I would never agree to allowing the government to get that money. Thats a recipe for disaster. They will continue to keep it and reallocate it in perpetuity. That's a hard no from me.

The next generations should get that wealth and they can use it to mitigate the loss of SS income. I would also be in favor of zero taxes on that transfer.

infinity ag said:

---

Wow, another Boomer hating thread that ran 17 pages in 2 days.

---

Who is more at fault that we are $38 trillion in debt?

Saying "not my problem, but give me my SS checks" kind of deserves some derision.

Tom Fox said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

See my other post. The program is not yet operating at a loss since its inception.

That will begin to occur in a few years. It's important to get the facts right.

---

I did get the facts right. Ssa.gov itself shows more cost than income in 2024.

---

If you are stating that SS is operating at a loss today you did not get the facts right.

An annual deficit this year does not mean the program is under water because there is still a surplus from when the program started. We are depleting that surplus every year, but it's still a surplus.

The surplus is expected to run out around 2033 at which point it would be correct to say it's operating at a loss. That is still 8 years away. There is time to make reasonable adjustments to shore up the program.

---

Anyone who thinks they are going to stop sending checks to granny because of a negative number in an account ledger doesn't know politicians very well. They will probably have a ceremony where they deposit a giant gold leaf IOU from the General Funds deficit spending and say job done.

---

Yes, it is hard doing the right thing even if it is unpopular. Politicians in particular hate it.

But robbing from the productive class to support people that have outlived their usefulness to everyone but their friends and family is idiotic. Their family should be the ones taking care of them. We should not be stealing from the younger generation to do so.

---

How do you feel about your tri care for life medical benefits that you get for your military service and your Fed LEO service? Any monthly retirement benefits included? I would think you would be against those also?

---

Negative. Those are for service to the government. Retired vets (of which I am not one) should be taken care of for life. I also left before retirement in my fed Leo job so no healthcare even though I'm vested in the retirement. Career retired civil servants should get healthcare provided by the feds.

Service guarantees citizenship.

---

But you are able to use Veterans health facilities correct?

And just curious..... you stated you were in Iraq for 3 tours (as a soldier I assume) then became a Fed LEO , went to law school and received a law degree, the became a prosecutor. Was that at local, state or federal govt level? Then a criminal defense attorney in your own practice. I find it interesting that a significant portion of your success appears to be the result of tax payer funding but you take the position you take about SS recipients receiving tax payor funded benefits.

Logos Stick said:

---

I would never agree to allowing the government to get that money. Thats a recipe for disaster. They will continue to keep it and reallocate it in perpetuity. That's a hard no from me.

The next generations should get that wealth and they can use it to mitigate the loss of SS income. I would also be in favor of zero taxes on that transfer.

---

I mean, this argument has some merit. The answer to less corruption is less government. There is no viable alternative. This is pretty well proven fact.

But, who is going to pay for the liability. The liability exists. To spend is to tax. The money is spent. How would you pay for it? You either have to collect taxes to pay for the liability, or pay for it in the form of the tax of inflation. Neither is a great solution. But, what is the solution? You throw spears, but what would you do?

Burn the entire economy to the ground? Is that your only solution?

As far as the tax implications something less than 1% of the populace has more than the 2026 inheritance tax limit of $15MM so whatever wealth they may have accumulated based on all sources including SS income would be tax free ( federal) when left to their heirs under Current law. That's probably not true in some states and even cities wrt to state and local level inheritance taxes but it is throughout Texas I believe.

It'll be a combination of of phasing it out and continued dollar devaluation imo. Maybe … maybe …. If you got rid of the lion's share of waste elsewhere in the federal government they could find a way to keep it but I suspect most people under 50 would prefer it just goes away . I know I did at that age .

Something else they could do and I would never advocate for this because it's confiscatory but they stop taking SS tax at some upper limit each year . They could eliminate or significantly raise that upper limit. For 2026 that limit is $184,500.

Was curious and asked A.I. (ChatGPT) if there is any economically prosperous country in the world that operates purely on a 'every one is on their own' economic model with little to no social entitlements for retirees and health care programs.

Said NO. Said every economically successful country provides some level of old age income support and health care access. Said though there are a lot of differences of course in the details with regards to level of support and the execution.

anyone arguing or campaigning as a politician to completely eliminate such programs, I'd ask why they expect the majority to agree with their position if there is no hard current evidence of a stable and economically prosperous society employing that approach.

I would ask for an example of a successful country today that has no or minimal social entitlements programs for retirees. Which country is currently the 'role model' for such a position?

It means being willing to support receiving less than you expected. Vote. The reason it's a sacred cow is people aren't willing to do that. If enough people were, it wouldn't be a sacred cow.

Zobel said:

---

Oh, that's just a guy similarly misrepresenting what I said. He doesn't understand civic virtue so he thinks I'm advocating that paying more taxes is more virtuous or somesuch nonsense.

Sorry

---

I already did my share. I took my SS early at 62 because I've been assured for the last 60 years that "it's not going to be there 10 years from now." But because of my civic duty and civic virtue I decided to take a 25% reduction in my benefit at 62 in lieu of full benefit at 66 so as to help safeguard the future of SS and not personally contribute to draining it to zero. Had I been the greedy, self centered, egotistical, country ruining Boomer that's been described herein, I would have waited until age 70 to take it and get a 25% increase instead of the decrease I so civically and humbly accepted at 62. A little math as a simple explanation

Let's say I'm getting $1500/month since age 62. If I had waited until age 66 that would be $2000/month and had I been real greedy and self centered it would have been $2500/month. So from age 62 to age 75 I have given up 1000 X 12 x 13 years or $156,000 in income in the name of civic duty and civic virtue.....God bless me.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Was curious and asked A.I. (ChatGPT) if there is any economically prosperous country in the world that operates purely on a 'every one is on their own' economic model with little to no social entitlements for retirees and health care programs.

