McNasty said:

---

I still don't understand how some folks simply respond with "muh money". If you really depend on it to pay for a basic standard of living, I understand. For those using it to supplement a solid retirement, do you understand that this will eventually lead to hyper inflation that will trash our economy and future prospects for your kids and grandkids? There is no magical solution where everyone is made whole without forcing your descendants to eat a $#!t sandwich. I guess these folks are either doing their best ostrich impression, just really bad at math, or dgaf what happens to anyone else. I really hope there's very few in the 3rd bucket. Maybe they think they can just pass along enough wealth to their heirs that they'll avoid the reckoning?

---

Boomers have Stockholm Syndrome.

There are many issues with it, starting with the fact that government swamp creatures are fiscally irresponsible. I wouldn't trust a genius to guess how many workers vs retirees will be around to support the system in 30 years so i sure as hell don't trust a Jasmine Crockett. Now imagine 75 years of Jasmine Crockett's doing whatever they can to get elected regardless of how unsustainable it is building to where we are.

In general this is why FDR is overrated. Basically borrowed from the future to make himself look better.

B-1 83 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.

---

Say what????.

---

The median retiree pays zero income tax each year. So in this proposal, they get a one time check of $44k and that's it.

schmellba99 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

There's a difference between discretionary spending and entitlements and other mandatory spending on the one hand, and between direct payments and indirect / service spending.

Mandatory spending plus interest is 73% of the spend right now, and it is 102% of revenue. That means the entire budget shutdown etc could be unilaterally won by the fiscal conservatives and we could spend zero dollars on ANYTHING discretionary (like military or any appropriation) and we'd still have a deficit.

---

The answer is to address "mandatory" spending. Not steal more and more of my labor, sweat, money and time to do the same thing that has gotten us here.

Novel concept, I know.

---

SS and Medicare are over 60% of mandatory spending.

Rush would call a lot of you low information voters.

Willingly? No. But that is going to happen to someone eventually, either through collapse, reform, or inflationary value destruction.

I don't expect you to do it willingly, because if the people on this thread are any example boomers think civic virtue is tantamount to being a sucker.

I would do it willingly.

tysker said:

---

Keller6Ag91 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.

However, as this article shows, there are three real world problems.

One is that the program was really intended as a bulwark against true poverty for the elderly. FDR said "We can never insure one hundred percent of the population against one hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age." He also said "The Act does not offer anyone, either individually or collectively, an easy life-nor was it ever intended so to do. None of the sums of money paid out to individuals in assistance or insurance will spell anything approaching abundance. But they will furnish that minimum necessary to keep a foothold; and that is the kind of protection Americans want." The purpose has shifted as our national and generational wealth has shifted. Rather than being a kind of insurance safety net against destitution, people view it as a retirement program that they've contributed toward. This political framing matters a great deal. This will probably be the bulk of the responses - people basically saying they contributed so now they are owed.

The second is that regardless of the intent, or how people view it, there is a very real wealth transfer happening from the young to the old as a result of the current system. There are economic and social consequences of this. Feelings of low optimism, delays in housing purchases and marriage, birth rate suppression are all downstream of things like this.

The final and most important one is that as the system stands today, we can't afford it. We have debt, and as the article notes, the system costs in multiple compounding ways - tax and debt today, inflation for deficit spending and debt financing tomorrow.

I think it's important for people to accept that what is happening is wealth transfer and to come to terms with the reality of the system that was created and what it has become: a pay as you go, aged based welfare system that does not save for the future for individuals but instead uses current workers wages to pay retirees. No parent that I know would do this to their own children unless they had no other choice, but collectively we are doing it to our children.

The other piece is that there's an element of unwitting hypocrisy because of the political framing. People view those on welfare as economic deadweight, unworthy receiving largesse from taxpayers - but because they paid taxes in the past, they don't apply this same standard RJ themselves.

A quote from the article:

Quote:

---

Too often, though, defenders of the conservative movement take it for granted that America preserved a free market system and constitutional government through the Cold War era. Typically, our situation is compared with the centralized control of the CCP. If this comparison is accurate, however, it's hard to see it in the data. In his book Breakneck, Dan Wang observes,

Nearly three-quarters of China's population are spared from paying income tax…. Low taxes make China stingy on welfare. Around 10 percent of its GDP goes toward social spending, compared to 20 percent in the United States and 30 percent among the more generous European states. China's pension and health care spending are much lower than that of other rich countries.

