Tea Party said:

---

How selfish and way to screw over their kids and grandkids generations.

For how great out culture is as a whole and our idea of governing system, we sure do have some serious warts within our culture.

---

I think the bigger issue is a growing % of younger people simply wasting college degrees and not having a good paying job to show for it. Anecdotal but the social media youth don't have the drive the older generation had.

tamufan said:

---

Regarding some of the discussion of the government's "promise" of social security benefits...

The Supreme Court case that established Social Security is not an accrued property right or individual asset is Flemming v. Nestor (1960). The Court ruled that workers do not have a legally binding contractual or property right to their benefits, meaning Congress can alter or eliminate them at any time.
The landmark ruling clarified several core concepts regarding Social Security:

• No Contractual Right: Paying payroll taxes does not equate to purchasing an annuity or a private insurance contract.
• Not an Individual Asset: Because the funds do not belong to you as individual property, Congress has the authority to change the rules, adjust retirement ages, or even stop payments to certain individuals (such as those deported for specific offenses).
• Social Welfare: The Court defined the system as a form of social insurance and public welfare, rather than a personal trust or savings account.
• You can read the full decision directly via the Social Security Administration Flemming v. Nestor Historical Page

---

True, constitutionally Congress could just stop SS.

Most of the country views SS as a commitment from the government to pay because they've been paying so long for themselves. So, Congress use going renege. Ever.

As they shouldn't.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

No. The Boomers have enough accumulated wealth already. Cut current benefits to make like easier for workers.

---

What's stopping you from accumulating wealth? Who are you to determine who does and doesn't have enough wealth?

"Boomers" aren't but 1/3 of the voting populace and shrinking fast. What's the other 2/3 doing other than whining?

I have heard there are behind-closed-door bipartisan meetings going on in which extending or eliminating the taxable max couple with a new 'bend point' in the benefit formula which would be at a very low benefit rate such as 1 or 2%. No idea if this is getting very far behind the discussion stage. This will be another added tax on high income earners with a transfer to lower income workers (by allowing social security to keep its promises.)

Current bend points for AIME (average indexed monthly earnings from work history/taxes paid):
0-$1,286 -- 90%
$1,286-$7,749 -- 32%
$7,749 - $13,925 -- 15%
$13,925 is highest AIME based on hitting taxable max for 35 years and retiring at 67.

Benefits at these bendpoints
$1,286 -- $1,157/month, 90% of AIME
$7,749 -- $3,225/month, or 42% of AIME
$13,925 -- $4,151/month, or 30% of AIME

The rumored proposal would add a new bendpoint, say at $13,925
0-$1,286 -- 90%
$1,286-$7,749 -- 32%
$7,749 - $13,925 -- 15%
>$13,925 -- 2% (?)

A person with AIME under this proposal of, say, $30,000 per month, would get a benefit of $4,472 per month, or just under 15% of the hypothetical $30,000 of AIME. So that person would pay 12.5% of income on the additional $16,000 of monthly earnings for 35 years in order to get an additional $321 per month. Making a bad deal worse for them. But, this would be going a long way to restoring fiscal stability to social security. Another added layer of redistribution.

Coincidentally I support revoking voting rights at 85.

pacecar02 said:

---

yeah, we were big on math


I guess you missed those classes

---

I have a minor in it and work in Finance. Try again.

Dispel the "you're acting like a drama queen".

Fitch said:

---

Coincidentally I support revoking voting rights at 85.

---

Why. We all vote our personal interest.

Fitch said:

---

Coincidentally I support revoking voting rights at 85.

---

I disagree, with age usually comes wisdom. That said, I would approve of raising the voting age to 25. Too many morans without a developed frontal cortex. Not all, but too many. But while I am dreaming, I also think we need the SAFE Act, randomized basic civics tests to vote, be a net positive tax payer, and other efforts to limit the franchise to contributing, rational, citizens.

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

Fitch said:

---

Coincidentally I support revoking voting rights at 85.

---

I disagree, with age usually comes wisdom. That said, I would approve of raising the voting age to 25. Too many morans without a developed frontal cortex. Not all, but too many. But while I am dreaming, I also think we need the SAFE Act, randomized basic civics tests to vote, be a net positive tax payer, and other efforts to limit the franchise to contributing, rational, citizens.

---

Taxation without representation, you say? Bold move to prop up the gerontocracy....

If you're old enough to die for your country then you damn sure deserve a vote.