Said NO. Said every economically successful country provides some level of old age income support and health care access. Said though there are a lot of differences in details with regards to level of support and the execution.

I would debate against anyone arguing to completely eliminate such programs why they would ever expect the majority to agree with their position if there is no hard evidence of a current stable and economically prosperous society employing that approach.

Provide an example of a successful country today that has no or minimal social entitlements such programs for retirees.

---

I did the same thing and it comes down to "how" it's done. The particulars are different across many countries. One of the key things that you have to factor as well is culture and size which no one wants to factor because it's uncomfortable. These types of programs work better in mono-ethnic / culture (white) countries where everyone is pulling the same direction. Same key thing for UHC. Once upon a time, the Scandinavian healthcare models were the gold standard UHC models that the left always pointed to as successful examples of UHC while completely ignoring the fact that they were/are all white, relatively small countries with very tight cultures. I also think even some of them have moved to models where a private option has been implemented.

Large sprawling entitlement programs are not going to work in larger, diverse countries over the long haul.

That does however fail to consider that you may have invested that money that you took earlier and the potential growth and earnings associated with same. I just went thru that exercise for myself and my wife and I have myself convinced it makes more economic sense to take my SS at full retirement age vs delaying to 70 as an example presuming a range of 4-8% aror on it.

And then there are the people that don't take it when they are eligible to and die before they ever get a dime . I have known some of those as well. Same goes for those that get taxed upfront and don't make it to eligibility age except they never had the option. There are provisions for their surviving spouses I believe tho.

halfastros81 said:

---

That does however fail to consider that you may have invested that money that you took earlier and the potential growth and earnings associated with same. I just went thru that exercise for myself and my wife and I have myself convinced it makes more economic sense to take my SS at full retirement age vs delaying to 70 as an example presuming a range of 4-8% aror on it.

---

I recently went through the exercise and 67 is the sweet spot for me, which happens to be my SS FRA. Will stop working somewhere around 62.5 and utilize other resources I've saved to enjoy my retirement.

At this point in life, I value time much more than money. Although you need to have the financial house in order so that you can enjoy your time and not worry about how to pay the bills.

When we eventually pass, we'll hopefully leave the kids and grandkids a nice inheritance to help with their journey through life. Although there won't be any discussion of it beforehand. Don't want to create a moral hazard where they expect it and ease off the gas pedal on their own retirement planning.

YouBet said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Was curious and asked A.I. (ChatGPT) if there is any economically prosperous country in the world that operates purely on a 'every one is on their own' economic model with little to no social entitlements for retirees and health care programs.

Said NO. Said every economically successful country provides some level of old age income support and health care access. Said though there are a lot of differences in details with regards to level of support and the execution.

I would debate against anyone arguing to completely eliminate such programs why they would ever expect the majority to agree with their position if there is no hard evidence of a current stable and economically prosperous society employing that approach.

Provide an example of a successful country today that has no or minimal social entitlements such programs for retirees.

---

I did the same thing and it comes down to "how" it's done. The particulars are different across many countries. One of the key things that you have to factor as well is culture and size which no one wants to factor because it's uncomfortable. These types of programs work better in mono-ethnic / culture (white) countries where everyone is pulling the same direction. Same key thing for UHC. Once upon a time, the Scandinavian healthcare models were the gold standard UHC models that the left always pointed to as successful examples of UHC while completely ignoring the fact that they were/are all white, relatively small countries with very tight cultures. I also think even some of them have moved to models where a private option has been implemented.

Large sprawling entitlement programs are not going to work in larger, diverse countries over the long haul.

---

Would we say India is the closest example to the USA's challenges as a large democratically governed society, whose population is very diverse?

Logos Stick said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

Agreed let's get rid of it. Also get rid of Medicaid too because people should be responsible for themselves.

Social security is and has always been an income redistribution scheme. We need to eliminate it completely. Im down for it. Are you?

---

I've been paying in for almost 40 years now and am close to actually qualifying. Had it gone away back then and I could just invest that money I would be retired now and living quite well. That wasn't a choice though, closest we had was Bush II trying and failing at privatization. I voted for anyone that favored reform but they either lost or got nowhere.

I'm not down with Millennials and Z's suddenly saying "Hey, this is a bad deal and doesn't make sense. Let's just now pay that money to the Gen X'ers that paid for their entire careers now." Screw that. If you want to write me a check for everything I paid in with interest I'm cool with that though. It's a crappy deal but my Gen is the only one that consistently voted conservative and we always lost. We hated the Boomers from before Millennials were born.

---

Why are you so immoral and hate the children?!

---

More than a couple of somebodies on here are gonna take you dead serious on that comment.....

If they actually read his posts they'd know it's sarcasm.

Another factor is national defense. Every European country has been able to spend on social programs to a large degree because they don't have to spend money on defense. We protect them. We also protect global commerce, e.g. ocean shipping. They also benefit from extremely low drug prices because pharma makes their nut off of Americans. They can essentially give the drugs away to other countries and do exactly that.

We're in the same place except I didn't retire until I was 65. My fra is 66 yrs 10 mos which I'll hit this year . You already know this but I had always been advised to wait until 70 because of the 8% bump in SS income each yr you wait and that is the right answer if you just look at SS income in a vacuum and assume you live to 80 or so but when you look at it holistically and how it delays pulling out of savings it can change the answer.

Logos Stick said:

---

Another factor is national defense. Every European country has been able to spend on social programs to a large degree because they don't have to spend money on defense. We protect them. We also protect global commerce, e.g. ocean shipping. They also benefit from extremely low drug prices because pharma makes their nut off of Americans. They can essentially give the drugs away to other countries and do exactly that.