In fact, Wang's comparison understates how much more the American government redistributes wealth compared to China. America is three times as wealthy, per person, as China. So the U.S. spends at least six times as much per person on social programs as China - and most of that goes to seniors.

---

There is a real problem here, we've known it for years.

https://americanmind.org/salvo/what-is-total-boomer-luxury-communism/

---

Are you suggesting that people who have paid into the SS system for 30+ years willingly go without the promised benefits of it?

---

Social Security benefits were never guaranteed outside of the payroll taxes of current workers. Legally the government doesn't have to give you the money you think you have

---

Good luck with that approach, lol. You should put more effort into working harder so that you can pay my benefits instead of telling us old geezers to take one for the team and give up our SS checks.

Zobel said:

---

There is a real problem here, we've known it for years.

https://americanmind.org/salvo/what-is-total-boomer-luxury-communism/

---

Your per capita chart is a little misleading because as people get older, there are fewer of them. Therefore the per capita numbers will balloon versus the total cost will drop.

I'm not saying there's not a problem. Just that the chart you shared is misleading.

The median age of the US was near 29 throughout the 70's up thru about 2010. It's now 39, and almost 40.

The average age is also about 39-40 today.

You can see this in the US Census population "pyramids" (which are no longer shaped like pyramids). pic.twitter.com/3vzaG9CfCs

— Edward - KF7VY 🇺🇸 🇳🇴 🇨🇭 🇬🇧 (@coldstreams) December 4, 2025

Zobel said:

---

Willingly? No. But that is going to happen to someone eventually, either through collapse, reform, or inflationary value destruction.

I don't expect you to do it willingly, because if the people on this thread are any example boomers think civic virtue is tantamount to being a sucker.

I would do it willingly.

---

Then say " I am not going to take my SS benefit when I become eligible"

techno-ag said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

Quote:

---

Both of the two responses above me are focusing the feeling portion on the fact and not the conclusion.

---

Well, a conclusion is a result of a premise.

If the premise is faulty...


Again, no one argues the system is broke. We understand how the system works. But you cannot simply disappear a generation's money, and think that is ok.

---

Some people would have no problem screwing every single "boomer" living today out of every penny they have because they see them as the cause of all of their problems.

---

Ageism is the one bigotry everyone grows out of, if they live long enough.

---

It is different now. I never felt this about my parents, grandparents. Did you?


I remember two posts more than any other (excluding the all time classics) --

1) some "old fart" complaining about all the posting coming from non-ags. He was absolutely right, so got my ag-tag.

2) And among all the crapping on the Boomers by the usual suspects, there was a thread where someone (maybe in his 40's?) complaining that his parents hadn't given him "his" inheritance while he could still enjoy it.

If my brothers ever said something like that in front of me, I would #-slap them into the middle of last week. And I would expect the same from them.

Strange world we live in now, and it is not getting better.

EclipseAg said:

---

Sure ... take Granny's social security check away after she paid in all her life.

Meanwhile ...

The data shows that 81 percent of Minnesota households headed by Somali refugees are on one or more forms of welfare, including 27 percent who are on cash welfare, 54 percent who are on food stamps, and 73 percent who are on Medicaid.

Anyone who thinks reducing SS payments will result in a more balanced budget is fooling themselves. Every dollar taken from Granny will go straight to NGOs, fraud, wasteful overseas programs and handouts at home.

---

So... while all other waste, fraud, etc. exists, SS should not be touched? How much does it need to be reduced before SS is on the table? What is the ratio of waste to SS outlays?

MemphisAg1 said:

---

tysker said:

---

Keller6Ag91 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.

However, as this article shows, there are three real world problems.

