We have no idea of what will be available in 2033 to pay SS recipients.
Posted on 12/16/2013 6:20:55 AM PST by Kaslin
Do you recall that this was exactly what President Bush wanted? He was ridiculed by the rats and by some in here
And if they don't? The author said it himself, fewer than half participate in the programs currently available and fewer that a third of Hispanics. Why should we believe the percentages will go up if you eliminate Social Security? What do you do with them when they hit retirement and have nothing? Or what if they become disabled? Or die? Do you cast them or their widows and orphans out onto the street for lack of income?
Never heard of her...sounds like a comic strip figure LOL
THEY WILL, “NATIONALIZE” ALL RETIREMENT FUNDS TO, “EQUALIZE”
BENEFITS.
I’m not flaming, perhaps (you have stolen my often-used sign-off, Flame away,” BTW”), but if people are too stupid to take care of themselves I just can’t get behind the idea that the fruits of MY labor need to be taken at the point of a gun for their benefit.
This idea that we need a Federal/national whatever to achieve some “social good” is a crock, a fundamental crock, and the obvious ruination of this once great, once Constitutionally-based country. It is Socialist/Communist/Marxist in its basic assumptions, and - I’m afraid - in the totalitarian measures that are ultimately used to enforce such schemes.
Download a PDF of “None Dare Call IT Conspiracy” - written 1972! - to get some understanding what’s going on here. And keep your hands out of my pocket!
Inflation will eat it up...............
it’s not just your retirement they are after:
Some 55- to 64-year-olds, who may have taken early retirement or who were laid off during the recession, have found themselves plunged into a low-income bracket. Unlike Medicaid recipients in the past — who were required to reduce their assets to qualify — they’re more likely to have a home or other assets.
For health coverage through Medicaid, income is now the only financial requirement.
At first, Prins was pleased at the prospect of free coverage.
BUT the more she thought about the fine print, the more upset she got. Why was this provision ONLY for people age 55 and older? Why should those insured by Medicaid have to pay back health expenses from their estates when people with just a bit more income who get federal subsidies don’t? Why didn’t she and Balhorn know about this before getting to the application stage?
As Prins began searching for answers, she found that even those trained to help people sign up for insurance under the ACA weren’t aware of this provision, nor were some government officials. In short; if you are over 55, and cannot afford health insurance; the government forces you onto Medicaid, then if you have acquired any real property in your lifetime, when you die the government gets it.
Gee; I wonder what they will do with it?
You’re right. Star Parker, Sparkle Plenty.
She’s a minority who spends more money on her elaborate hair adornment than on her social security payment.
You’re far from the first to post “flame away” when anticipating disagreement, so “stolen” is misapplied, just as it is in the instance of a pension. “Stolen” is also misapplied when referring to Social Security. There always have been more benefits paid out to beneficiaries than paid in. Problem is, there are quite a few people who will become a burden on the state without it, it’s all they have. I’m not on board with throwing them out into the street, many who own their homes and have been responsible. Some people just don’t make that much money, and saving anything above what was taken from them has not been possible. There are many, many people who are no financial genius and to pretend that there aren’t is foolhardy. The nation and the people need some assurance of a means of support in their old age. The existing scheme has been bastardized and used to pay for every leftist pipedream to come down the pike. That’s been the problem. Social Darwinism and throwing elderly out into the street is not the answer and it won’t fly politically.
She's not an idiot.
Jesus Christ: You can’t impeach Him and He ain’t going to resign.
Give the option to everyone.
Yes but early death hits minorities and the poor hardest.
SS is not actuarially sound. It is a Ponzi scheme. It has nothing to do with government spending. SS has been running in the red, i.e., benefits paid out exceed the revenue taken in since 2010 and will continue to do so indefinitely until the SSTF is exhausted in 2033. Then benefits will have to be reduced by law to only the amount of revenue received.
Not so. SS used to be a cash cow taking in more in revenue than it paid out in benefits. It is the reason why the excess was put into the SSTF in the form of interest bearing, non-market T-bills, which now total around $2.4 trillion.
In the early 1980s, SS went into the red, i.e., benefits exceeded revenue. It resulted in the Faustian bargain between Reagan and Tip O'Neil that increased taxes and reduced benefits, including raising the retirement age for full benefits from 65 to 67. They also forced all new hire federal employees into SS.
Now SS is costing us money as the General Fund must redeem T-bills from the SSTF to make up the shortfall.
Source: CBO “Combined OASDI Trust Funds; January 2011 Baseline” 26 Jan 2011.
Note: See “Primary Surplus” line (which is negative, indicating a deficit)
Social Security has passed a tipping point. For years it generated more revenue than it consumed, holding down the overall federal deficit and allowing Congress to spend more freely for other things. But those days are gone. Rather than lessening the federal deficit, Social Security has at last — as long predicted — become a drag on the government’s overall finances.
Sadly, my experience with people in this boat is, that most of them are simply too financially illiterate to pick even the most basic indexed mutual fund. Consistent and persistent investment produces the best nest egg, and workers in temp jobs, and jobs subject to frequent layoffs don't help. These are people living hand-to-mouth, and their "golden parachute" arrives when they receive their annual income tax refund.
That said, there may be "up-and-comers" in this category, maybe those in school, or just starting a business. Their incomes may be temporarily smallish, but they'll go on to bigger and better things.
Re-read my sentence. Recipients have always received more benefits than paid in. Recipients, not Social Security as a whole.
Have you ever met and gotten to know “poor” people? It is a condition that cannot be fixed with money. It is a mindset that MUST be changed. Not to mention Jesus told us “The poor will always be with you”.
I have never been in support of this ponzi sceme we call Social Security. I would like to not pay into it and send the money straight to my own relatives, or whomever I want to aid, or invest for myself, BUT POOR PEOPLE will spend EVERYTHING they get before they put a dime into any savings or investment. It has to be done for them. That is why Socialism exists, it’s for losers, poor people. They already “settle” for being poor, and will adjust to the cut in income, by settling for lesser living conditions. The better off than poor people make similar adjustments to changes in their income too. It’s all relative.
Besides all that, what’s wrong with working the rest of your life? That’s my plan, as I know better than to think I would be happy not working, and settling for what SS can send me, hoping I don’t outlive the money I’ve saved or invested. I just take more time off now that I have the chance, and that has come about by planning and acting. Why wait until I’m in my sixties to go fishing and hunting more, or visiting my friends and relatives while we’re still young enough to do fun things together?
The democrats have taken $13.4T out of Social Security and spent it on pork. JFK was the first to break open the piggy bank hand help himself.
I re-read it and it still is ambiguous as to whether you are talking about the SS system as a whole or the individual. In the preceding sentence, you are talking about the system as a whole.
Recipients have always received more benefits than paid in. Recipients, not Social Security as a whole.
Always? You can pay into SS for 50 years and die a month after you start receiving benefits. Yes, most people do receive more in benefits than they contributed even counting the employer's contribution. But it is not always the case, which is why SS is insurance not a real pension plan nor is it part of your estate.
The individual contributions don't belong to you--they become the property of the government, which can revise and change the benefits according to SCOUTS (Nestor vs Flemming)
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.