---

Yep. They've lived off of our largesse for 85 years. Time for the gravy train to end.

BusterAg said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

See my other post. The program is not yet operating at a loss since its inception.

That will begin to occur in a few years. It's important to get the facts right.

---

I did get the facts right. Ssa.gov itself shows more cost than income in 2024.

---

If you are stating that SS is operating at a loss today you did not get the facts right.

An annual deficit this year does not mean the program is under water because there is still a surplus from when the program started. We are depleting that surplus every year, but it's still a surplus.

The surplus is expected to run out around 2033 at which point it would be correct to say it's operating at a loss. That is still 8 years away. There is time to make reasonable adjustments to shore up the program.

---

Anyone who thinks they are going to stop sending checks to granny because of a negative number in an account ledger doesn't know politicians very well. They will probably have a ceremony where they deposit a giant gold leaf IOU from the General Funds deficit spending and say job done.

---

Yes, it is hard doing the right thing even if it is unpopular. Politicians in particular hate it.

But robbing from the productive class to support people that have outlived their usefulness to everyone but their friends and family is idiotic. Their family should be the ones taking care of them. We should not be stealing from the younger generation to do so.

---

This is a revealing post.

Your utilitarian worldview is not really shared by the majority of Americans.

I personally believe that the value of an individual is not dictated by their usefulness to society, but by the spark of divinity that rests within every human being.

That said, we don't need to be rewarding leeches and a-holes that have never contributed to society. But, to say that people that have contributed to society, that have done nothing wrong, should be thrown away because they are no longer productive is idiotic. It also 100% goes against your later post that says that retired vets should be taken care of for life. People that paid into SS also served their country, in a way, by being productive taxpayers. We should actually encourage people to be productive tax payers. I find your logic to be inconsistent. But, more troubling, I find your utilitarian world view to be a bit too cynical for my tastes, and I am a pretty big cynic.

---

I am a product of my experiences and understanding how the world works. I used to be extremely idealistic. I was smart and went to a highly ranked undergrad, but still wanted to serve and 9/11 only reinforced that desire.

But spending years of my life in a combat zone, losing, buddies, and then not being allowed to win was eye opening. We were attacked on 9/11 and now I am in Iraq nation building. Sure we killed people, but that just created more enemies with no end in sight. The Shia were just as bad as the Sunnis and the Kurds to small a population to control the country. You win by breaking the enemy's will to fight or by exterminating them until they capitulate. If we were not there to do that, then we should not have put conventional boots on the ground.

Then I am back home and policing the lower class through the threat of force and force. Getting to see how they largely serve no redeeming function to society and that appeared to be a generational paradigm. But we are giving them handouts to prevent mass civil unrest rather than just letting them expire all while running up huge deficits that are stealing everyone but a select fews buying power. They are inflating away wealth to pay for it.

I was smart and wanted to understand the point of this. I read about Otto Bismarck creating the modern social safety net system set up to stop the cycle of revolt in Europe and to calcify the class structure in Europe because it becomes extremely difficult to move up classes with high income taxes to fund large social safety nets. The old money does not earn their money through income and is largely immune from it but it is great at making the path behind them more difficult.

I knew I had to get out of my current role and try to get rich while I still could. I'm smart so what do I do? I ace the LSAT and get a scholarship to Georgetown Law. Graduate with honor but decline the Biglaw track because of the small chance of making equity partner. My intention was to gain experience and then put my previous knowledge to work in my own business. 3 Years as a prosecutor and now 7 years as the managing partner of my own law firm and I am finally on the counter-elite path.

But the social democracy system is delaying my trajectory (as intended). Fortunately, I make enough that I can just mechanically make it as long as the economy doesn't shift out from under me. But paying $250K in net fed income taxes is still something I cannot stomach because I know where the money is going. I policed those populations. Hell, they are my current clients and still making the same mistakes. On welfare but when a family member is facing significant prison time, they magically can give me $25K in cash but cannot buy their own groceries. Fraud is rampant. Rinse and repeat.

Now would I prefer to target Medicaid, SNAP, and those programs first and then tackle SS? Of course. It will never happen. We had a govt shutdown over only expanded Medicaid benefits.

I'm done. Burn it all down. I am cynical to max because I understand what is happening and I am over it. I am also smart enough to know the female electorate will never let that happen. They will vote us into socialism first.

halfastros81 said:

---

As far as the tax implications something less than 1% of the populace has more than the 2026 inheritance tax limit of $15MM so whatever wealth they may have accumulated based on all sources including SS income would be tax free ( federal) when left to their heirs under Current law. That's probably not true in some states and even cities wrt to state and local level inheritance taxes but it is throughout Texas I believe.

---

This is my point.

These things should not exist simultaneously. The $37 trillion debt that the previous generation is leaving us and the $15M estate tax exemption.

Public liability, private assets. That is the moral hazard that got us here.

I would be perfectly happy with an estate tax that is tied to and paid for SS liabilities while we shut it down.

Rattler12 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

See my other post. The program is not yet operating at a loss since its inception.

That will begin to occur in a few years. It's important to get the facts right.

---

I did get the facts right. Ssa.gov itself shows more cost than income in 2024.

---

If you are stating that SS is operating at a loss today you did not get the facts right.

An annual deficit this year does not mean the program is under water because there is still a surplus from when the program started. We are depleting that surplus every year, but it's still a surplus.

The surplus is expected to run out around 2033 at which point it would be correct to say it's operating at a loss. That is still 8 years away. There is time to make reasonable adjustments to shore up the program.

---

Anyone who thinks they are going to stop sending checks to granny because of a negative number in an account ledger doesn't know politicians very well. They will probably have a ceremony where they deposit a giant gold leaf IOU from the General Funds deficit spending and say job done.

