I suggest you read the article. The haircut is coming at some point.

Also, for all the people saying "we know how the system works" it really seems like people don't. The money you paid in was already spent.

If the entire social security trust fund was liquidated the payout would be $44,000 per retiree.

welfare is 'aid' provided to someone in need...financial or otherwise.

That's not an accurate definition.


It's a horribly executed attempt at a retirement plan for our country's working citizens.

I'm saying you should forgo the benefit you're entitled to by law for a moral reason, not for a personal pragmatic one.

We can't afford it. The country is broke. It is having a meaningful negative impact on our economy and society. It's burdening our children.

The right thing to do is self sacrifice. That's what civic virtue is about, and is the chief of virtues for the citizens of a republic.

Zobel said:

---

I'm saying you should forgo the benefit you're entitled to by law for a moral reason, not for a personal pragmatic one.

We can't afford it. The country is broke. It is having a meaningful negative impact on our economy and society. It's burdening our children.

The right thing to do is self sacrifice. That's what civic virtue is about, and is the chief of virtues for the citizens of a republic.

---

Nope, I'll pass on that. In fact, I need you to take real good care of yourself and keep working so that you can pay for my benefits.

Thanks in advance.

AgGrad99 said:

---

welfare is 'aid' provided to someone in need...financial or otherwise.

That's not an accurate definition.


It's a horribly executed attempt at a retirement plan for our country's working citizens.

---

It's not. Reread the OP. From the words of FDR himself it is minimum necessity to keep a foothold, for protection against poverty-ridden old age.

Zobel said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

welfare is 'aid' provided to someone in need...financial or otherwise.

That's not an accurate definition.


It's a horribly executed attempt at a retirement plan for our country's working citizens.

---

It's not. Reread the OP. From the words of FDR himself it is minimum necessity to keep a foothold, for protection against poverty-ridden old age.

---

The OP is flawed.

My father doesn't need this protection. But it was forced upon him. And disappearing his hard earned money is not justified.

Most people don't want to face that they currently are likely to draw out more SS than they paid in unless they have the misfortune of dying relatively young. I mean a LOT more. That doesn't work long term.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I'm saying you should forgo the benefit you're entitled to by law for a moral reason, not for a personal pragmatic one.

We can't afford it. The country is broke. It is having a meaningful negative impact on our economy and society. It's burdening our children.

The right thing to do is self sacrifice. That's what civic virtue is about, and is the chief of virtues for the citizens of a republic.

---

Nope, I'll pass on that. In fact, I need you to take real good care of yourself and keep working so that you can pay for my benefits.

Thanks in advance.

---

Don't be surprised when the younger generation acts in their own best interests, either. The problem is eventually they'll outnumber you.

I'd give up my benefits to end it, even if I pay in for the rest of my career and would vote for anyone supporting that.

This is why the person who said if you take entitlements you should forfeit your vote is 100% right.

Over_ed said:

---

tysker said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

Quote:

---

This is an unpopular topic because boomers feel that they have contributed to a system - paid into it - and are therefore morally entitled to receive what they feel they are owed.

---

I'm confused by that statement.

They 'feel' like they contributed? They dont feel that way...they actually did.

In what other walk of life, can someone force you to save your money, and then go spend that savings on someone/something else? Would it be cool if the bank did this with your account? Or your financial advisor?

Yes, the system is absolute crap, and needs to be fixed/replaced/reformed....but you can't just disappear an entire generations savings, that they were forced to participate in.

---

Contributed is the wrong word. The proper word is closer to 'transferred' or 'shifted' or 'conveyed.'

Contributed assumes a distribution. There has never been a guarantee of distribution

---

Obviously you have not visited the social security site, received an estimate of benefits, etc. Now if you want to rephrase that in terms of -- you should not have believed what they told you... :-)

---

I have and you're wrong depending on a variety of circumstance, there is no guarantee of full distribution.

Social Security is a safety-net; not an inheritance.

Zobel said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

Quote:

---

This is an unpopular topic because boomers feel that they have contributed to a system - paid into it - and are therefore morally entitled to receive what they feel they are owed.

---

I'm confused by that statement.

They 'feel' like they contributed? They dont feel that way...they actually did.