One is that the program was really intended as a bulwark against true poverty for the elderly. FDR said "We can never insure one hundred percent of the population against one hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age." He also said "The Act does not offer anyone, either individually or collectively, an easy life-nor was it ever intended so to do. None of the sums of money paid out to individuals in assistance or insurance will spell anything approaching abundance. But they will furnish that minimum necessary to keep a foothold; and that is the kind of protection Americans want." The purpose has shifted as our national and generational wealth has shifted. Rather than being a kind of insurance safety net against destitution, people view it as a retirement program that they've contributed toward. This political framing matters a great deal. This will probably be the bulk of the responses - people basically saying they contributed so now they are owed.

The second is that regardless of the intent, or how people view it, there is a very real wealth transfer happening from the young to the old as a result of the current system. There are economic and social consequences of this. Feelings of low optimism, delays in housing purchases and marriage, birth rate suppression are all downstream of things like this.

The final and most important one is that as the system stands today, we can't afford it. We have debt, and as the article notes, the system costs in multiple compounding ways - tax and debt today, inflation for deficit spending and debt financing tomorrow.

I think it's important for people to accept that what is happening is wealth transfer and to come to terms with the reality of the system that was created and what it has become: a pay as you go, aged based welfare system that does not save for the future for individuals but instead uses current workers wages to pay retirees. No parent that I know would do this to their own children unless they had no other choice, but collectively we are doing it to our children.

The other piece is that there's an element of unwitting hypocrisy because of the political framing. People view those on welfare as economic deadweight, unworthy receiving largesse from taxpayers - but because they paid taxes in the past, they don't apply this same standard RJ themselves.

A quote from the article:

Quote:

---

Too often, though, defenders of the conservative movement take it for granted that America preserved a free market system and constitutional government through the Cold War era. Typically, our situation is compared with the centralized control of the CCP. If this comparison is accurate, however, it's hard to see it in the data. In his book Breakneck, Dan Wang observes,

Nearly three-quarters of China's population are spared from paying income tax…. Low taxes make China stingy on welfare. Around 10 percent of its GDP goes toward social spending, compared to 20 percent in the United States and 30 percent among the more generous European states. China's pension and health care spending are much lower than that of other rich countries.

In fact, Wang's comparison understates how much more the American government redistributes wealth compared to China. America is three times as wealthy, per person, as China. So the U.S. spends at least six times as much per person on social programs as China - and most of that goes to seniors.

---

There is a real problem here, we've known it for years.

https://americanmind.org/salvo/what-is-total-boomer-luxury-communism/

---

Are you suggesting that people who have paid into the SS system for 30+ years willingly go without the promised benefits of it?

---

Social Security benefits were never guaranteed outside of the payroll taxes of current workers. Legally the government doesn't have to give you the money you think you have

---

Good luck with that approach, lol. You should put more effort into working harder so that you can pay my benefits instead of telling us old geezers to take one for the team and give up our SS checks.

---

I'm not asking for current recipients to take one for the team, the system will do that for you.

I've never expected to receive SS benefits and have structured my life accordingly. I am concerned about my kids and future grand kids however and would like to create a better system for them

There won't be any benefits left by the time I'm that age lol

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.

---

I'd like to meet these people

Rattler12 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Willingly? No. But that is going to happen to someone eventually, either through collapse, reform, or inflationary value destruction.

I don't expect you to do it willingly, because if the people on this thread are any example boomers think civic virtue is tantamount to being a sucker.

I would do it willingly.

---

Then say " I am not going to take my SS benefit when I become eligible"

---

this remains as stupid of a litmus test as it was last time.

Exactly the same as me saying "I am willing to serve in the military and die for my country to protect it" and you replying "then will you kill yourself?"

A far more revealing question is to ask you - would you take a pay cut to help avoid the fiscal crisis that is coming?

Zobel said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Willingly? No. But that is going to happen to someone eventually, either through collapse, reform, or inflationary value destruction.

I don't expect you to do it willingly, because if the people on this thread are any example boomers think civic virtue is tantamount to being a sucker.

I would do it willingly.

---

Then say " I am not going to take my SS benefit when I become eligible"

---

this remains as stupid of a litmus test as it was last time.

Exactly the same as me saying "I am willing to serve in the military and die for my country to protect it" and you replying "then will you kill yourself?"

A far more revealing question is to ask you - would you take a pay cut to help avoid the fiscal crisis that is coming?