---

Yes, it is hard doing the right thing even if it is unpopular. Politicians in particular hate it.

But robbing from the productive class to support people that have outlived their usefulness to everyone but their friends and family is idiotic. Their family should be the ones taking care of them. We should not be stealing from the younger generation to do so.

---

How do you feel about your tri care for life medical benefits that you get for your military service and your Fed LEO service? Any monthly retirement benefits included? I would think you would be against those also?

---

Negative. Those are for service to the government. Retired vets (of which I am not one) should be taken care of for life. I also left before retirement in my fed Leo job so no healthcare even though I'm vested in the retirement. Career retired civil servants should get healthcare provided by the feds.

Service guarantees citizenship.

---

But you are able to use Veterans health facilities correct?

And just curious..... you stated you were in Iraq for 3 tours (as a soldier I assume) then became a Fed LEO , went to law school and received a law degree, the became a prosecutor. Was that at local, state or federal govt level? Then a criminal defense attorney in your own practice. I find it interesting that a significant portion of your success appears to be the result of tax payer funding but you take the position you take about SS recipients receiving tax payor funded benefits.

---

State prosecutor. You had the opportunity to go fight for the US. You could have policed and protected other Americans too weak to do it for themselves. It involves risk to your personal safety and is a core government function since our founding. FDR and LBJ vote buying boondoggles are not.

I was dead broke when I entered private legal practice. I had educational benefits due to my government employment and gained valuable experience but it did not make me financially affluent. As a side note, no-one should get rich working for the government. They are civil servants. The fact that our elected officials can grow their wealth so dramatically is a serious problem.

I take the position that no-one not actually working for the government or retired/medically should receive money to pay for their individual family expenses by forcing other tax payers to fund it.

That is an individual not governmental responsibility.

I know they forced you to do it but you paid a tax, not put away money for a benefit. I can post the court cases addressing this in detail but I am sure it will not be persuasive to you.

BusterAg said:

---

halfastros81 said:

---

As far as the tax implications something less than 1% of the populace has more than the 2026 inheritance tax limit of $15MM so whatever wealth they may have accumulated based on all sources including SS income would be tax free ( federal) when left to their heirs under Current law. That's probably not true in some states and even cities wrt to state and local level inheritance taxes but it is throughout Texas I believe.

---

This is my point.

These things should not exist simultaneously. The $37 trillion debt that the previous generation is leaving us and the $15M estate tax exemption.

Public liability, private assets. That is the moral hazard that got us here.

I would be perfectly happy with an estate tax that is tied to and paid for SS liabilities while we shut it down.

---

Yeah F that! I will probably be north of that. I would rather shoot people that have you tax my money again.

It's an option for sure . Raising the income limits for which SS taxes are taken is another . Extending ages for drawing benefits based on life expectancy projections is another .

I wouldn't be a big fan of the former 2 but if it could be shown that this could bridge the gap for those too old to have time to plan for it ( 40-45 yr olds) and end the program I could possibly be convinced however if you don't put a ring fence around SS taxes and protect them from robbery it' d be a no go for me.

BusterAg said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

You're being very selective in your generational bashing.

When I was young with three young kids I benefitted from the transfer of wealth from the old to the young to pay for public schools. My kids all went to public school even though I essentially paid nothing for it because I was in rental property or a small first-time, low-value home.

As 20 years passed and my kids exited the public school system, my standard of living also improved to owning large homes and paying much more in property taxes, most of which goes to local school districts. From my mid 40's to mid 80's life expectancy, I will help fund a free public education for the younger segment of society. A transfer from older to younger.

And I'm ok with that because I benefitted from it when I was younger. It's now my turn to return the favor.

SS and Medicare are that situation in reverse, except recipients actually pay into it for their entire working life. It is true that it is financed by payments from current workers. That's how it was designed. When you're old you will also draw SS/MC benefits that are paid in the moment by younger workers.

SS/MC funding needs obvious fixes with the obvious shortfall in front of us. Let's have the debate on how to do that. But spare me the selective boomer hate while you ignore other public funding mechanisms that transfer from older to younger.

---

Not to mention that boomers hold half the wealth in this country. So they're already paying more than other generations in taxes today. And if they're not, it's because they're keeping their assets in real estate and investment accounts which will transfer down to their kids when they die someday, anyway. So either they paying it forward now or will in the future (assuming private equity healthcare doesn't take it all first).

---

So, my solution for the SS fix is to end it, and pay for the current liabilities with a giant estate tax as the Boomers die off. When you die, prior to any other calculus of estate tax, you have to repay 100% of what you collected in SS, zero deductions. That would likely be enough to fill the gap.

Let the boomers pay for the problem they created with the assets that they accumulated. We can wait for you to die before we take it.

On a collective level, this is exactly what is happening anyways. The next few generations are going to pay for the mess that the Boomers created by liquidating the assets that the Boomer accumulated and passed on to their kids. They have passed on a collective liability, but want to retain their private assets. A massive estate tax just makes that collective fix more individualized, and something that can't really be ignored.

---

Hope this is the sarcasm it seems to be or you're in for a mauling by all those "youngster's" out there that will benefit largely from the hefty inheritance they will receive from a boomer relative. After all it is their money and they earned it .....Right?

Tom Fox said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

See my other post. The program is not yet operating at a loss since its inception.

That will begin to occur in a few years. It's important to get the facts right.

---

I did get the facts right. Ssa.gov itself shows more cost than income in 2024.

---

If you are stating that SS is operating at a loss today you did not get the facts right.

An annual deficit this year does not mean the program is under water because there is still a surplus from when the program started. We are depleting that surplus every year, but it's still a surplus.

The surplus is expected to run out around 2033 at which point it would be correct to say it's operating at a loss. That is still 8 years away. There is time to make reasonable adjustments to shore up the program.

