BonfireNerd04 said:

---

EclipseAg said:

---

AGC said:

---

halfastros81 said:

---

Had the system been set up right to begin with so that the allegedly "earmarked" money couldn't be used for other purposes then SS would be and would remain solvent imo. That is the fundamental issue with it .

It's essentially a forced contract with really bad terms . Had it not been forced then I would have opted out and I'd be a lot better off for it so yes , now that I contributed to it at gunpoint for almost 50 yrs I do expect my relative pittance of a return and I'm not remotely going to feel bad about it.

---

This is the problem: you know it's insolvent, you simply don't care. That's what's repeated in this thread, time after time.

---

What do you want people to do?

What is a solution some 70-year-old can implement today that would make a difference?

Shred his $3,000 check each month? What will that do?

Vote for politicians who wouldn't dare touch SS? What does that do?

How can we show we care? What symbol of caring would be enough?

---

Accept a modest benefit cut now in order to fund the system in the future.

---

Accept a 10 % reduction in pay to be used to fund the system in the future?

AGC said:

---

EclipseAg said:

---

AGC said:

---

Thanks for the engagement. Don't shred your check, send it back.

https://www.pay.gov/public/form/start/23779454

Second, yes, vote for politicians willing to wind down SS and engage with budget issues. Beyond that, there are other things you can do (return to multigenerational housing, for instance), and it won't take much creativity to figure it out.

---

So the solution to fixing Social Security is to have some old people voluntarily send back their checks and then move in with their kids while voting for non-existent politicians who are running on dismantling the program?

---

You asked what you, personally, could do. You're not powerless in this, you have agency. You're also not responsible for the choices of others. It's tough to do the right thing when you see so many being selfish. The question isn't, 'what are they gonna do?' It's, 'what are you going to do?'

I'll bet you taught your kids this same lesson. The question now is, do you believe it?

---

Good Lord.

I'm gonna have to believe you are trolling because I can't possibly see how anyone could write this with a straight face.

"Do the right thing." Good one.

Rattler12 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Entitlement gets confused with the adjective being entitled.

It's a technical term about federal spending - mandatory federal outlays for programs where eligibility set by law automatically entitle people to benefits, and spending is driven by the number of eligible people and benefit formulas, instead of and without congressional appropriations. This means to change it, Congress has to pass a law. Not capped by the budget process.

As a result almost 90 percent of this increase in projected spending over the next decade comes from SS, Medicare, and interest.

---

"It's a technical term about tax funded governmental spending - mandatory tax fund outlays for programs where eligibility set by law automatically entitle certain people to benefits, and spending is driven by the number of eligible people and benefit formulas, ........."

Dadgum change a couple of your words and you just described our public school system........lets change that to a pay as you go system by the parents based on their number of children attending.......... instead of penalizing those folks with no children or grown children.

---

Public schools aren't federal, and they're not entitlement spending. They're funded locally, and the federal education items are almost all budgeted or funded by appropriations, not mandatory spending. The exception is Pell grants, but those aren't public school systems.

AGC said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

I'm not disagreeing on the challenges young people face today. All those points you make are spot on.

That portion of the younger crowd that works hard, delays gratification, and stays out of trouble, will do just fine. There are data points in the media showing that wealth accumulation for Millenials is occurring at a faster pace than their parents and grandparents due to more robust 401ks, IRAs, HSAs -- coupled with a long term bull market. They will not only do fine, they will succeed and build wealth over their life.

The other portion of young people who won't work, or live in the moment to spend now, or can't stay away from trouble, will absolutely suffer. Mindset is important also. You typically see a will to overcome in the first portion, and a victim's mentality in the second... they are absolutely looking for someone to blame.

What you'll see is a dichotomy in the younger crowd. Some who will vote very much like their parents and grandparents, and others who vote for radical change. Lumping all young people into one voting class is off the mark.

---

Not hard to figure how they got that way. They learned it from their parents blaming boomers for everything bad under the sun. This thread is prima facie evidence of such

---

What should give you pause is that I'm one of those millennials who will be fine. My Montecarlo simulation says I won't have a care in the world or need SS when I'm older.