In what other walk of life, can someone force you to save your money, and then go spend that savings on someone/something else? Would it be cool if the bank did this with your account? Or your financial advisor?

Yes, the system is absolute crap, and needs to be fixed/replaced/reformed....but you can't just disappear an entire generations savings, that they were forced to participate in.

---

Both of the two responses above me are focusing the feeling portion on the fact and not the conclusion. They (we) did pay taxes, that's a fact. But the feeling is about whether we are morally entitled to future payments based on past taxation.

That is not how the system works though. It is not an individual retirement account. It is a pay as you go system. The money we really paid was paid out. There's also no cap to the amount you can get back based on what you put in - so clearly the in and out aren't linked.

---

Meh... looking at my SS statement, between me and my employers' contributions over my lifetime, if I live to average life expectancy, I'll withdraw just a tad more than I paid in. If I die before 74, I'll get less than I paid in!

You need to direct your ire towards the trillions given to those who are truly on welfare.

Zobel said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I'm saying you should forgo the benefit you're entitled to by law for a moral reason, not for a personal pragmatic one.

We can't afford it. The country is broke. It is having a meaningful negative impact on our economy and society. It's burdening our children.

The right thing to do is self sacrifice. That's what civic virtue is about, and is the chief of virtues for the citizens of a republic.

---

Nope, I'll pass on that. In fact, I need you to take real good care of yourself and keep working so that you can pay for my benefits.

Thanks in advance.

---

Don't be surprised when the younger generation acts in their own best interests, either. The problem is eventually they'll outnumber you.

I'd give up my benefits to end it, even if I pay in for the rest of my career and would vote for anyone supporting that.

This is why the person who said if you take entitlements you should forfeit your vote is 100% right.

---

Young people age and motivation changes.

Let me ask this. You reach age 65. Are you willing to give up all your SS at that point?

They're the same problem. We should end them both, for the same reason.

Absolutely, because it's going to happen sometime. I'd rather it happen to me than to my children. Again, if there is a deal to pay FICA for the rest of my career, and sunset the program, and I get $0 I'm in if it fixes it.

I was willing to die for the country I love. Forgoing some money is a much lower price to pay. Don't you agree?

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"!

Zobel said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I'm saying you should forgo the benefit you're entitled to by law for a moral reason, not for a personal pragmatic one.

We can't afford it. The country is broke. It is having a meaningful negative impact on our economy and society. It's burdening our children.

The right thing to do is self sacrifice. That's what civic virtue is about, and is the chief of virtues for the citizens of a republic.

---

Nope, I'll pass on that. In fact, I need you to take real good care of yourself and keep working so that you can pay for my benefits.

Thanks in advance.

---

Don't be surprised when the younger generation acts in their own best interests, either. The problem is eventually they'll outnumber you.

I'd give up my benefits to end it, even if I pay in for the rest of my career and would vote for anyone supporting that.

This is why the person who said if you take entitlements you should forfeit your vote is 100% right.

---

You can give up your SS benefits and right to vote if you want. Your choice.

I decline both of those. Not worried about generational warfare. There are fortunately enough good folks in the younger generation who recognize the importance of commitments and don't try to weasel out of them.

Zobel said:

---

Absolutely, because it's going to happen sometime. I'd rather it happen to me than to my children. Again, if there is a deal to pay FICA for the rest of my career, and sunset the program, and I get $0 I'm in if it fixes it.

I was willing to die for the country I love. Forgoing some money is a much lower price to pay. Don't you agree?

---

Well 99.9999999999% of Americans will not do that. Kudos to you for your willing sacrifice! That's why I dismiss young people who ***** about it. Once they reach the point of being within 10 years of taking it, they will not abandon it.

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.

Zobel said:

---

They're the same problem. We should end them both, for the same reason.

---

what does that mean?

I posted that I'm going to break even if I live to 74 and get less if I die before that. So im not too concerned about taking more than I gave. I lost out big time because had I invested it, I'd have 4x that much!

No problem.

Since our government received money for a service and will deny that service, I'll take a check for $2.4 million. Tax free.

That's the value of what my wife and I paid in for the past 40+ years, inflation adjusted, plus the interest they stole.

We paid in almost $40,000 just last year.

There are about 60MM seniors over 65 living in the us. Assume the average is half of ours, that's only $30 trillion, plus or minus a few trillion.