---

Anyone who thinks they are going to stop sending checks to granny because of a negative number in an account ledger doesn't know politicians very well. They will probably have a ceremony where they deposit a giant gold leaf IOU from the General Funds deficit spending and say job done.

---

Yes, it is hard doing the right thing even if it is unpopular. Politicians in particular hate it.

But robbing from the productive class to support people that have outlived their usefulness to everyone but their friends and family is idiotic. Their family should be the ones taking care of them. We should not be stealing from the younger generation to do so.

---

How do you feel about your tri care for life medical benefits that you get for your military service and your Fed LEO service? Any monthly retirement benefits included? I would think you would be against those also?

---

Negative. Those are for service to the government. Retired vets (of which I am not one) should be taken care of for life. I also left before retirement in my fed Leo job so no healthcare even though I'm vested in the retirement. Career retired civil servants should get healthcare provided by the feds.

Service guarantees citizenship.

---

But you are able to use Veterans health facilities correct?

And just curious..... you stated you were in Iraq for 3 tours (as a soldier I assume) then became a Fed LEO , went to law school and received a law degree, the became a prosecutor. Was that at local, state or federal govt level? Then a criminal defense attorney in your own practice. I find it interesting that a significant portion of your success appears to be the result of tax payer funding but you take the position you take about SS recipients receiving tax payor funded benefits.

---

State prosecutor. You had the opportunity to go fight for the US. You could have policed and protected other Americans too weak to do it for themselves. It involves risk to your personal safety and is a core government function since our founding. FDR and LBJ vote buying boondoggles are not.

I was dead broke when I entered private legal practice. I had educational benefits due to my government employment and gained valuable experience but it did not make me financially affluent. As a side note, no-one should get rich working for the government. They are civil servants. The fact that our elected officials can grow their wealth so dramatically is a serious problem.

I take the position that no-one not actually working for the government or retired/medically should receive money to pay for their individual family expenses by forcing other tax payers to fund it.

That is an individual not governmental responsibility.

I know they forced you to do it but you paid a tax, not put away money for a benefit. I can post the court cases addressing this in detail but I am sure it will not be persuasive to you.

---

As a criminal attorney should one get rich off the legal problems of others?

Tom Fox said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

See my other post. The program is not yet operating at a loss since its inception.

That will begin to occur in a few years. It's important to get the facts right.

---

I did get the facts right. Ssa.gov itself shows more cost than income in 2024.

---

If you are stating that SS is operating at a loss today you did not get the facts right.

An annual deficit this year does not mean the program is under water because there is still a surplus from when the program started. We are depleting that surplus every year, but it's still a surplus.

The surplus is expected to run out around 2033 at which point it would be correct to say it's operating at a loss. That is still 8 years away. There is time to make reasonable adjustments to shore up the program.

---

Anyone who thinks they are going to stop sending checks to granny because of a negative number in an account ledger doesn't know politicians very well. They will probably have a ceremony where they deposit a giant gold leaf IOU from the General Funds deficit spending and say job done.

---

Yes, it is hard doing the right thing even if it is unpopular. Politicians in particular hate it.

But robbing from the productive class to support people that have outlived their usefulness to everyone but their friends and family is idiotic. Their family should be the ones taking care of them. We should not be stealing from the younger generation to do so.

---

This is a revealing post.

Your utilitarian worldview is not really shared by the majority of Americans.

I personally believe that the value of an individual is not dictated by their usefulness to society, but by the spark of divinity that rests within every human being.

That said, we don't need to be rewarding leeches and a-holes that have never contributed to society. But, to say that people that have contributed to society, that have done nothing wrong, should be thrown away because they are no longer productive is idiotic. It also 100% goes against your later post that says that retired vets should be taken care of for life. People that paid into SS also served their country, in a way, by being productive taxpayers. We should actually encourage people to be productive tax payers. I find your logic to be inconsistent. But, more troubling, I find your utilitarian world view to be a bit too cynical for my tastes, and I am a pretty big cynic.

---

I am a product of my experiences and understanding how the world works. I used to be extremely idealistic. I was smart and went to a highly ranked undergrad, but still wanted to serve and 9/11 only reinforced that desire.

But spending years of my life in a combat zone, losing, buddies, and then not being allowed to win was eye opening. We were attacked on 9/11 and now I am in Iraq nation building. Sure we killed people, but that just created more enemies with no end in sight. The Shia were just as bad as the Sunnis and the Kurds to small a population to control the country. You win by breaking the enemy's will to fight or by exterminating them until they capitulate. If we were not there to do that, then we should not have put conventional boots on the ground.

Then I am back home and policing the lower class through the threat of force and force. Getting to see how they largely serve no redeeming function to society and that appeared to be a generational paradigm. But we are giving them handouts to prevent mass civil unrest rather than just letting them expire all while running up huge deficits that are stealing everyone but a select fews buying power. They are inflating away wealth to pay for it.

I was smart and wanted to understand the point of this. I read about Otto Bismarck creating the modern social safety net system set up to stop the cycle of revolt in Europe and to calcify the class structure in Europe because it becomes extremely difficult to move up classes with high income taxes to fund large social safety nets. The old money does not earn their money through income and is largely immune from it but is it great at making the path behind them.

I knew I had to get out of my current role and try to get rich while I still could. I'm smart so what do I do? I ace the LSAT and get a scholarship to Georgetown Law. Graduate with honor but decline the Biglaw track because of the small chance of making equity partner. My intention was to gain experience and then put my previous knowledge to work in my own business. 3 Years as a prosecutor and now 7 years as the managing partner of my own law firm and I am finally on the counter-elite path.