That's before I inherit (I'm currently taking care of a parent who has dementia and I've been growing their assets despite depleting them at a higher rate for care).

If I, as a responsible and capable younger person, recognize that the money isn't there, and that a major change is coming, why don't y'all? Why isn't this a team effort? Why isn't this everyone being less selfish?

Side note: If I'm playing the victim card and learned it from my parents, that means I learned it from boomers. How ironic is that?

---

So your Boomer parents are leaving you a lot of wealth huh?! Interesting.

KerrAg76 said:

---

Go outside and yell at clouds already…crappy SS system ain't changing by a few Ags returning their monthly benefits

---

Except there's not a single one of them that's going to return their check when they get it. You know it. I know it. They know it.

Lone Stranger said:

---

Hey Don Quixote.....why you tilting at windmills? (and trying to virtue signal in the process?)

The math starts to work if you:

-Means test to a level where above that people get 0.

-Do away with the spousal benefits calculations/windfall and extend it to people that have were married for 20 years or longer before they divorced.

-Do away with the upper limit of yearly salary where SS/FICA tax stops and is no longer taken out.

-Raise the employee and employer percentage slightly.

Math isn't that hard.

---

I agree with all these suggestions.

Can you imagine the economic input alone if you did away with the yearly limits?

When I would hit my limit (about half of my lifetime of work years), it was a small bonus for my wife every paycheck. But we could have easily done without it. (Though my wife did say it was easier for her to hit our budgeted savings every year).

Rattler12 said:

---

What we need is a "human virtue" tax of say 50 % on anyone making more than $100K per year. Anyone fortunate enough to be make beaux coup bucks needs to pay a tax to help those less fortunate ........and if they wanted to be top dog "human virtuist" they could voluntarily pay more. I'd gladly pay it.......if I was making $100K per year or more.....

One more thing... I've noticed is that more than a few of the younger folk today aren't old enough yet to know what they don't know yet........

---

This is where the evil of entitlements creates a U shaped argument.

Somehow arguing for personal responsibility, civic virtue, against entitlement and federal spending, and mandated wealth transfer I'm a liberal or a leftist. And my suggesting that having virtue is important - which is UNANIMOUSLY spoken of as a requirement for a free populace and a republic - gets lampooned into the abject stupidity of your suggestion.

So far what is happening in this thread is confirming that at least the vocals boomers are sorely ignorant of the financial situation, how the budgeting and funding works, and are selfish and proudly against acting in any kind of decent civic way… while screaming that everyone else is a leftist and collectivist. It's embarrassing. You should feel bad.

B-1 83 said:

---

Owlagdad said:

---

AJ02 said:

---

What if we just raise the retirement age to 80. Folks are living much longer now than back when SS was rolled out.

Work until you die, then SS is no longer a problem.

---

I'm still at it at 73! Gotta work to pay taxes on SS!

---

Impossible! We were told earlier that people over 65 don't pay any income taxes.

---

Still paying at near 76. Even paying income tax on SS benefits. In effect paying an additional tax on what was a tax to start with.

EclipseAg said:

---

Zobel said:

---

This is such a neutral, unbiased framing of the issue.

---

But it's not wrong.

Everyone on here agrees that there is an issue. The problem is that SS is a leviathan that has proven to be untouchable throughout its lifetime.

So I can post on here that I'm willing to give up my check. Or, like some, throw around the boomer blame and threaten to take their checks.

But that does absolutely nothing.

It's all virtue signaling.

When Bush wanted to privatize a portion of SS, Democrats screamed bloody murder. They were unanimously against it, and they brought out all the sob stories about grandma eating cat food.

That was 20 years in a pre-AI, pre-Twitter world. Can you imagine the furor today?

How do you propose we get around that mindset?

---

The bold is the problem. The first step to doing anything in a democratic republic is to find the land of the land, sentiment wise. The next is to convince people who need to be convinced. This happens at all levels - including this forum.

If boomers collectively felt like I do, it wouldn't be a political impossibility. So one solution is to convince a significant portion of them that what is happening is bad, and wrong, and that it is their civic duty to be open to a solution.

