This thread has been eye-opening. And not because of anything said about Social Security.

Rattler12 said:

---

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

---

If no one had any problems, then no one would have a job.

A person with legal problems can always hire a public defender. That public defender isn't getting rich.

But, being a good criminal defense attorney requires a lot of knowledge, which is expensive and excruciating to obtain (how many legal text books have you read? Is this something you would do in your spare time for fun?), a lot of hard work, a lot of talent, and a willingness to take the risk of lower income for the opportunity of unbounded return.

Tom could absolutely be a crappy criminal defense attorney and have a guaranteed government job that wouldn't make him rich. The reason why he is making a lot of money is because he invested in himself and took those risks to be where he is today. Your local public defender schlob isn't willing to do that.

We need more Tom's and less schlobs in this country.

But, we also need fewer a-holes, too.

BusterAg said:

---

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.

---

3rd career Tom Fox understands failure. And I will agree that I am arrogant. It is simultaneously my greatest strength and weakness. I'll definitely check out "Of God and Guinness," I just downloaded the audio book. I drive about 12 hours every week to visit clients at various detention facilities that can be several hours away. F!ing west Texas distances.

Negative to the bolded. That would make you worse than them and has never been the American way. We should never confiscate the wealth of other Americans. I would be willing to shoot it out over this principle.

I married late and had kids late, so they are still young (14 & 11). We spend significant time talking about how the world works and why? We talk about financial and physical security.

I moved us to one of the most conservative places in America away from the big cities. We actually moved here from DC after law school. I have done my prepping, with small arms, physical money and metals, food storage, power generation, safe neighborhood and target hardened private schools. And a place with acreage even more secluded.

There will be civil unrest. It is coming. We are separating into two societies (K-economy). I've done all I can do for them. Obviously, if it happens while I am still here, I will do what I do best.

backintexas2013 said:

---

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.

---

The poor will always be with us, and they will always want help.

Boomers are the ones that control the power and the wealth of this country. They are the single largest voting bloc in America. It is, collectively, their decisions that got us into this mess. And they are the ones that are in the best position to do something positive.

They just don't have the nerve or the testicular fortitude to do it.

I know lots of amazing boomers. Many of them hate their peers.

If we are trying to figure out societal wide solutions to fix societal wide problems, why should Boomers be exempt from the problems that they are most responsible for creating? I think it is fair to ask them to help clean up their own mess.

One thing I agree with Tom about is that we are in a mess. We just have different boogeymen to blame for how we got here and how to fix it, likely because who he knows and interacts with is very different from who I know and interact with.

Tom Fox said:

---

Negative to the bolded. That would make you worse than them and has never been the American way. We should never confiscate the wealth of other Americans. I would be willing to shoot it out over this principle.

---

Tax is theft, am I right?

We have to tax someone. Should the people that got us into this mess be exempt from that tax?

Who is going to pay back that $38 trillion? Someone will. We will have to confiscate wealth in some way to do it.

I see very little moral difference between massive inflation, massive income taxes, and massive estate taxes.

For a generation that has created a $38 trillion debt, I see estate taxes as being the least of all the other evils.

Intelligent people can disagree.

Do get back to me on your thoughts on Of God and Guinness. One of my favorite book recommendations to people that like to think about economics and social welfare.

Need to get to work to finish up my stuff before the BB game tonight, but this has been fun.

BusterAg said:

---

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.

---

And that's why we have the Terrible Trifecta.

First are the Politicians, 2nd are the CEOs, 3rd the Boomers.

These 3 groups ruining America (IMHO of course).

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 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.

---

Tom Fox, well done my friend. You are an inspiration.

BusterAg said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

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

---

If no one had any problems, then no one would have a job.

A person with legal problems can always hire a public defender. That public defender isn't getting rich.

But, being a good criminal defense attorney requires a lot of knowledge, which is expensive and excruciating to obtain (how many legal text books have you read? Is this something you would do in your spare time for fun?), a lot of hard work, a lot of talent, and a willingness to take the risk of lower income for the opportunity of unbounded return.

Tom could absolutely be a crappy criminal defense attorney and have a guaranteed government job that wouldn't make him rich. The reason why he is making a lot of money is because he invested in himself and took those risks to be where he is today. Your local public defender schlob isn't willing to do that.

We need more Tom's and less schlobs in this country.

But, we also need fewer a-holes, too.

---

I'll bow out if you bow out....

BusterAg said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

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.

---

The poor will always be with us, and they will always want help.

Boomers are the ones that control the power and the wealth of this country. They are the single largest voting bloc in America. It is, collectively, their decisions that got us into this mess. And they are the ones that are in the best position to do something positive.