But the social democracy system is delaying my trajectory (as intended). Fortunately, I make enough that I can just mechanically make it as long as the economy doesn't shift out from under me. But paying $250K in net fed income taxes is still something I cannot stomach because I know where the money is going. I policed those populations. Hell, they are my current clients and still making the same mistakes. On welfare but when a family member is facing significant prison time, they magically can give me $25K in cash but cannot buy their own groceries. Fraud is rampant. Rinse and repeat.

Now would I prefer to target Medicaid, SNAP, and those programs first and then tackle SS? Of course. It will never happen. We had a govt shutdown over only expanded Medicaid benefits.

I'm done. Burn it all down. I am cynical to max because I understand what is happening and I am over it. I am also smart enough to know the female electorate will never let that happen. They will vote us into socialism first.

---

Congrats. Here's a cookie.



What would you do if the bottom fell out of your profession? I'm not sure exactly what you do, but it sounds like a criminal defense attorney? What if that profession got nationalized. How would that change your views?

I know it's far fetched right now considering your industry, but it happens to people who actually did all the right things, just like you did. It also isn't completely infeasible that something like that could happen to criminal defense attorneys if the world changes just the wrong way.

Tough tits for them?

I completely understand your perspective and agree with essentially all of it.

We love to individualize choice in this country but socialize the outcomes of those choices.

It leads to a world where those on the government dole hate the people ("rich") that are sustaining their life, while the well-to-do become understandably very cynical. The "poor" blame the "rich" for their lot in life, not admitting that most "rich" people were once "poor" and worked their way to success. The perpetually poor from generation to generation are that way because of cultural choices and life decisions, not because they were predestined to be poor. There are literally hundreds of millions of examples of people who made good choices and carved out a great life.

I don't see a path for fixing it when you have a political party and conspirator mass media that fan the flames of class division for political benefit.

BusterAg said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

See my other post. The program is not yet operating at a loss since its inception.

That will begin to occur in a few years. It's important to get the facts right.

---

I did get the facts right. Ssa.gov itself shows more cost than income in 2024.

---

If you are stating that SS is operating at a loss today you did not get the facts right.

An annual deficit this year does not mean the program is under water because there is still a surplus from when the program started. We are depleting that surplus every year, but it's still a surplus.

The surplus is expected to run out around 2033 at which point it would be correct to say it's operating at a loss. That is still 8 years away. There is time to make reasonable adjustments to shore up the program.

---

Anyone who thinks they are going to stop sending checks to granny because of a negative number in an account ledger doesn't know politicians very well. They will probably have a ceremony where they deposit a giant gold leaf IOU from the General Funds deficit spending and say job done.

---

Yes, it is hard doing the right thing even if it is unpopular. Politicians in particular hate it.

But robbing from the productive class to support people that have outlived their usefulness to everyone but their friends and family is idiotic. Their family should be the ones taking care of them. We should not be stealing from the younger generation to do so.

---

This is a revealing post.

Your utilitarian worldview is not really shared by the majority of Americans.

I personally believe that the value of an individual is not dictated by their usefulness to society, but by the spark of divinity that rests within every human being.

That said, we don't need to be rewarding leeches and a-holes that have never contributed to society. But, to say that people that have contributed to society, that have done nothing wrong, should be thrown away because they are no longer productive is idiotic. It also 100% goes against your later post that says that retired vets should be taken care of for life. People that paid into SS also served their country, in a way, by being productive taxpayers. We should actually encourage people to be productive tax payers. I find your logic to be inconsistent. But, more troubling, I find your utilitarian world view to be a bit too cynical for my tastes, and I am a pretty big cynic.

---

I am a product of my experiences and understanding how the world works. I used to be extremely idealistic. I was smart and went to a highly ranked undergrad, but still wanted to serve and 9/11 only reinforced that desire.

But spending years of my life in a combat zone, losing, buddies, and then not being allowed to win was eye opening. We were attacked on 9/11 and now I am in Iraq nation building. Sure we killed people, but that just created more enemies with no end in sight. The Shia were just as bad as the Sunnis and the Kurds to small a population to control the country. You win by breaking the enemy's will to fight or by exterminating them until they capitulate. If we were not there to do that, then we should not have put conventional boots on the ground.

Then I am back home and policing the lower class through the threat of force and force. Getting to see how they largely serve no redeeming function to society and that appeared to be a generational paradigm. But we are giving them handouts to prevent mass civil unrest rather than just letting them expire all while running up huge deficits that are stealing everyone but a select fews buying power. They are inflating away wealth to pay for it.

I was smart and wanted to understand the point of this. I read about Otto Bismarck creating the modern social safety net system set up to stop the cycle of revolt in Europe and to calcify the class structure in Europe because it becomes extremely difficult to move up classes with high income taxes to fund large social safety nets. The old money does not earn their money through income and is largely immune from it but is it great at making the path behind them.

I knew I had to get out of my current role and try to get rich while I still could. I'm smart so what do I do? I ace the LSAT and get a scholarship to Georgetown Law. Graduate with honor but decline the Biglaw track because of the small chance of making equity partner. My intention was to gain experience and then put my previous knowledge to work in my own business. 3 Years as a prosecutor and now 7 years as the managing partner of my own law firm and I am finally on the counter-elite path.

But the social democracy system is delaying my trajectory (as intended). Fortunately, I make enough that I can just mechanically make it as long as the economy doesn't shift out from under me. But paying $250K in net fed income taxes is still something I cannot stomach because I know where the money is going. I policed those populations. Hell, they are my current clients and still making the same mistakes. On welfare but when a family member is facing significant prison time, they magically can give me $25K in cash but cannot buy their own groceries. Fraud is rampant. Rinse and repeat.

Now would I prefer to target Medicaid, SNAP, and those programs first and then tackle SS? Of course. It will never happen. We had a govt shutdown over only expanded Medicaid benefits.