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money".

de Tocqueville

It doesn't just apply to the poor, boomers.

schmellba99 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Round two. This is an unpopular topic because boomers feel that they have contributed to a system - paid into it - and are therefore morally entitled to receive what they feel they are owed.

---

When your argument starts with a false premise, your argument is false across the board.

Here is the deal - it isn't that they (and my Gen X fellow folks) "feel" that we have contributed to a system and are morally entitle to received what we "feel" we are owed.

We HAVE contributed to a system, and for most of us it was against our will. And that very system is a prime driving factor in why we have to work until we are 60, 65, 70+ instead of being able to retire early should we choose to do so.

And we were TOLD that our money (emphasis on our, not yours, not the governments - ours) was guaranteed and that when we reached the arbitrary retriement age that the overlords that don't contribute into said system have set for us, we would get OUR money back.

So lets, once again, get this correct:

Money paid into the SS system is OUR money. We are entitled to it because of how legislation is written.

The government has F'd the system up. It was F'd from the get go, but it was the government that made the rules we are forced to follow lest that same government throw us in prison. The answer is not to tell all of us to go F ourselves, you get nothing even though we have stolen from you for 50 years of your life and yeah, it sucks that you couldn't invest that money and had to work 25 years longer as a result.

The answer is for the government to quit spending money. Period. Full Stop. There is no other solution and any suggestion otherwise is flat out saying that you agree that it is perfectly acceptable to steal MY money from me or that you think it is perfectly acceptable to change the rules of an agreemen unilaterally just before the other party is to receive whatever fruits of said agreement are. And if you think either one of those is OK, you are a gigantic POS that has no business being in any position to make any decision, ever and honestly deserve to be put in a position where you get your ass kicked (in reality - physically get beat) every single day of your life until you die.

---

Damn good post.

Amazing…….older people start collecting Social Security and they have more health issues. That's some ground breaking statistics right there.

Zobel said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

welfare is 'aid' provided to someone in need...financial or otherwise.

That's not an accurate definition.


It's a horribly executed attempt at a retirement plan for our country's working citizens.

---

It's not. Reread the OP. From the words of FDR himself it is minimum necessity to keep a foothold, for protection against poverty-ridden old age.

---

Why would I reread something that's so stupid it made my head hurt.

Here is one of the more genius parts of that:

Quote:

---

Nearly three-quarters of China's population are spared from paying income tax…. Low taxes make China stingy on welfare

---

China stingy on welfare? EVERYONE IS PAID BY THE GOVERNMENT.

I'm rather shocked that anyone with a college degree would post something like that.

tysker said:

---

Hot take alert:
if you receive welfare from the federal government (most commonly Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid), you shouldn't be permitted to vote in federal elections.

You can receive all the welfare and payments you think you deserve but you don't also receive the power to force others to pay for your lifestyle choices.

---

Hot take alert:
Social Security and Medicare are not welfare. They are directly funded by payroll taxes, check your paycheck, it will be itemized.
They were not instituted well and both have been completely corrupted by self serving legislators.

If demanded to institute these then:
When instituted the money should have been privatized with no ability of any government having access. The investment of the funds should have been regulated as to how the funds were invested by the individuals and never taxed again(like roths). There should have been regulations on when and how the funds could be drawn out and only by the individuals.
Social Security for retirement
Medicare for insurance premiums
If this had been done by the time I retired, I would have had a few million saved. As it is, I will never get what I and the companies I worked for paid in, let alone any interest, before I die.

Hell, I'd even agree that any remaining money reverts to the government. Want your kids to have inheritance fund your own retirement accounts with beneficiaries.

Just like it doesn't work to tell a cop 'I pay your salary,' it also doesn't work to ask a Social Security recipient on your cruise to thank you for funding their lifestyle

Zobel said:

---

I suggest you read the article. The haircut is coming at some point.

Also, for all the people saying "we know how the system works" it really seems like people don't. The money you paid in was already spent.

If the entire social security trust fund was liquidated the payout would be $44,000 per retiree.

---

I understand. I DON'T CARE. I pay regular taxes. I pay extra taxes for Obamacare. I pay extra for excess investment income. I pay extra for state taxes.

I pay Medicare and SS because the government takes it in exchange for a service. I DGAF if the government spent that money. They get almost FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS per year in taxes.

