Posted on 12/09/2010 7:52:47 AM PST by SeekAndFind
40% of every dollar government spends is borrowed. The debt is immense, not just the deficit. We will have to cut every program to survive. The era of delaying judgment day has passed. The only remaining issue is whether we survive as a free society by facing the challenge and reducing the size of government or whether we attempt to buy some security by giving up our freedom (and we will fail in both with that path, and have neither security or freedom).
My answer: sounds like a great idea — lets see, decades of work life and contributing into the system, times the typical deduction plus employer match, plus interest and inflation adjustment.... ~$500 grand should just about cover it. Now pay up and I'll opt out.
RE: ~$500 grand should just about cover it. Now pay up and I’ll opt out.
Left response: “Give us a few moments to call Helicopter Ben, he’ll print the money for you.”
Many things in life are a ponzi scheme one way or another. Unless we are all prepared to take in and care for our elderly family members, it is probably a good thing Social Security is there. Not that reforms are not needed as like all gov programs, SS does much more than retiree benefits and imho it shouldn’t.
I want it in gold, then! A few bricks from Fort Knox should do it.
for 40 years SS sucked. Now that I’m getting close ? different story... :)
The issue: it is how it was mismanaged and false promises (dare I say lies).
And the government continues with the lies and they force very similar programs down the throats of Americans — Obamacare.
****Social Security is irreversibly insolvent. In 1950, the worker-to-beneficiary ratio was 16.5 to 1. In 2010, that ratio is almost 2 to 1.****
Nonsense. Here is proof from 1964! You SO trust your government, don’t you? ;-D
http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssa/usa1964-2.html
Self-Supporting
“The program is designed so that contributions plus interest on the investments of the social security trust funds will be sufficient to meet all of the costs of benefits and administration, now and into the indefinite future—without any subsidy from the general funds of the Government. Both the Congress and the Executive Branch, regardless of political party in power, have scrupulously provided in advance for full financing of all liberalizations in the program.”
And here is where your money goes! Read and Weep!
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html#n4
Riddle me this: what happens when SS goes to 1:2? That is, once each working person supports two retired parents. How does first giving the money to the Feds, who then distribute it to your parents (after first taking their cut of around 50% or so for "expenses"), work better?
And they were "going to pay it all back, too." All of it.
And you are probably not old enough yet to have dealt with aged parents and the reason it would go to 1:2 is the me-me-me generations not taking time to raise families and in that, they will reap what they have sewn.
****In 1950, the worker-to-beneficiary ratio was 16.5 to 1. In 2010, that ratio is almost 2 to 1.****
So if you have twenty million retirees you must also have 40 million workers supporting them.
And when those 40 million retire they must have 80 million new workers supporting them.
And when those 80 million retire they must have 160 million new workers supporting them.
And when those 160 million retire they must have 320 million workers supporting them.
And when those 320 million retire they must have 640 million workers supporting them!
And when those 640 million retire you must have 1 billion 280 million workers supporting them.
No wonder the Gov’t wants more imigration!
It can not be substained and will collapse.
Try this. Take a calender. Put one grain of rice on “day 1” (The retiree).
Put two grains on “day 2” (The workers).
4 grains on “day 3”.
8 grains on “day 4”.
16 on “day 5”.
How many grains of rice will you have on “day 31” (workers supporting the retirees on day 30)?
Ignores inflation, but it is better than nothing.
Lemme guess... administrative costs are too high... in addition to the continual raiding of the money from the fund.
Referring to your example, that is why the retirement age needs to float upwards, although that won’t be popular. Life expectancy has increased and in theory so has the productive life span. SS also needs to be returned to a supplemental level of income rather than a primary one for retirees, but that part cannot be done overnight. It would also help if the masses had access to better paying jobs, but that’s an issue for another thread, I’m sure.
***How about just a 1 to 1 — I put in x dollars, I get x dollars back. SS can’t even survive with this model.****
How about this... You pay in all your working life. At 70 years of age you can retire FOR 5 YEARS, then you must be interned to be processed into a little green protein cracker to help feed the younger generation. ;-D
We can call this program Soylent Security.
Scary, but maybe half true. Heard that when they created SS and set the 65 year retirement age, the life expectancy was less than 65 years. So, they were hoping that people would die before they were able to draw from it. “Unfortunately,” we are living longer than we should.
The scary question is: “what will they do.” Severely restrict the plan, continue to the push retirement age out, higher taxes, a lot higher inheritance taxes,... death panels.... etc., all with the efficiency of the DMV.
That is correct.
That is what they will do and more... Read about organ harvester in NY already. Ready to rip out your organs so that the medical types can at least make more money.
The Government lied, and Grandma is going to be murdered.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.