I'm done. Burn it all down. I am cynical to max because I understand what is happening and I am over it. I am also smart enough to know the female electorate will never let that happen. They will vote us into socialism first.

---

Congrats. Here's a cookie.



What would you do if the bottom fell out of your profession? I'm not sure exactly what you do, but it sounds like a criminal defense attorney? What if that profession got nationalized. How would that change your views?

I know it's far fetched right now considering your industry, but it happens to people who actually did all the right things, just like you did. It also isn't completely infeasible that something like that could happen to criminal defense attorneys if the world changes just the wrong way.

Tough tits for them?

---

Yes my equitable outcomes friend, tough tits. I'd start my third career. And if I failed, I would starve if my family did not provide for me. You know, like the majority of human history.

What else would I do? Force others to pay for me? Nope.

And my career is partially nationalized. There are both federal and state public defender services that skew my market downward.

Rattler12 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

You're being very selective in your generational bashing.

When I was young with three young kids I benefitted from the transfer of wealth from the old to the young to pay for public schools. My kids all went to public school even though I essentially paid nothing for it because I was in rental property or a small first-time, low-value home.

As 20 years passed and my kids exited the public school system, my standard of living also improved to owning large homes and paying much more in property taxes, most of which goes to local school districts. From my mid 40's to mid 80's life expectancy, I will help fund a free public education for the younger segment of society. A transfer from older to younger.

And I'm ok with that because I benefitted from it when I was younger. It's now my turn to return the favor.

SS and Medicare are that situation in reverse, except recipients actually pay into it for their entire working life. It is true that it is financed by payments from current workers. That's how it was designed. When you're old you will also draw SS/MC benefits that are paid in the moment by younger workers.

SS/MC funding needs obvious fixes with the obvious shortfall in front of us. Let's have the debate on how to do that. But spare me the selective boomer hate while you ignore other public funding mechanisms that transfer from older to younger.

---

Not to mention that boomers hold half the wealth in this country. So they're already paying more than other generations in taxes today. And if they're not, it's because they're keeping their assets in real estate and investment accounts which will transfer down to their kids when they die someday, anyway. So either they paying it forward now or will in the future (assuming private equity healthcare doesn't take it all first).

---

So, my solution for the SS fix is to end it, and pay for the current liabilities with a giant estate tax as the Boomers die off. When you die, prior to any other calculus of estate tax, you have to repay 100% of what you collected in SS, zero deductions. That would likely be enough to fill the gap.

Let the boomers pay for the problem they created with the assets that they accumulated. We can wait for you to die before we take it.

On a collective level, this is exactly what is happening anyways. The next few generations are going to pay for the mess that the Boomers created by liquidating the assets that the Boomer accumulated and passed on to their kids. They have passed on a collective liability, but want to retain their private assets. A massive estate tax just makes that collective fix more individualized, and something that can't really be ignored.

---

Hope this is the sarcasm it seems to be or you're in for a mauling by all those "youngster's" out there that will benefit largely from the hefty inheritance they will receive from a boomer relative. After all it is their money and they earned it .....Right?

---

No, I think you are exactly right. The generations behind the boomers don't deserve to have to pay for the mess that the boomers left any more than the kids of the wealthy boomers that made the decisions that left us in this mess deserve the wealth that their parents are set to leave them.

Eliminate the generational struggle with some good ole fashion class warfare.

Any student of history will realize that this is where we are headed, one way or another.

Rattler12 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

See my other post. The program is not yet operating at a loss since its inception.

That will begin to occur in a few years. It's important to get the facts right.

---

I did get the facts right. Ssa.gov itself shows more cost than income in 2024.

---

If you are stating that SS is operating at a loss today you did not get the facts right.

An annual deficit this year does not mean the program is under water because there is still a surplus from when the program started. We are depleting that surplus every year, but it's still a surplus.

The surplus is expected to run out around 2033 at which point it would be correct to say it's operating at a loss. That is still 8 years away. There is time to make reasonable adjustments to shore up the program.

---

Anyone who thinks they are going to stop sending checks to granny because of a negative number in an account ledger doesn't know politicians very well. They will probably have a ceremony where they deposit a giant gold leaf IOU from the General Funds deficit spending and say job done.

---

Yes, it is hard doing the right thing even if it is unpopular. Politicians in particular hate it.

But robbing from the productive class to support people that have outlived their usefulness to everyone but their friends and family is idiotic. Their family should be the ones taking care of them. We should not be stealing from the younger generation to do so.

---

How do you feel about your tri care for life medical benefits that you get for your military service and your Fed LEO service? Any monthly retirement benefits included? I would think you would be against those also?

---

Negative. Those are for service to the government. Retired vets (of which I am not one) should be taken care of for life. I also left before retirement in my fed Leo job so no healthcare even though I'm vested in the retirement. Career retired civil servants should get healthcare provided by the feds.

Service guarantees citizenship.

---

But you are able to use Veterans health facilities correct?

And just curious..... you stated you were in Iraq for 3 tours (as a soldier I assume) then became a Fed LEO , went to law school and received a law degree, the became a prosecutor. Was that at local, state or federal govt level? Then a criminal defense attorney in your own practice. I find it interesting that a significant portion of your success appears to be the result of tax payer funding but you take the position you take about SS recipients receiving tax payor funded benefits.

---

State prosecutor. You had the opportunity to go fight for the US. You could have policed and protected other Americans too weak to do it for themselves. It involves risk to your personal safety and is a core government function since our founding. FDR and LBJ vote buying boondoggles are not.

I was dead broke when I entered private legal practice. I had educational benefits due to my government employment and gained valuable experience but it did not make me financially affluent. As a side note, no-one should get rich working for the government. They are civil servants. The fact that our elected officials can grow their wealth so dramatically is a serious problem.

I take the position that no-one not actually working for the government or retired/medically should receive money to pay for their individual family expenses by forcing other tax payers to fund it.