What would be great is if more boomers on here called out the really sad "get mine" attitudes on here as a real part of the problem. That's a great start.

AgDad121619 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I've already said I'm game. Let's do it. The only problem is, it very well may be too little too late - and it won't be very long until I'm eligible.

---

you forgot to add that you and all of your generation will continue to pay your SS taxes for your entire working career while forgoing any payout - you know for the future of your kids.

---

That's probably the status quo and I've already said I'm willing to do that, if it sunsets the program. Because the alternative is to expect my children to pay for my retirement, and I think that's asinine.

slaughtr said:

---

Yup.
We borrow money from China to give money to Ukraine and these guys think politicians are going to end SS because there's no money, lol.

---

Low information voter.

ALL foreign aid is less than 1% of federal spending. The entirety of the spending we've done in Ukraine would pay for social security and Medicare for less than 3 weeks. About 17 days actually.

LMCane said:

---

AGC said:

---

halfastros81 said:

---

Had the system been set up right to begin with so that the allegedly "earmarked" money couldn't be used for other purposes then SS would be and would remain solvent imo. That is the fundamental issue with it .

It's essentially a forced contract with really bad terms . Had it not been forced then I would have opted out and I'd be a lot better off for it so yes , now that I contributed to it at gunpoint for almost 50 yrs I do expect my relative pittance of a return and I'm not remotely going to feel bad about it.

---

This is the problem: you know it's insolvent, you simply don't care. That's what's repeated in this thread, time after time.

That's why the revolution is coming (which is not a threat btw, it's a mathematical fact). It's alarming that y'all have changed selfishness (I'm gonna get mine) into some sort of virtue (I did my part [in the Ponzi scheme, even though I knew it wouldn't work]).

---

it's hard to even have a political disagreement with people who can't understand basic logic and REALITY.

it is not "selfishness" when you go to your bank and withdraw your own money.

IT IS YOUR MONEY THAT YOU GAVE TO THE BANK

---

Your money was already spent. Your money was spent on the retirees while you were working. There is enough money in the bank to give current retirees $44k each.

The rest of the money isn't yours - it's coming from current workers.

More low information voters.

Zobel said:

---

If boomers collectively felt like I do, it wouldn't be a political impossibility. So one solution is to convince a significant portion of them that what is happening is bad, and wrong, and that it is their civic duty to be open to a solution.

What would be great is if more boomers on here called out the really sad "get mine" attitudes on here as a real part of the problem. That's a great start.

---

You have a bass-ackwards way of engendering support to your side.

Logos Stick said:

---

AGC said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

I'm not disagreeing on the challenges young people face today. All those points you make are spot on.

That portion of the younger crowd that works hard, delays gratification, and stays out of trouble, will do just fine. There are data points in the media showing that wealth accumulation for Millenials is occurring at a faster pace than their parents and grandparents due to more robust 401ks, IRAs, HSAs -- coupled with a long term bull market. They will not only do fine, they will succeed and build wealth over their life.

The other portion of young people who won't work, or live in the moment to spend now, or can't stay away from trouble, will absolutely suffer. Mindset is important also. You typically see a will to overcome in the first portion, and a victim's mentality in the second... they are absolutely looking for someone to blame.

What you'll see is a dichotomy in the younger crowd. Some who will vote very much like their parents and grandparents, and others who vote for radical change. Lumping all young people into one voting class is off the mark.

---

Not hard to figure how they got that way. They learned it from their parents blaming boomers for everything bad under the sun. This thread is prima facie evidence of such

---

What should give you pause is that I'm one of those millennials who will be fine. My Montecarlo simulation says I won't have a care in the world or need SS when I'm older.

That's before I inherit (I'm currently taking care of a parent who has dementia and I've been growing their assets despite depleting them at a higher rate for care).

If I, as a responsible and capable younger person, recognize that the money isn't there, and that a major change is coming, why don't y'all? Why isn't this a team effort? Why isn't this everyone being less selfish?

Side note: If I'm playing the victim card and learned it from my parents, that means I learned it from boomers. How ironic is that?