---

Purity tests or no true Scotsman arguments are the worst. No solutions only gotchas

There are only a few solutions that bubble up:

• Increase the retirement age
• Decrease benefit payouts
• Means-test payouts
• Raise payroll taxes
• Eliminate or raise the annual tax cap
• Increase the labor force (probably through immigration)
• Privatize some or all of the revenue

Some options are easier to implement and some will be more effective for long-term solvency than others.
I ask: who should have more influence over these decisions?
Current retirees, a smaller, wealthier, and politically influential demographic, or future recipients, who are younger, less wealthy, and less likely to vote?

AgGrad99 said:

---

Stealing from one is equally as bad as stealing from another. Worse? Neither is worse. They're the same.

---

I disagree. That's a cop out.

Knowingly burdening our children with an unsustainable entitlement system is a far greater injustice than reducing or even eliminating benefits for those who have already paid in. The youth are on average poorer in both wealth and assets. Continuation of the system basically coerces them into transferring resources upward to a generation that has already accumulated homes, savings, and lifetime earnings, while knowingly paying into a system that is actively being bankrupted. This is effectively taxing the vulnerable to enrich the established, it's regressive. It inverts the natural order of societal support from strong to weak and undermines the common good framework of the social contract by robbing future growth, nevermind the intergenerational resentment. No one would do this to their own kids - it only passes by because of the anonymity of the government middleman.

This same mechanism is why welfare robs individuals from the virtue of charity. here it masks the vices of greed and entitlement in the recipient, the vices of envy and resentment in the payer, and the vice of cowardice in both. Both parties outsource their civic and moral duties to society and each other to a faceless bureaucracy rather than practice genuine generosity or honest gratitude (or genuine greed and honest theft).

Cutting or eliminating or means testing promised benefits would absolutely be painful and agreeably "unfair". But it adjusts expectations for those who have had decades to prepare for a problem everyone knew was coming. On the other hand forcing our children to fund a system that is collapsing - that we KNOW is unsustainable!- and they never consented to is a compounded theft. It strikes at the root of societal virtue. The two injustices are not morally equivalent. one corrects an imbalance, the other makes it worse, and does it with premeditation.

You know I used to whine about my father's generation. My father's generation paid very little into SS and they received full benefits. Nothing changes from generation to generation.

No such thing as paying into SS for future use. Every dollar that goes in is immediately spent. Any money you pay in SS tax is going directly to the elderly. If it still exists, then your kids and grandkids will pay for you.

Quad Dog said:

---

No such thing as paying into SS for future use. Every dollar that goes in is immediately spent. Any money you pay in SS tax is going directly to the elderly. If it still exists, then your kids and grandkids will pay for you.

---

who's fault is that?

Zobel said:

---

B-1 83 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.

---

Say what????.

---

The median retiree pays zero income tax each year. So in this proposal, they get a one time check of $44k and that's it.

---

Don't trip and fall backing up. "Largely"? I guarantee there are a ****load of retirees paying a ****load of taxes.

I'd feel better about paying Social Security tax if I had a reasonable assurance that I'll ever collect benefits from it.

1982 + 67 = 2049

So, when economists say things like "Social Security will be solvent until 2037", it's not exactly a reassurance. And when the Boomers just dismiss the issue as "I got mine", it kinda causes resentment.

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.

---

Amen. I wish more of the populace started thinking this way so it's not R vs D but rather tax payer vs tax receiver.

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.

---

It's a hot take alright, a hot pile of steaming...

When the federal government repays me all the money my employer and I put into social security -- with interest -- then we can talk about welfare. Until then, go peddle your snake oil somewhere else.

For 32 years I've paid the maximum you can pay into SS. Every. Single. Year.
On top of that, I've paid roughly $7,000,000 in Federal taxes during that time. But sure, I'm the selfish one because I want my SS check when I retire. As promised.

I've heard how entitled youngsters are but this takes the cake.

Treasury / SS used to send a post card-sized info sheet indicating how much I was paid / repoted to the IRS since circa '81. Now that info is avail. with a SS acct on line

The amount of SS contributions I and what my employers contributed is huge.

If that money was invested in 50% S&P 500 index and 50% Intermediate term Treasury bonds... it would be millions.