Besides, I don't know if an argument regarding mental capacity holds up when comparing the 85 to the 18. Hell, dementia typically begins at 65

I'm of the opinion that we continue social security for folks 30 and over, even if it means getting creative with funding. But going forward, allow people to invest their money as the see fit in a retirement account

It always interests me when people parrot the "the younger generation is lazy/can't work an actual job" lie, as though every factory, mine, plant, oil rig, etc. is fully staffed by senior citizens.

I heard they raised enlistment eligibility for the Marines to 75 because gosh darn it young people just don't have what it takes.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

No. The Boomers have enough accumulated wealth already. Cut current benefits to make like easier for workers.

---

Spoken like a true Marxist

McNasty said:

---

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

Fitch said:

---

Coincidentally I support revoking voting rights at 85.

---

I disagree, with age usually comes wisdom. That said, I would approve of raising the voting age to 25. Too many morans without a developed frontal cortex. Not all, but too many. But while I am dreaming, I also think we need the SAFE Act, randomized basic civics tests to vote, be a net positive tax payer, and other efforts to limit the franchise to contributing, rational, citizens.

---

Taxation without representation, you say? Bold move to prop up the gerontocracy....

---

How about the following
- people over 85 pay zero federal taxes
- people over 85 can't vote

I'd be fine with that!!!!

I learned on here that payments are already means tested, so I guess this is just another tactic there.

I would be shocked if they simply don't raise the income cap on SS taxes. That's the easiest change to make procedurally and with the rise of the communists in this country it will be an easy message to get the bottom half of the country on board who already pay nothing in income tax.

The burden will continue to be pushed onto those who actually pay taxes - the upper middle class and the rich.

Science Denier said:

---

McNasty said:

---

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

Fitch said:

---

Coincidentally I support revoking voting rights at 85.

---

I disagree, with age usually comes wisdom. That said, I would approve of raising the voting age to 25. Too many morans without a developed frontal cortex. Not all, but too many. But while I am dreaming, I also think we need the SAFE Act, randomized basic civics tests to vote, be a net positive tax payer, and other efforts to limit the franchise to contributing, rational, citizens.

---

Taxation without representation, you say? Bold move to prop up the gerontocracy....

---

How about the following
- people over 85 pay zero federal taxes
- people over 85 can't vote

I'd be fine with that!!!!

---

Good with that too. I'm being somewhat facetious but in general support the idea that if you're not actively contributing to the prosperity of the country via children or production, the system shouldn't allow you to vote yourself more entitlements by mortgaging the future of those who are positively contributing.

McNasty said:

---

Increase the age limit and add means testing so we don't have people using SS to gold plate their early retirement. It is completely unfair to saddle those of us still producing with higher taxes, no hope for SS ourselves, and a ballooning debt. But boomers will get theirs, regardless of the burden left to their kids and grandkids. I suspect their belief is that they will have more money to leave to their heirs, so at least the only ones they truly care about will be fine.

---

I see means testing discussed a lot. Explain to me how you expect to do that. You can…
1) Net Worth.
Have the feds determine net worth of every retired person in America. Give them access and knowledge of every bank account, retirement account, investment account, vintage car collection, art, jewelry, gold bars in the basement, cash under the mattress and beanie baby collection. Every year. Good luck with the legality of that. Plus, whatever they do get access to, people will just move it.
2) Tax returns.
When people retire, it's very easy to show little to no income and still be well off. Nobody would put money in traditional IRA's anymore, it would all go into Roth and after tax accounts. And if you think Roth conversions are popular now, wait till people are told their SS will be taken away if they show too much taxable income when they retire.

So explain to me how they are going to means test. I'm curious.

Fitch said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

McNasty said:

---

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

Fitch said:

---

Coincidentally I support revoking voting rights at 85.

---

I disagree, with age usually comes wisdom. That said, I would approve of raising the voting age to 25. Too many morans without a developed frontal cortex. Not all, but too many. But while I am dreaming, I also think we need the SAFE Act, randomized basic civics tests to vote, be a net positive tax payer, and other efforts to limit the franchise to contributing, rational, citizens.

---

Taxation without representation, you say? Bold move to prop up the gerontocracy....

---

How about the following
- people over 85 pay zero federal taxes
- people over 85 can't vote

I'd be fine with that!!!!

---

Good with that too. I'm being somewhat facetious but in general support the idea that if you're not actively contributing to the prosperity of the country via children or production, the system shouldn't allow you to vote yourself more entitlements by mortgaging the future of those who are positively contributing.

---

I have a simpler solution: follow the Constitution, which doesn't empower the government to create entitlements to or from anyone. It's not yours (FedGov) to give.
https://fee.org/resources/not-your-to-give/