They just don't have the nerve or the testicular fortitude to do it.

I know lots of amazing boomers. Many of them hate their peers.

If we are trying to figure out societal wide solutions to fix societal wide problems, why should Boomers be exempt from the problems that they are most responsible for creating? I think it is fair to ask them to help clean up their own mess.

One thing I agree with Tom about is that we are in a mess. We just have different boogeymen to blame for how we got here and how to fix it, likely because who he knows and interacts with is very different from who I know and interact with.

---

Who are you going to blame when all the boomers are dead and gone? And it's a sure bet you will be blaming someone ......

Rattler12 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

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.

---

The poor will always be with us, and they will always want help.

Boomers are the ones that control the power and the wealth of this country. They are the single largest voting bloc in America. It is, collectively, their decisions that got us into this mess. And they are the ones that are in the best position to do something positive.

They just don't have the nerve or the testicular fortitude to do it.

I know lots of amazing boomers. Many of them hate their peers.

If we are trying to figure out societal wide solutions to fix societal wide problems, why should Boomers be exempt from the problems that they are most responsible for creating? I think it is fair to ask them to help clean up their own mess.

One thing I agree with Tom about is that we are in a mess. We just have different boogeymen to blame for how we got here and how to fix it, likely because who he knows and interacts with is very different from who I know and interact with.

---

Who are you going to blame when all the boomers are dead and gone? And it's a sure bet you will be blaming someone ......

---

We will still blame the Boomers after they are gone.
Death doesn't mean absolving.

Q for all the haters: Who is worse, Boomers or Isis?

BusterAg said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

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.

---

The poor will always be with us, and they will always want help.

Boomers are the ones that control the power and the wealth of this country. They are the single largest voting bloc in America. It is, collectively, their decisions that got us into this mess. And they are the ones that are in the best position to do something positive.

They just don't have the nerve or the testicular fortitude to do it.

I know lots of amazing boomers. Many of them hate their peers.

If we are trying to figure out societal wide solutions to fix societal wide problems, why should Boomers be exempt from the problems that they are most responsible for creating? I think it is fair to ask them to help clean up their own mess.

One thing I agree with Tom about is that we are in a mess. We just have different boogeymen to blame for how we got here and how to fix it, likely because who he knows and interacts with is very different from who I know and interact with.

---

Actually the WW2 generation got us in this mess. They expanded SS and made it a true ponzi scheme with nothing saved. They created Medicare and prescription drug benefits. They paid far less in and got far more out. Boomers just continued the trend but at least they paid most of their taxes post 1986 when the WW2 folks jacked up the rates to make sure they were taken care of but didn't reform the system so it was set on inevitable bankruptcy. They also stopped any privatization.

WW2 folks had some great people who made sacrifices but the reality is most weren't storming the beaches in Normandy and those folks had the VA and GI bill as a thank you.

The reality of course is every generation has positives and negatives, they have opportunities and challenges that are unique.


The idea of just deciding to screw over people that paid involuntary 15 percent of their income into a system for most of their lives though is a hell no. Clear out all the fraud and freeloaders first and then we'll talk. Of course if that happened we would be swimming in cash.

Gen Z and millennials still vote Democrat and then wonder why they feel screwed over.

"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."

Cannot prove otherwise, but I certainly would question this statement.

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?

---

Hey Sh** head. Sure, but first you give me everything I was forced to pay in + interest. Else FO

Money's gone. Government spent it. The money I've put in for decades is largely spent as well. There's enough left for a one time $44k payout to each current retiree. Anything over that and you'd just be taking money from your fellow citizens to cover the sins of the political past.

The greatest lie of the past decades is this idea that SS was somehow like a retirement account or accruing a personal benefit or obligation from the govt, but it's law including court cases up to the USSC that it isn't true.

What's been eye opening then?

Zobel said:

---

Money's gone. Government spent it. The money I've put in for decades is largely spent as well. There's enough left for a one time $44k payout to each current retiree. Anything over that and you'd just be taking money from your fellow citizens to cover the sins of the political past.

The greatest lie of the past decades is this idea that SS was somehow like a retirement account or accruing a personal benefit or obligation from the govt, but it's law including court cases up to the USSC that it isn't true.

---

Had an 300 level eco prof at Tech tell us this was going to happen. Strongly suggested all of us young boomers get retirement and other investment accounts ASAP because SS wasn't likely to be around. Good thing I paid attention but millions did not. Still I want what I begrudgingly and forcibly paid in.

matureag said:

---

"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."

Cannot prove otherwise, but I certainly would question this statement.