That is an individual not governmental responsibility.

I know they forced you to do it but you paid a tax, not put away money for a benefit. I can post the court cases addressing this in detail but I am sure it will not be persuasive to you.

---

As a criminal attorney should one get rich off the legal problems of others?

---

I am entitled to what the market says my services are worth. It is a private transaction. And apparently my services are worth a lot because I am good at it. I have also taken market share from less competent attorneys and cut into their profits. The same could obviously happen to me. I have strategically grown the number of attorneys and support staff. In short, taken risk.

People now want guaranteed outcomes without much risk. At the beginning of career, I risked my physical safety. Now, I risk my financial safety. But I am also paying for others that did not take risk or failed and it is delaying my arrival at financial independence.

I am surprised that no-one has suggested because I am smart enough to recognize that I actually receive second order benefits from social welfare because money is fungible. When stimulus checks or tax refund checks get sent out, the people behind on payments to my firm make those my biggest months. Most defense attorney love welfare programs. They also happen to be like 97% liberal because of feels.

I would happily trade income to eliminate those programs. They keep those population locked into generational poverty and are bankrupting our nation.

halfastros81 said:

---

That does however fail to consider that you may have invested that money that you took earlier and the potential growth and earnings associated with same. I just went thru that exercise for myself and my wife and I have myself convinced it makes more economic sense to take my SS at full retirement age vs delaying to 70 as an example presuming a range of 4-8% aror on it.

And then there are the people that don't take it when they are eligible to and die before they ever get a dime . I have known some of those as well. Same goes for those that get taxed upfront and don't make it to eligibility age except they never had the option. There are provisions for their surviving spouses I believe tho.

---

Yall don't want me investing in anything. It can be rising in value on a meteoritic pace and as soon as I drop a dollar into it ? Boom the bottom drops out. Fact is yall might want to pay me to not invest....luckily MZ R is rich. So my good looks and solid sex appeal make up for my lack of investment luck....

Rattler12 said:

---

halfastros81 said:

---

That does however fail to consider that you may have invested that money that you took earlier and the potential growth and earnings associated with same. I just went thru that exercise for myself and my wife and I have myself convinced it makes more economic sense to take my SS at full retirement age vs delaying to 70 as an example presuming a range of 4-8% aror on it.

And then there are the people that don't take it when they are eligible to and die before they ever get a dime . I have known some of those as well. Same goes for those that get taxed upfront and don't make it to eligibility age except they never had the option. There are provisions for their surviving spouses I believe tho.

---

Yall don't want me investing in anything. It can be rising in value on a meteoritic pace and as soon as I drop a dollar into it ? Boom the bottom drops out. Fact is yall might want to pay me to not invest....luckily MZ R is rich. So my good looks and solid sex appeal make up for my lack of investment luck....

---

Congrats. That is the dream retirement plan. I couldn't pull it off.

Tom Fox said:

---

I'd start my third career. And if I failed, I would starve if my family did not provide for me. You know, like the majority of human history.

What else would I do? Force others to pay for me? Nope.

---

Good answer. I tend to agree with you. Starting my third career now.

But:
1) I would bet that Third Career Tom Fox would be exceedingly less arrogant. I would encourage you to contemplate that seriously for a bit. Bad things tend to happen to people that think too much of themselves, because they only have themselves to rely on. One of the best things about me starting over again is that there are a lot of people that I put cookies into their cookie jars over many years that are starting to help me out.

2) The majority of human history does not include the amazing increase in productivity that we have experienced in the last century or so beginning with the start of the industrial revolution. I think you might enjoy reading a good book on this called "Of God and Guinness" that talks about the very beginnings of social welfare in the industrial revolution. Creating an environment where people can succeed through hard word and self investment generates massive amounts of societal wealth.

3) Some amount of social safety net encourages individual risk taking. Individual risk taking creates massive amount of societal wealth. One primary reason for American Exceptionalism is that we are more comfortable taking individual risks than any other society in the world. It leads to amazing amount of innovation that have been unseen since DeVinci.

4) Our current social safety net is unsustainable, and detrimental to our society. I do not believe that eliminating it completely is the optimum societal solution. But, reform is pretty impossible right now, because an addict is never going to get better until he suffers enough consequences of his decisions that he reaches a place of complete desperation.

Unfortunately, I think that the best answer is to tie a knot in the rope, hold on, warn your kids about what is coming, and wait for the Boomers to die off.

I am just super cool with confiscating the assets of the a-holes that got us here after they die off if they are unwilling to fix the problem while they are still here.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

I completely understand your perspective and agree with essentially all of it.

We love to individualize choice in this country but socialize the outcomes of those choices.

It leads to a world where those on the government dole hate the people ("rich") that are sustaining their life, while the well-to-do become understandably very cynical. The "poor" blame the "rich" for their lot in life, not admitting that most "rich" people were once "poor" and worked their way to success. The perpetually poor from generation to generation are that way because of cultural choices and life decisions, not because they were predestined to be poor. There are literally hundreds of millions of examples of people who made good choices and carved out a great life.

I don't see a path for fixing it when you have a political party and conspirator mass media that fan the flames of class division for political benefit.

---

Blue star for you. I agree with everything you said. As my youngest daughter likes to say, "We are cooked!"

Boomers aren't the only issue. Look at the people screaming for free government healthcare or the losers who want their student loans forgiven because they "can't pay the back" and the thought of a second job is "being out of touch".


Every generation wants their pet projects and it all has to do with more government handouts. Ever notice it's always framed as "it's what we should do as a civil society" or my favorite "social contract". The "social contract" seems to only run one way. It's the producers giving to the non producers. It's never "stop having kids you can't afford" or "stop being fat tub of goo". It's always what can we take and give to others.