---

So your Boomer parents are leaving you a lot of wealth huh?! Interesting.

---

The wealth was my grandfather's. Boomer was literally bankrupt and needing me to supplement SS. It's possible I'll never see a dime of it, but it's the right thing to do. Again, I'm not the lazy entitled millennial you want me to be.

Yeah? Appealing to virtue only works for the virtuous. For the selfish you have to appeal to their pocketbooks, which is obviously a nonstarter.

The great part about this is y'all self select.

Point over your head. If we are willing to borrow that money from China and spend it on a foreign war where it's debatable if it's in our national Interest, while we are running $2 trillion deficits and have almost $40 trillion in debt, then the politicians are never cutting anything. If they won't cut that insignificant amount on an item that arguably doesn't benefit us, nothing is getting cut.

AGC said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

AGC said:

---

LMCane said:

---

AGC said:

---

halfastros81 said:

---

Had the system been set up right to begin with so that the allegedly "earmarked" money couldn't be used for other purposes then SS would be and would remain solvent imo. That is the fundamental issue with it .

It's essentially a forced contract with really bad terms . Had it not been forced then I would have opted out and I'd be a lot better off for it so yes , now that I contributed to it at gunpoint for almost 50 yrs I do expect my relative pittance of a return and I'm not remotely going to feel bad about it.

---

This is the problem: you know it's insolvent, you simply don't care. That's what's repeated in this thread, time after time.

That's why the revolution is coming (which is not a threat btw, it's a mathematical fact). It's alarming that y'all have changed selfishness (I'm gonna get mine) into some sort of virtue (I did my part [in the Ponzi scheme, even though I knew it wouldn't work]).

---

it's hard to even have a political disagreement with people who can't understand basic logic and REALITY.

it is not "selfishness" when you go to your bank and withdraw your own money.

IT IS YOUR MONEY THAT YOU GAVE TO THE BANK

---

That's not how it works and hasn't been for decades. This is self-deceit, at best.

Whatever you thought it was has changed, and you saw it change, but you haven't adapted your mindset to the new reality (irony, right?).

Do the math! It doesn't work, no matter what you think you're owed. There simply aren't the same number of people paying in to cash you out. Forcing them into debt for it is slavery, no matter what you want to call it.

---

So you are saying that the US population is shrinking?

---

Do you know how the system works?

---

I know that from 1970 to 2000 there was a 138% increase in US population and those 78 million new folks are now between the ages of 25 and 55, prime working years .......so why are there fewer people paying in?

I know most of the people on here on this side of the issue are not zoomers. Median age of this forum is probably 45 if I had to guess.

In my experience with people my age the more wealth a person has and the harder right wing they are, the more likely they are to hold my opinions. Which is completely opposite from the expectations here. I'm not sure how to explain the gap.

Zobel said:

---

So far what is happening in this thread is confirming that at least the vocals boomers are sorely ignorant of the financial situation, how the budgeting and funding works, and are selfish and proudly against acting in any kind of decent civic way… while screaming that everyone else is a leftist and collectivist. It's embarrassing. You should feel bad.

---

I feel really good about collecting my SS benefits after paying into it for 45 years. Even better now that I've read all this whining from those unwilling to do what those before them did... pay their share into the SS system.

You've virtue signaled all over this thread about how you are willing to forego your benefit to save mankind. Well go ahead... gather up your buddies, get a mass movement across this country of selfless, civic-minded, heroes like you that we can all worship who are so committed to goodness that they will sacrifice their SS benefits.

We can get Congress to pass legislation incorporating your magnificent gesture. In fact, we can call it the Zobel Act in honor of its leader.

Logos Stick said:

---

Point over your head. If we are willing to borrow that money from China and spend it on a foreign war where it's debatable if it's in our national Interest, while we are running $2 trillion deficits and have almost $40 trillion in debt, then the politicians are never cutting anything. If they won't cut that insignificant amount on an item that arguably doesn't benefit us, nothing is getting cut.

---

The politicians do what the people want. You can't have it both ways. You are either a victim of the system by being in the minority, or you are a majority in favor of it.