---

It depends on your definition of poor and rich. Historically in the US 20% of the poor in each generation become rich. That is probably the best chance of upward mobility than any other time or place.

If you include the children of the middle class and poor, they account for 2/3 of the rich currently. I would argue the 1970s to early 1990s was a sweet spot, but there is still significant opportunity today.

The second link agrees that only 1/3 of the rich came from inheritance but quibbles about the definition of self-made. You can read the article and data and form your own conclusion.

Both seem to agree with the significant availability of opportunity to become wealthy here in the US. Every generation gets their shot. Most of the reason people are not rich is through their own choices and shortcomings.

https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/billionaires-self-made

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/markets/markets-news/Motley%20Fool/28196518/how-many-multimillionaires-are-self-made-the-answer-will-surprise-you/

Sid Farkas said:

---

Q for all the haters: Who is worse, Boomers or Isis?

---

We could probably give the devil himself some pointers

The only way to get what you want is by taking it from the young. The government doesn't have any money. Conservatives always seem to know this until it's money being taxed or printed to give to them.

It sucks. I get that. But the situation exists and the question is what is the best way to deal with it. "Best" is a value or moral judgment, which is why virtue (private and civic) comes into play.

Sid Farkas said:

---

Q for all the haters: Who is worse, Boomers or Isis?

---

I am not a "hater" of Boomers. Every generation made mistakes, Boomers did too.

Obvious answer is ISIS. Boomers were greedy, selfish and gullible. ISIS is pure evil.

matureag said:

---

"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."

Cannot prove otherwise, but I certainly would question this statement.

---

I am a rich who blames the rich.
Because the system is not fair and the poor have a really hard time even surviving, much less becoming "rich".

Zobel said:

---

The only way to get what you want is by taking it from the young. The government doesn't have any money. Conservatives always seem to know this until it's money being taxed or printed to give to them.

It sucks. I get that. But the situation exists and the question is what is the best way to deal with it. "Best" is a value or moral judgment, which is why virtue (private and civic) comes into play.

---

I still bet that even with all that virtue, both private and civic, you profess to possess that you still cash the check when you get it......

Peter Theil has a great critique / discussion about generational optimism in Zero to One.

summarizing a bit, but what he calls indefinite optimists believe the future will be better but lack a concrete vision or strategy for why. Instead they talk about abstract things like luck, trends, market growth, hard work, and diversification. He links this with some armchair psychology to boomers who were children and adolescents during what seemed like effortless post-WWII technological and economic progress which built a taken for granted expectation of improvement without individual or societal planning. When tech stalled in the 1970s, the elites who have an outsized impact on public narrative and policy continued to benefit by increasing divergence in outcomes between classes. since true progress requires deliberate design and risk taking execution (definite optimism, like Manhattan Project or Apollo - or Elon's companies!) this led to a kind of societal stagnation as long as stock market line go up continued. But indefinite optimism is incoherent and self-defeating, and leads to a hard status quo bias. Everything's been ok so far, why rock the boat? This worked for me, if it working for you, you're probably just not working hard enough, etc.

I think it's interesting that we seem to be in a pivotal period. people who can see these secular trends can because they're in between them. People firmly in one (boomers) or the other (gen Z) have almost different worldviews.

If you go back and reread this thread through this framework, you can kind of see his observations playing out.

Rattler12 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

The only way to get what you want is by taking it from the young. The government doesn't have any money. Conservatives always seem to know this until it's money being taxed or printed to give to them.

It sucks. I get that. But the situation exists and the question is what is the best way to deal with it. "Best" is a value or moral judgment, which is why virtue (private and civic) comes into play.

---

I still bet that even with all that virtue, both private and civic, you profess to possess that you still cash the check when you get it......

---

We've established im a selfish, condescending, arrogant, hypocritical, virtueless sinner. I'm trying to get better.

infinity ag said:

---

Sid Farkas said:

---

Q for all the haters: Who is worse, Boomers or Isis?

---

I am not a "hater" of Boomers. Every generation made mistakes, Boomers did too.

Obvious answer is ISIS. Boomers were greedy, selfish and gullible. ISIS is pure evil.

---

Xers are greedy, selfish and gullible

Millennials are greedy, selfish and gullible

Z's are greedy, selfish and gullible

Zobel said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

The only way to get what you want is by taking it from the young. The government doesn't have any money. Conservatives always seem to know this until it's money being taxed or printed to give to them.

It sucks. I get that. But the situation exists and the question is what is the best way to deal with it. "Best" is a value or moral judgment, which is why virtue (private and civic) comes into play.