Cut some other ****ing program. Cut the waste and fraud. There are so many things to cut they could pay Medicare and SS double and still have money left over. Cut Medicaid. Those folks paid zero for that. Cut welfare. Those folks have paid zero for that.

SS and Medicare are just easy targets that libs want to use. The "well, those seniors can afford it" is thrown out there by these libs is just lazy.

We haven't spent NEXT YEAR's FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS YET. Fix that and the SS and Medicare "problem" will be fixed with money left over.

Logos Stick said:

---

Zobel said:

---

They're the same problem. We should end them both, for the same reason.

---

what does that mean?

I posted that I'm going to break even if I live to 74 and get less if I die before that. So im not too concerned about taking more than I gave. I lost out big time because had I invested it, I'd have 4x that much!

---

Exactly this.

The system is already an insult, because it's a terrible rate of return on the money that we're forced to contribute.

It's a bigger insult to act like it's some sort of windfall that we don't deserve.

We deserve a lot better. We simply weren't allowed to use these funds to pursue better options.

Zobel said:

---

There's no boomer hate here my friend.

---

Uh ... you labeled your OP "Total boomer luxury communism."

schmellba99 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Round two. This is an unpopular topic because boomers feel that they have contributed to a system - paid into it - and are therefore morally entitled to receive what they feel they are owed.

---

When your argument starts with a false premise, your argument is false across the board.

Here is the deal - it isn't that they (and my Gen X fellow folks) "feel" that we have contributed to a system and are morally entitle to received what we "feel" we are owed.

We HAVE contributed to a system, and for most of us it was against our will. And that very system is a prime driving factor in why we have to work until we are 60, 65, 70+ instead of being able to retire early should we choose to do so.

And we were TOLD that our money (emphasis on our, not yours, not the governments - ours) was guaranteed and that when we reached the arbitrary retriement age that the overlords that don't contribute into said system have set for us, we would get OUR money back.

So lets, once again, get this correct:

Money paid into the SS system is OUR money. We are entitled to it because of how legislation is written.

The government has F'd the system up. It was F'd from the get go, but it was the government that made the rules we are forced to follow lest that same government throw us in prison. The answer is not to tell all of us to go F ourselves, you get nothing even though we have stolen from you for 50 years of your life and yeah, it sucks that you couldn't invest that money and had to work 25 years longer as a result.

The answer is for the government to quit spending money. Period. Full Stop. There is no other solution and any suggestion otherwise is flat out saying that you agree that it is perfectly acceptable to steal MY money from me or that you think it is perfectly acceptable to change the rules of an agreemen unilaterally just before the other party is to receive whatever fruits of said agreement are. And if you think either one of those is OK, you are a gigantic POS that has no business being in any position to make any decision, ever and honestly deserve to be put in a position where you get your ass kicked (in reality - physically get beat) every single day of your life until you die.

---

The government has to stop spending money? But not on the things that would have the biggest impact because then you won't get what you feel entitled to?

This is like asking America to reduce its emissions and letting China continue to pollute.

The system has enough to pay every current retiree $44k.

Proposition: we pay that out and end it. Thats what's in the bank we all contributed to.

Fair or unfair?

Science Denier said:

---

China stingy on welfare? EVERYONE IS PAID BY THE GOVERNMENT.

I'm rather shocked that anyone with a college degree would post something like that.

---

I'm shocked you are insulting one of the brightest minds on this site:

Quote:

---

China does not pay all citizens; instead, it provides targeted social welfare, minimum living guarantees (like Dibao for the extremely poor), pensions, and unemployment/injury insurance, alongside promoting growth through labor and skills training, with the goal of "common prosperity," but most citizens rely on salaries and market wages, not universal payments. The government offers support for vulnerable groups (elderly, disabled) and has vast social security networks, but doesn't distribute regular income to everyone, focusing on lifting people out of poverty via development.

---

deleted copy of my post

Boomers don't deserve it' = I want what they were promised but don't want to pay what they paid. Cool story.

I have read that if the money taken in for social security had actually been invested instead of being used by the government as a cheap source of funds, it would be able to pay retirees far more than today and would be very solidly solvent.

That's the real issue with social security -- the funds were never actually used to provide for the future.