Every person on here saying they'd never support a cut in their benefits is liable. Collectively they are why reform is a political impossibility, but that's causative. No different than a democrat voting for welfare dollars into their pocket. It's all coming from taxes.

Bird Poo said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

There is already less money coming in - FICA - than going out for SS. We are simply cashing bonds to pay for the excess now. The money for those bonds comes from general tax revenue. It's nothing but ledger entries.

---

That is my basis for arguing that SS is essentially welfare. Same thing with Medicare.
But there is no cost borne by the recipient; the working class and the taxpayer carry the costs. The recipient no longer has skin in the game.

Thus, maybe we should consider that recipients of these benefits lose their privilege to vote in federal elections.

---

There was a cost borne by this recipient and his employers for 40 plus years.
Let's say you contributed to a company retirement plan for 40 years and the company matched it. All of a sudden your employer ditches the plan, keeps the money and says sorry pal you're just SOL. What's your response going to be?

---

Like a pension? There are legal avenues to recoup some of that money, no?

We're talking about the federal govt here. Apples to oranges.

---

Maybe but you didn't answer the question. If the same thing happened to your pension that you want to happen to SS how would react?

Zobel said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Point over your head. If we are willing to borrow that money from China and spend it on a foreign war where it's debatable if it's in our national Interest, while we are running $2 trillion deficits and have almost $40 trillion in debt, then the politicians are never cutting anything. If they won't cut that insignificant amount on an item that arguably doesn't benefit us, nothing is getting cut.

---

The politicians do what the people want. You can't have it both ways. You are either a victim of the system by being in the minority, or you are a majority in favor of it.

Every person on here saying they'd never support a cut in their benefits is liable. Collectively they are why reform is a political impossibility, but that's causative. No different than a democrat voting for welfare dollars into their pocket. It's all coming from taxes.

---

That's a complete non sequitur so I won't respond to it

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

So far what is happening in this thread is confirming that at least the vocals boomers are sorely ignorant of the financial situation, how the budgeting and funding works, and are selfish and proudly against acting in any kind of decent civic way… while screaming that everyone else is a leftist and collectivist. It's embarrassing. You should feel bad.

---

I feel really good about collecting my SS benefits after paying into it for 45 years. Even better now that I've read all this whining from those unwilling to do what those before them did... pay their share into the SS system.

You've virtue signaled all over this thread about how you are willing to forego your benefit to save mankind. Well go ahead... gather up your buddies, get a mass movement across this country of selfless, civic-minded, heroes like you that we can all worship who are so committed to goodness that they will sacrifice their SS benefits.

We can get Congress to pass legislation incorporating your magnificent gesture. In fact, we can call it the Zobel Act in honor of its leader.

---

You can mock all you want, that's fine. I'll consider the source.

What's more likely to happen is we'll have a fiscal crisis and the radicals will just cut it altogether, and it'll be a hard landing instead of a controlled one. You might look at what happened to pensioners in Argentina over the past decade for a real world example.

I'll be fine - I don't need SS to retire at all, and at least statistically speaking I probably make more money than most of yall. Except for some of our mega high rollers here.

Zobel said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Point over your head. If we are willing to borrow that money from China and spend it on a foreign war where it's debatable if it's in our national Interest, while we are running $2 trillion deficits and have almost $40 trillion in debt, then the politicians are never cutting anything. If they won't cut that insignificant amount on an item that arguably doesn't benefit us, nothing is getting cut.

---

The politicians do what the people want. You can't have it both ways. You are either a victim of the system by being in the minority, or you are a majority in favor of it.

Every person on here saying they'd never support a cut in their benefits is liable. Collectively they are why reform is a political impossibility, but that's causative. No different than a democrat voting for welfare dollars into their pocket. It's all coming from taxes.

---

You just lost any iota of credibility you had going for you with that statement.

The politicians couldn't gas less what the people want and do whatever it takes to enrich themselves while all the while knowing they will get a hefty retirement check guaranteed even if they only serve one term

Logos Stick said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Point over your head. If we are willing to borrow that money from China and spend it on a foreign war where it's debatable if it's in our national Interest, while we are running $2 trillion deficits and have almost $40 trillion in debt, then the politicians are never cutting anything. If they won't cut that insignificant amount on an item that arguably doesn't benefit us, nothing is getting cut.