---

I still bet that even with all that virtue, both private and civic, you profess to possess that you still cash the check when you get it......

---

We've established im a selfish, condescending, arrogant, hypocritical, virtueless sinner. I'm trying to get better.

---

You forgot obstinate.......

Zobel said:

---

The only way to get what you want is by taking it from the young. The government doesn't have any money. Conservatives always seem to know this until it's money being taxed or printed to give to them.

It sucks. I get that. But the situation exists and the question is what is the best way to deal with it. "Best" is a value or moral judgment, which is why virtue (private and civic) comes into play.

---

Get what I want ??????

No, get what I'm owed which is money I and millions of others were forced to pay in.

So using your logic, its okay if the "young' steal money I and others were FORCED to pay in ? You want to 'steal' from someone go take it from congress whom abused the fund and created this mess in the first place.

Sure, snarky too. And someone called me a liar who is just trying to sow intergenerational dissent, or something similar. That one was pretty cool.

Don't have to take it from the young. Can do a phase out. This isn't theoretical quantum math. We have all the inputs and outputs with a good estimate on a defined end date.

Totally solvable. There might be a little bit of a haircut some take somewhere in the transition, but it's the easiest way to retire SS and can be done.

ttu_85 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

The only way to get what you want is by taking it from the young. The government doesn't have any money. Conservatives always seem to know this until it's money being taxed or printed to give to them.

It sucks. I get that. But the situation exists and the question is what is the best way to deal with it. "Best" is a value or moral judgment, which is why virtue (private and civic) comes into play.

---

Get what I want ??????

No, get what I'm owed which is money I and millions of others were forced to pay in.

So using your logic, its okay if the "young' steal money I and others were FORCED to pay in ? You want to 'steal' from someone go take it from congress whom abused the fund and created this mess in the first place.

---

Yes, if what you want is to be paid what you think you are owed, the only way to do that is to take it from the young, either through deficit spending/ inflation or increased taxation.

Legally you're not owed anything. The law doesn't actually promise any future benefits or a right or obligation on the part of the government - Supreme Court law settled this in Flemming vs Nestor in 1962.

SS doesn't have enough money to actually pay out what you paid in. It's a pay as you go system. At current rates there's enough to go on for another 7-8 years, then without intervention benefits get a 20-25% haircut. In current dollars there's enough to give every retiree a one time $44k payout.

I don't understand this kind of infantile view. "Congress" doesn't have money. The money comes from the citizens. The only way for you to get paid is by tax revenue or deficit spending. So this is poses a kind of moral question. There is an injustice guaranteed. What's the greater injustice? Reducing benefits for those who already paid? Or forcing people to continue to pay into a known broken system? I fall on the side that the latter is worse. I'm in the middle, age-wise. Hence my position that people my age (40s) should be willing to pay to keep it from going over the cliff and not receive any benefits. We should also cut benefits for the same reason. And sunset the program altogether to avoid tying it around our children's necks.

Quote:

---

greedy, selfish and gullible

---

You don't know me.

Deal with your fear of the future in a more constructive way. It'll make you a good person.

YouBet said:

---

Don't have to take it from the young. Can do a phase out. This isn't theoretical quantum math. We have all the inputs and outputs with a good estimate on a defined end date.

Totally solvable. There might be a little bit of a haircut some take somewhere in the transition, but it's the easiest way to retire SS and can be done.

---

You've said this a couple of times but I genuinely don't understand what you're proposing - if I do understand it, then I don't think it works.

With the amount coming in, we have a shortfall of around 23% starting around 2033. From the on every single dollar that goes out is being sourced from current taxes, there's no buffer or accumulated money left. So any cuts you make on the input side make this worse, not better. You *have* to take from current workers to pay it.

How do you see this? Where are we misaligned?

Zobel said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Don't have to take it from the young. Can do a phase out. This isn't theoretical quantum math. We have all the inputs and outputs with a good estimate on a defined end date.

Totally solvable. There might be a little bit of a haircut some take somewhere in the transition, but it's the easiest way to retire SS and can be done.

---

You've said this a couple of times but I genuinely don't understand what you're proposing - if I do understand it, then I don't think it works.

With the amount coming in, we have a shortfall of around 23% starting around 2033. From the on every single dollar that goes out is being sourced from current taxes, there's no buffer or accumulated money left. So any cuts you make on the input side make this worse, not better. You *have* to take from current workers to pay it.

How do you see this? Where are we misaligned?

---

I too would be curious to see the math behind a painless phase out with a "little haircut". Absent some external changes (e.g. economic boom from AI), I don't see any way to avoid hyperinflation and rising tax rates.