Anyway ... I am looking forward to that monthly SS check starting in 2030.

I earned it.

Word!

Trajan88 said:

---

Anyway ... I am looking forward to that monthly SS check starting in 2030.

I earned it.

Word!

---

2031 for me at FRA of 67.

I sure appreciate these youngsters working hard to send the check!

They would be wise to be nice to those younger than them who will look after them in their old age.

slaughtr said:

---

For 32 years I've paid the maximum you can pay into SS. Every. Single. Year.
On top of that, I've paid roughly $7,000,000 in Federal taxes during that time. But sure, I'm the selfish one because I want my SS check when I retire. As promised.

I've heard how entitled youngsters are but this takes the cake.

---

Dude. You paid in yearly on average slightly less than me currently. You made that much for over 3 decades. That means you are an ultra high net worth individual if you even just saved on average about 20% of that annually.

You are going to cry over your entitlement of social security? If this is true, the only way to combat this is to disenfranchise those taking a government check from SS/Medicare or any of the other needs based entitlements. Take them out of the voting pool.

Apparently not even a multi millionaire can be convinced to give up $3.5k monthly check.

At this point it is laughable.

I will use my social security for beer money.

Tom Fox said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

For 32 years I've paid the maximum you can pay into SS. Every. Single. Year.
On top of that, I've paid roughly $7,000,000 in Federal taxes during that time. But sure, I'm the selfish one because I want my SS check when I retire. As promised.

I've heard how entitled youngsters are but this takes the cake.

---

Dude. You paid in yearly on average slightly less than me currently. You made that much for over 3 decades. That means you are an ultra high net worth individual if you even just saved on average about 20% of that annually.

You are going to cry over your entitlement of social security? If this is true, the only way to combat this is to disenfranchise those taking a government check from SS/Medicare or any of the other needs based entitlements. Take them out of the voting pool.

Apparently not even a multi millionaire can be convinced to give up $3.5k monthly check.

At this point it is laughable.

---

That is not the point. He played by the rules exactly as they were prescribed.

If you want to change the rules going forward, fine. Then round up the votes to change the rules and we'll all have to live with it.

But to change the rules after the game has been played is BS. So is trying to guilt-trip people into forfeiting the SS check they are due to receive. Total BS.

The attempt to shame people in line to collect their SS check will fail.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

For 32 years I've paid the maximum you can pay into SS. Every. Single. Year.
On top of that, I've paid roughly $7,000,000 in Federal taxes during that time. But sure, I'm the selfish one because I want my SS check when I retire. As promised.

I've heard how entitled youngsters are but this takes the cake.

---

Dude. You paid in yearly on average slightly less than me currently. You made that much for over 3 decades. That means you are an ultra high net worth individual if you even just saved on average about 20% of that annually.

You are going to cry over your entitlement of social security? If this is true, the only way to combat this is to disenfranchise those taking a government check from SS/Medicare or any of the other needs based entitlements. Take them out of the voting pool.

Apparently not even a multi millionaire can be convinced to give up $3.5k monthly check.

At this point it is laughable.

---

That is not the point. He played by the rules exactly as they were prescribed.

If you want to change the rules going forward, fine. Then round up the votes to change the rules and we'll all have to live with it.

But to change the rules after the game has been played is BS. So is trying to guilt-trip people into forfeiting the SS check they are due to receive. Total BS.

The attempt to shame people in line to collect their SS check will fail.

---

I'm 34 years into paying in myself and obviously pay the max on both sides since I am self employed. We can no longer afford to give away money. We are bankrupt.

Time to return to just paying for the original constitutional functions of the federal government and eliminated the FDR and LBJ welfare state.

Edit: and the fact that someone who should be sitting on >$15mil in their retirement portfolio wants to "get his" while the government will probably be > $70 trillion by the time he takes his final breathe is laughable.

Tom Fox said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

For 32 years I've paid the maximum you can pay into SS. Every. Single. Year.
On top of that, I've paid roughly $7,000,000 in Federal taxes during that time. But sure, I'm the selfish one because I want my SS check when I retire. As promised.

I've heard how entitled youngsters are but this takes the cake.