---

The politicians do what the people want. You can't have it both ways. You are either a victim of the system by being in the minority, or you are a majority in favor of it.

Every person on here saying they'd never support a cut in their benefits is liable. Collectively they are why reform is a political impossibility, but that's causative. No different than a democrat voting for welfare dollars into their pocket. It's all coming from taxes.

---

That's a complete non sequitur so I won't respond to it

---

lol it's literally foundational issue here.

Your silence is deafening.

Rattler12 said:

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

There is already less money coming in - FICA - than going out for SS. We are simply cashing bonds to pay for the excess now. The money for those bonds comes from general tax revenue. It's nothing but ledger entries.

---

That is my basis for arguing that SS is essentially welfare. Same thing with Medicare.
But there is no cost borne by the recipient; the working class and the taxpayer carry the costs. The recipient no longer has skin in the game.

Thus, maybe we should consider that recipients of these benefits lose their privilege to vote in federal elections.

---

There was a cost borne by this recipient and his employers for 40 plus years.
Let's say you contributed to a company retirement plan for 40 years and the company matched it. All of a sudden your employer ditches the plan, keeps the money and says sorry pal you're just SOL. What's your response going to be?

---

Tell that to the Enron employees. That is essentially what happened here. The program is going bankrupt and now you want a taxpayer bailout.

IMHO the biggest problem is the current retired generation believed something that was never true, and many here have continued to repeat it passionately.

You were told, and you believed, the taxes you were paying into the SS system would be used to fund your SS retirement income. These taxes were individually involuntarily, but collectively sanctioned through the elected officials you voted into office.


It was not true. Those funds you paid were distributed to the beneficiaries that came before you. There are no stored funds near sufficient to pay to you to receive similar benefits. Your only hope for benefits is to extract that wealth from the future generations of taxpayers.

The problem with that is (1) the current economy doesn't offer near the optimism and promise to those future generations that you inherited and (2) as a reaction to point #1, the population is declining and the burden of taxes per taxpayer cannot be sustained. They would sacrifice far more per person to pay your benefits than you sacrificed per person to pay for others.

I am truly sorry you have been the victim of a scheme that lied to you. I am sorry the media, your pols, and other civic leaders let this happen without informing you that the people you were voting for were leading you down this path. I too, have paid taxes into this system involuntarily knowing benefit would almost certainly never be received. I have paid the maximum annual amount into SS (currently 10.9k from me and 10.9k from my employer) for at least the last 20 years.

You can stomp your feet. You can throw elections to communists. You can react any way you want - but it won't change the fact that benefits beyond the next 10 years are going to be reduced further and further as time goes on; because the money simply isn't there. Those 20 or more years away from those benefits will likely receive zero. If you try to tax higher rates to extract more, the disincentive effect of taxation will more than erase those gains and you still won't benefit.

Yep.

Zobel said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Point over your head. If we are willing to borrow that money from China and spend it on a foreign war where it's debatable if it's in our national Interest, while we are running $2 trillion deficits and have almost $40 trillion in debt, then the politicians are never cutting anything. If they won't cut that insignificant amount on an item that arguably doesn't benefit us, nothing is getting cut.

---

The politicians do what the people want. You can't have it both ways. You are either a victim of the system by being in the minority, or you are a majority in favor of it.

Every person on here saying they'd never support a cut in their benefits is liable. Collectively they are why reform is a political impossibility, but that's causative. No different than a democrat voting for welfare dollars into their pocket. It's all coming from taxes.

---

That's a complete non sequitur so I won't respond to it

---

lol it's literally foundational issue here.

Your silence is deafening.

---

A specific point was made, you missed it, I clarified and you posted a response that was from left field.

Rattler12 said:

---

Bird Poo said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

There is already less money coming in - FICA - than going out for SS. We are simply cashing bonds to pay for the excess now. The money for those bonds comes from general tax revenue. It's nothing but ledger entries.

