Posted on 09/10/2011 5:52:02 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Ontap and Triumphant Values, let me get in the middle of this inter-generational fight and refer back to my Post 46.
You are both right and you are both wrong.
Triumphant Values, rightly or wrongly, today's retired seniors were led to believe that Social Security would be there in their old age. Right now, they depend on it and, as ontap said, the check comes every month. That is reality and, if you expect millions of senior voters to vote to abolish the monthly check they need to survive, you are not dealing with reality.
Ontap, no, the younger workers will not "enjoy it when their time comes". The system is unsustainable and will have gone broke by the time they retire. When Social Security was instituted, the percentage of males surviving from age 21 to age 65 was less than 54%. In 1990, the percentage of males surviving from age 21 to age 65 was greater than 72%. In the early 20th Century, Americans had large families and there were lots of young workers to support a few older citizens. Today, families are quite small, seniors live far longer and there are far fewer younger workers to support far more older citizens who live far longer.
So, no, Triumphant Values will never enjoy the Social Security benefits you have now when he retires. By the time he retires, the Ponzi Scheme will have collapsed.
I am retired right now, too, but I am in my mid-fifties. I do not get a single dollar in Social Security and I planned my life as if I never would. I worked hard, lived frugally, saved a lot and I now still live frugally off of my own savings.
The money that I saved for retirement was MY money and not money that I have to depend upon some unknown young worker to earn.
Right now, Triumphant Values Social Security taxes are spent on Obama's "stimulus" boondoggles and he is promised that, when he is your age, some young worker, yet unborn, will be there to earn the money for a check like you get right now ...... But the demographics make that a lie.
As my Post 46 said, today's seniors need to be assured that their monthly checks are safe. They depend on them.
However, the younger workers need to be protected by some kind of reform. Right now, they are the pigeons of the Ponzi Scheme. They get to pay into the Ponzi scheme today but the Ponzi Scheme will be broke long before they ever get a dollar back.
The solution may be the "Chilean Model" or Government discipline, or a combination or more incentives for private retirement savings, etc., etc.
Reforming Social Security to save it in the future does not mean killing it now.
Fact is I said the same thing when I was younger. Of course it neeeds to be reformed but his idea of reform is to find some mystical court ruling and just end it. Face it the damn thing is what it is but millions of people played by the rules. In real money the people retiring today are getting the shaft if you compare it to the people of our parents generation. We are to old to participate in any new plan . We and the present taxpayers are stuck with what we have. The thing can be fixed but probably not to everyones satifaction.It is what it is!!!
I am retired right now, too, but I am in my mid-fifties. I do not get a single dollar in Social Security and I planned my life as if I never would. I worked hard, lived frugally, saved a lot and I now still live frugally off of my own savings.
Are you saying when you hit 62 your going to waive your benfits!!!
I would love to hear those who don't think SSI is a Ponzi Scheme defend and explain just what it is, what condition it is in and if broken, how they would fix it.
I would love to hear those who don't think SSI is a Ponzi Scheme defend and explain just what it is, what condition it is in and if broken, how they would fix it.
The “premiums” had to be changed to “tax” in order to pass constitutionality as well as the purpose being for the general welfare. It was conceived by an insurance man who happened to be a republican. Hence it was set up similar to the way Insurance companies operate.
However, an Insurance company would have adjusted the policy each year to reflect the reality of the claims experience, which the government doesn't. In addition, over the years, it has become considered a retirement system.
Well, it was not intended to be a retirement system, and was not set up that way. If it is to continue as Insurance, then the age to be eligible for benefits needs to be changed to reflect the improvement in longevity.
If we want it to be a retirement system, then a major overhaul is needed, and some sort of orderly transition which does not adversely impact those already drawing benefits or those too close to retirement.
Reality is that most people will not vote for someone who is going to eliminate a check they depend on, and send them out to seek some sort of work at age 70 or 80 when the economy is so bad that younger people are having difficulty finding work.
In fact, one of the supposed benefits to society when it was passed, was that taking older people off the payroll helped the younger workers get jobs, and the companies, since they could hire replacement workers at lower wages in many cases.
I don’t doubt that there will be policy speeches coming soon.
Fact is I said the same thing when I was younger. .... ontap
And the fact is that you were correct to be thinking along those lines. Here you are, today, with the U.S. Government credit down-graded for the first time in U.S. history, U.S. debt surpassed 100% of the entire U.S. GDP in August and the Young Turks, such as Triumphant Values, are revolting.
Since you are now collecting Social Security, you are approximately 10 years older than I am, at least. As things stand now, you may be a member of the last generational cohort to get regular checks before the USS Social Security sinks.
Of course it neeeds to be reformed but his idea of reform is to find some mystical court ruling and just end it.
"Just eding it" is crazy. Any politician that advocates that is dead meat. As the video posted by Cincinatus' Wife on Post 51 shows, Perry never suggested such a thing.
Face it the damn thing is what it is but millions of people played by the rules. In real money the people retiring today are getting the shaft if you compare it to the people of our parents generation.
That dovetails exactly with what I wrote in my Post 46. You can't change the rules for current seniors after they played by the rules. They need to know that the Social Security checks they depend on will still be there. The fact that each generation gets less and less and less, however, is due to the fact that it is structured as a Ponzi Scheme where the earlier participants earn big and the later participants get the shaft.
We are to old to participate in any new plan . We and the present taxpayers are stuck with what we have.
I agree with you 100%. That was my point in Post 46.
The current recipients are, no pun intended, "grandfathered in". That is the way it has always been which is how the Social Security "Doughnut Hole" came about with some younger seniors getting less benefits than some older seniors.
I am retired right now, too, but I am in my mid-fifties. I do not get a single dollar in Social Security and I planned my life as if I never would. I worked hard, lived frugally, saved a lot and I now still live frugally off of my own savings. .... Polybius
Are you saying when you hit 62 your going to waive your benfits!!! ..... ontap
Probably. I will have plenty of money left in my private retirement savings when I am 62 and may postpone receiving benefits until age 70 as allowed by the current rules.
That is assuming that Social Security will be there when I am 70 or may drastically change before I get to 70. I still have a while to decide, based on how the situation is in the future.
The bottom line is that, if Social Security is still around, I will do just fine and, if Social Security goes belly up, I will do just fine.
The bottom line is that, if the Young Turk Revolt fails, I will do just fine and, if the Young Turk Revolt succeeds, I will do just fine.
The bottom line is that, I, not the U.S. Government and not the Young Turks, will be in control my financial well being 10 years from now.
I am not refering to Rick Perry!!!
Sorry wrong post!! As I was trying to post I was not refering to Rick Perry!!
Oh, I see. The Young Turk was on a rampage and you were responding to him. :-)
Well, like I said, he's wrong on that.
The system was established 76 years ago, before we were ever born, and you can't abolish the system after a currently retired person depended on those rules for retirement planing. The present recipients must be "gradfathered in".
End of story.
That is just political reality.
I knew what you meant when you first posted it. Forget about the spinners.
"And then suddenly when it comes to older people and SS everyone is supposed to suddenly be polite, hush hush, and mind their Ps and Qs. "And perhaps we should apply a different standard to the older people who have been producers all of their adult lives, our veterans and the disabled. Definitely hold them to a different set of expectations, than able-bodied adults of the feral urban persuasion.
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.