me your not a PI attorney. Old TJH thinks his fair share of his clients suffering is 47% plus expenses

You libs can continue talking about your liberal, socialistic state. Tax the rich because they can afford it.

I'm done.

Rattler12 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

Sorry I thought you said you paid $250K annually.

---

I do. Usually between $240k to $255K annually for the past 3 years.

I didn't go to law school until almost 40. Opened my own law firm 7 years ago. All after my time in public service.

---

So you think your fair share should be $57K.....got it. Please tell me your not a PI attorney. Old TJH thinks his fair share of his clients suffering is 47% plus expenses

---

The debt owed by every American to fund our current budget is $14K per person. I have a family of four (two minor daughters). My share is $56-57K.

I was originally a prosecutor, now I am a criminal defense attorney.

Science Denier said:

---

You libs can continue talking about your liberal, socialistic state. Tax the rich because they can afford it.

I'm done.

---

WTF? Social security disproportionally taxes the rich.

I am beginning to think I will not let my kids attend A&M after some of our discussions on this board.

Science Denier said:

---

YouBet said:

---

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.

---

Net cost is $100 billion.

If you do away with SS, you do away with the tax. Net gain to the budget is $100 million. There is nothing off about these numbers.

Cutting a program millions have paid for over decades of their lives to save $100 billion is dumb. Cut the budget elsewhere. There are trillions wasted.

And 90% of the country know this.

---

They will never cut spending.

Instead, they will raid 401Ks to placate the majority who have no savings.

Dems have already pitched that a few years ago.

You can't cut payments into the system without cutting benefits and make the math work. It's already running at an accelerating deficit.

Science Denier said:

---

You libs can continue talking about your liberal, socialistic state. Tax the rich because they can afford it.

I'm done.

---

Advocates for deficit spending and taxes to cover direct entitlement payment transfers and calls others liberals and socialistic.

Boomers have no legal or moral right to Social Security benefits. None. Zero.

The law is clear on this.

The moral case is even stronger. https://t.co/oJZgL8cArk pic.twitter.com/g1CvCwQiBE

— Russ Greene (@GreenPlusAnE) December 12, 2025

Now I support Social Security benefits in their sole legitimate use, as a floor to prevent seniors from falling into poverty. But this is not a constitutional, legal or moral right. It’s a government transfer program, which can and should be adjusted by elected representatives…

— Russ Greene (@GreenPlusAnE) December 12, 2025

Zobel said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

You libs can continue talking about your liberal, socialistic state. Tax the rich because they can afford it.

I'm done.

---

Advocates for deficit spending and taxes to cover direct entitlement payment transfers and calls others liberals and socialistic.

---

Yes, I'm just highly confused at this point. I feel like I'm arguing with someone who has a split personality.