---

Dude. You paid in yearly on average slightly less than me currently. You made that much for over 3 decades. That means you are an ultra high net worth individual if you even just saved on average about 20% of that annually.

You are going to cry over your entitlement of social security? If this is true, the only way to combat this is to disenfranchise those taking a government check from SS/Medicare or any of the other needs based entitlements. Take them out of the voting pool.

Apparently not even a multi millionaire can be convinced to give up $3.5k monthly check.

At this point it is laughable.

---

That is not the point. He played by the rules exactly as they were prescribed.

If you want to change the rules going forward, fine. Then round up the votes to change the rules and we'll all have to live with it.

But to change the rules after the game has been played is BS. So is trying to guilt-trip people into forfeiting the SS check they are due to receive. Total BS.

The attempt to shame people in line to collect their SS check will fail.

---

I'm 34 years into paying in myself and obviously pay the max on both sides since I am self employed. We can no longer afford to give away money. We are bankrupt.

Time to return to just paying for the original constitutional functions of the federal government and eliminated the FDR and LBJ welfare state.

---

Then change the rules going forward. They can be whatever you convince a majority of elected representatives that they should be. But stop trying to shame those who played by the rules after the game has been played. It will just alienate your efforts to reform the system going forward.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

For 32 years I've paid the maximum you can pay into SS. Every. Single. Year.
On top of that, I've paid roughly $7,000,000 in Federal taxes during that time. But sure, I'm the selfish one because I want my SS check when I retire. As promised.

I've heard how entitled youngsters are but this takes the cake.

---

Dude. You paid in yearly on average slightly less than me currently. You made that much for over 3 decades. That means you are an ultra high net worth individual if you even just saved on average about 20% of that annually.

You are going to cry over your entitlement of social security? If this is true, the only way to combat this is to disenfranchise those taking a government check from SS/Medicare or any of the other needs based entitlements. Take them out of the voting pool.

Apparently not even a multi millionaire can be convinced to give up $3.5k monthly check.

At this point it is laughable.

---

That is not the point. He played by the rules exactly as they were prescribed.

If you want to change the rules going forward, fine. Then round up the votes to change the rules and we'll all have to live with it.

But to change the rules after the game has been played is BS. So is trying to guilt-trip people into forfeiting the SS check they are due to receive. Total BS.

The attempt to shame people in line to collect their SS check will fail.

---

I'm 34 years into paying in myself and obviously pay the max on both sides since I am self employed. We can no longer afford to give away money. We are bankrupt.

Time to return to just paying for the original constitutional functions of the federal government and eliminated the FDR and LBJ welfare state.

---

Then change the rules going forward. They can be whatever you convince a majority of elected representatives that they should be. But stop trying to shame those who played by the rules after the game has been played. It will just alienate your efforts to reform the system going forward.

---

The absurdity of his post just demonstrates that there will never be reform without suffrage limitation. Collapse is the only thing that will end this idiocy.

I hope he enjoys a few new Richard Milles and maybe a John Mayer Daytona courtesy of SS while the country enters a death spiral economically.

Tom Fox said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

For 32 years I've paid the maximum you can pay into SS. Every. Single. Year.
On top of that, I've paid roughly $7,000,000 in Federal taxes during that time. But sure, I'm the selfish one because I want my SS check when I retire. As promised.

I've heard how entitled youngsters are but this takes the cake.

---

Dude. You paid in yearly on average slightly less than me currently. You made that much for over 3 decades. That means you are an ultra high net worth individual if you even just saved on average about 20% of that annually.

You are going to cry over your entitlement of social security? If this is true, the only way to combat this is to disenfranchise those taking a government check from SS/Medicare or any of the other needs based entitlements. Take them out of the voting pool.

Apparently not even a multi millionaire can be convinced to give up $3.5k monthly check.

At this point it is laughable.

---

That is not the point. He played by the rules exactly as they were prescribed.

If you want to change the rules going forward, fine. Then round up the votes to change the rules and we'll all have to live with it.

But to change the rules after the game has been played is BS. So is trying to guilt-trip people into forfeiting the SS check they are due to receive. Total BS.

The attempt to shame people in line to collect their SS check will fail.