---

That is my basis for arguing that SS is essentially welfare. Same thing with Medicare.
But there is no cost borne by the recipient; the working class and the taxpayer carry the costs. The recipient no longer has skin in the game.

Thus, maybe we should consider that recipients of these benefits lose their privilege to vote in federal elections.

---

There was a cost borne by this recipient and his employers for 40 plus years.
Let's say you contributed to a company retirement plan for 40 years and the company matched it. All of a sudden your employer ditches the plan, keeps the money and says sorry pal you're just SOL. What's your response going to be?

---

Like a pension? There are legal avenues to recoup some of that money, no?

We're talking about the federal govt here. Apples to oranges.

---

Maybe but you didn't answer the question. If the same thing happened to your pension that you want to happen to SS how would react?

---

It doesn't apply to me because I don't view SS as "retirement". It should never be viewed that way and never was intended to be viewed that way. THIS IS THE PROBLEM AND IT IS GOING TO BANKRUPT EVERYONE.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Stopped reading right here. Anything that starts as boomer bashing is a non-starter and says what follows has a decided slant that I'm not gonna care to engage.

Zobel said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

So far what is happening in this thread is confirming that at least the vocals boomers are sorely ignorant of the financial situation, how the budgeting and funding works, and are selfish and proudly against acting in any kind of decent civic way… while screaming that everyone else is a leftist and collectivist. It's embarrassing. You should feel bad.

---

I feel really good about collecting my SS benefits after paying into it for 45 years. Even better now that I've read all this whining from those unwilling to do what those before them did... pay their share into the SS system.

You've virtue signaled all over this thread about how you are willing to forego your benefit to save mankind. Well go ahead... gather up your buddies, get a mass movement across this country of selfless, civic-minded, heroes like you that we can all worship who are so committed to goodness that they will sacrifice their SS benefits.

We can get Congress to pass legislation incorporating your magnificent gesture. In fact, we can call it the Zobel Act in honor of its leader.

---

You can mock all you want, that's fine. I'll consider the source.

What's more likely to happen is we'll have a fiscal crisis and the radicals will just cut it altogether, and it'll be a hard landing instead of a controlled one. You might look at what happened to pensioners in Argentina over the past decade for a real world example.

I'll be fine - I don't need SS to retire at all, and at least statistically speaking I probably make more money than most of yall. Except for some of our mega high rollers here.

---

At some point choices will have to be made, that much is clear. And it's probably a combination of benefit reductions and tax increases. We can have that debate in a thoughtful and respectful way.

But you can take your virtue signaling and condescending attempt to shame people into giving up their benefits... take it somewhere else... because it will not open the door to the outcome you seek. It will slam it shut.

Another poster mentioned a very creative idea about trading their SS benefit for some other kind of tax benefit that was important to them but didn't seem like it would necessarily be as impactful to government funding. That's the kind of constructive discussion we need to have instead of the silly nonsense you are selling.

Lone Stranger said:

---

Hey Don Quixote.....why you tilting at windmills? (and trying to virtue signal in the process?)

The math starts to work if you:

-Means test to a level where above that people get 0.

-Do away with the spousal benefits calculations/windfall and extend it to people that have were married for 20 years or longer before they divorced.

-Do away with the upper limit of yearly salary where SS/FICA tax stops and is no longer taken out.

-Raise the employee and employer percentage slightly.

Math isn't that hard.

---

Yeah F that! So move more towards socialism and make those already paying for almost everything pay for even more. Hard pass.

Pay for yourself. Save for your own retirement. FICA was just taxes and you were guaranteed nothing. Probably the majority of the taxes that the LoL poors even paid.

Your last paragraph sounds like it'll work out then. It will be cut because we can't afford it. Ok.

MooreTrucker said:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Stopped reading right here. Anything that starts as boomer bashing is a non-starter and says what follows has a decided slant that I'm not gonna care to engage.

---

The funny thing here is I actually wrote that as a conciliatory statement to honestly acknowledge the feeling.

You are such a snowflake you can't handle being triggered I guess.