---

I'm 34 years into paying in myself and obviously pay the max on both sides since I am self employed. We can no longer afford to give away money. We are bankrupt.

Time to return to just paying for the original constitutional functions of the federal government and eliminated the FDR and LBJ welfare state.

---

Then change the rules going forward. They can be whatever you convince a majority of elected representatives that they should be. But stop trying to shame those who played by the rules after the game has been played. It will just alienate your efforts to reform the system going forward.

---

The absurdity of his post just demonstrates that there will never be reform without suffrage limitation. Collapse is the only thing that will end this idiocy.

I hope he enjoys a few new Richard Milles and maybe a John Mayer Daytona courtesy of SS while the country enters a death spiral economically.

---

And that's not happening either. It is delusional to think you're going to exclude people who've paid into SS from voting just because you don't agree with their take on it. I saw other posts from youngsters suggesting that people receiving SS benefits shouldn't have a voice in the process. Seriously? That is laughably, ridiculously, delusional... and that's putting it politely.

I'll agree the funding/benefits model needs to be adjusted. But I will fight tooth-and-nail to retain the benefits that I've been promised for 45 years of paying into it. I've never voted Democrat in my life and I despise those rascals, but I will absolutely flip on a dime and vote for a Dem if the Republicans try to renege on the deal with me. I come from a world where a deal is a deal, and your word is your bond.

You don't change the rules after the game has been played. Period. Put your effort instead into reforming it going forward.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

For 32 years I've paid the maximum you can pay into SS. Every. Single. Year.
On top of that, I've paid roughly $7,000,000 in Federal taxes during that time. But sure, I'm the selfish one because I want my SS check when I retire. As promised.

I've heard how entitled youngsters are but this takes the cake.

---

Dude. You paid in yearly on average slightly less than me currently. You made that much for over 3 decades. That means you are an ultra high net worth individual if you even just saved on average about 20% of that annually.

You are going to cry over your entitlement of social security? If this is true, the only way to combat this is to disenfranchise those taking a government check from SS/Medicare or any of the other needs based entitlements. Take them out of the voting pool.

Apparently not even a multi millionaire can be convinced to give up $3.5k monthly check.

At this point it is laughable.

---

That is not the point. He played by the rules exactly as they were prescribed.

If you want to change the rules going forward, fine. Then round up the votes to change the rules and we'll all have to live with it.

But to change the rules after the game has been played is BS. So is trying to guilt-trip people into forfeiting the SS check they are due to receive. Total BS.

The attempt to shame people in line to collect their SS check will fail.

---

I'm 34 years into paying in myself and obviously pay the max on both sides since I am self employed. We can no longer afford to give away money. We are bankrupt.

Time to return to just paying for the original constitutional functions of the federal government and eliminated the FDR and LBJ welfare state.

---

Then change the rules going forward. They can be whatever you convince a majority of elected representatives that they should be. But stop trying to shame those who played by the rules after the game has been played. It will just alienate your efforts to reform the system going forward.

---

The absurdity of his post just demonstrates that there will never be reform without suffrage limitation. Collapse is the only thing that will end this idiocy.

I hope he enjoys a few new Richard Milles and maybe a John Mayer Daytona courtesy of SS while the country enters a death spiral economically.

---

And that's not happening either. It is delusional to think you're going to exclude people who've paid into SS from voting just because you don't agree with their take on it. I saw other posts from youngsters suggesting that people receiving SS benefits shouldn't have a voice in the process. Seriously? That is laughably, ridiculously, delusional... and that's putting it politely.

I'll agree the funding/benefits model needs to be adjusted. But I will fight tooth-and-nail to retain the benefits that I've been promised for 45 years of paying into it. I've never voted Democrat in my life and I despise those rascals, but I will absolutely flip on a dime and vote for a Dem if the Republicans try to renege on the deal with me. I come from a world where a deal is a deal, and your word is your bond.

You don't change the rules after the game has been played. Period. Put your effort instead into reforming it going forward.

---

You absolutely do when it will bankrupt you. You file bankruptcy and stiff your creditors. We should absolutely stiff our citizens and that includes me. And you've only paid in 11 more years than me.

And any entitlement should exempt you from voting. It is lunacy that you can vote yourself largesse from the treasury.