Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Graham: Reduce benefits for wealthy seniors
Charleston City Paper ^ | 2011-01-02 | Greg Hambrick

Posted on 01/02/2011 10:24:47 AM PST by rabscuttle385

Seniors should be older before the receive Social Security and wealthy Americans should receive less benefits across the board, says Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

He made the argument in an interview on Sunday's Meet the Press, but it's a position Graham has advocated for on the stump in South Carolina, including a 2009 stop at The Citadel with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

"What I'm going to do is challenge this country to make some hard decisions," Graham said at the time, telling the crowd of cadets, Tea Partiers, and Graham supporters that they shouldn't give Congress a pass on the tough stuff.

(Excerpt) Read more at charlestoncitypaper.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; US: South Carolina
KEYWORDS: 0pansification; 0pansy; 0ponzi; 112th; doasisaynotasido; fascism; greeniguana; lindseygraham; linseedgrahamnesty; mcbama; mccaintruthfile; mclame; mclamesbff; mclameslapdog; mclamespoodle; mcqueeg; medicare; metrosexual; rino; socialinsecurity; socialism; socialist; socialsecurity; southcarolina; spain4just75000day; wagyabeef4only100lb
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 551-600601-650651-700701-730 next last
To: ex 98C MI Dude
What surprises me the most is how much people believe they have contributed over the years.

I know exactly how much money I have contributed over the years.

It isn't as much as they think.

You apparently don't understand the time value of money.

If I give you $10,000 today, I'm going to expect more than $10,000 in return, 30 years from now. Otherwise, I've given you an interest-free loan.

I've done the same calculations as you have, but I've also accounted for the average long term Treasury bond rates over that period. If you were born in 1955, started work at 21 and worked until 62, a conservative estimate would be that you'd have over $2,000,000 in the bank if you had invested what was forcibly taken into US Treasury bonds.

In order to exhaust that amount with the currently legislated benefits, you'd have to live past about age 120.

601 posted on 01/03/2011 9:19:45 AM PST by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good WOMAN (Sgt. Kimberly Munley) with a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 597 | View Replies]

To: meyer

>Bullsh*t. It’s enormous, but you want to take the easy way out - rob those that are paying for it rather than actually investigate and prosecute fraud.

You got proof? I’m basing my case on the fact that every time they make claims about the huge amount of money recoverable from fraud, they actually do the investigations and recover diddly squat and save about nothing. Do you have some magical senses which reveal it all to you so you can ferret it all out and save us? If so, by all means proceed. Meanwhile back in reality, we’ll try addressing the problems with real solutions.

>Maybe we can pull the money out of the same orifice that you’re extracting your figures. Wash mine first, please.

About the only money you will be able to expect is BS dollars since the bond markets are already considering lowering the status of T Bills, and when that happens interest rates will get ugly, and the cost of the debt will explode.


602 posted on 01/03/2011 9:20:28 AM PST by drbuzzard (different league)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 595 | View Replies]

To: meyer; wagglebee; trisham; BykrBayb; little jeremiah; DJ MacWoW
Yes, we can certainly blame politicians. We can also blame the ADD/ADHD scammers and their statist enablers. We can blame those that didn't pay in but still collect. We can blame a lot of people but DON'T blame the people who, against their own will, had the money stolen from themselves and their employers over the years with the promise that they would have retirement income. They did not cause this mess.

Well said.

603 posted on 01/03/2011 9:21:39 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 585 | View Replies]

To: meyer
I used starting work at 18, ending at 65. The amount you can contribute is capped every year. Last few years contributions were capped at $6621.60. This year it is capped at $4485.60.

How did I figure out the $130,169.69 number? Taking max taxable income for that year and used the rate the ssa.gov showed for that year. Added the whole shooting match up for the last 45 years, and that is the absolute top of what someone, by law, could pay into the system. Any excess contributions are returned to the payer at the end of the tax year the overage occurred.

604 posted on 01/03/2011 9:24:21 AM PST by ex 98C MI Dude (Alea Iacta Est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 600 | View Replies]

To: ex 98C MI Dude
and that is the absolute top of what someone, by law, could pay into the system.

You forgot to add in the employer matching amounts.

605 posted on 01/03/2011 9:26:37 AM PST by SeeSac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 604 | View Replies]

To: justlurking

>I’ve done the same calculations as you have, but I’ve also accounted for the average long term Treasury bond rates over that period. If you were born in 1955, started work at 21 and worked until 62, a conservative estimate would be that you’d have over $2,000,000 in the bank if you had invested what was forcibly taken into US Treasury bonds.

So by virtue of making utterly specious assumptions (that you were investing), you come up with a nonsensical value. How useful.

What you paid in is a fixed amount. It has nothing to do with what that money might have been worth.


606 posted on 01/03/2011 9:27:03 AM PST by drbuzzard (different league)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 601 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

I don’t consider social security welfare an entitlement for those who paid into it. But many people didn’t from the poorest to the richest. The government used the contributions of those who paid into the general fund to wage wars, build roads, run the country and fund tax cuts. It was used to run the country just as income tax and now that the surplus is no longer contributing to the general fund they want to cut it. BS.

Those who live off investment income may have never never paid a dime into it, yet they were subsidized and benefited from social security. Why should a person who works at Wal-Mart be required to subsidize a billionaire hedge fund manager? The surplus should have been lockboxed for recipients. The fund would likely be solvent forever if that was the case.

But before they start cutting into social security we need to take care of the USA and ALL giveaways to other nations and start charging countries for our worldwide defense.


607 posted on 01/03/2011 9:27:31 AM PST by apoliticalone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac
As I have already posted up-thread, I am not in favor of means testing. It’s not too late to implement an across the board benefits cut of 25% and that’s what I endorse.

On that, we can agree. At least the means-testing portion. I had outlined other ideas for resolution earlier in the thread, but I've found myself fending off the "redistributionists" along the way. I endorse aligning the payout with what someone put in (possibly with interest) - no more, and no less.

In other words, if you and your employer put a total of $200,000 in, you benefit should be based on that amount as applied to an actuary table at the time of your retirement taking into account your age, adjusted downward an appropriate amount if you want a surviving spouse benefit. Likewise, if you only contributed (and I use that word loosely) $20,000 over your working years, you should receive a much smaller benefit to reflect your smaller contribution.

Matching benefit with contribution and adjusting for average expected longevity is what I would expect any conservative to seek, if not outright elimination of the program (which would have to occur over a time period, given that such a large population of people that DID pay in are now retired and collecting). What I would not expect to see is a "conservative" advocating eliminating benefits for those that paid in while maintaining benefits for the freeloading deadbeats that are dragging this program down in the first place.

Also, I'd advocate getting rid of the SSI and all the other non-retirement garbage. Or make it a separate program that isn't mandatory. I really don't relish paying a welfare mom because she could find a crooked doctor to prescribe Ritalin to her antsy youngster.

608 posted on 01/03/2011 9:28:21 AM PST by meyer (Obama - the Schwartz is with him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 598 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

First we need to get a new understanding for the meaning of such words as fair,equal,earned, you get the point?


609 posted on 01/03/2011 9:29:39 AM PST by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: apoliticalone

Correction: We need to start taking care of the USA first and END all giveaways to other nations, and start charging for the protection that our defense forces provide. Too many nations have lived fat and happy off our dole for too long


610 posted on 01/03/2011 9:30:59 AM PST by apoliticalone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 607 | View Replies]

To: metmom
There is no point using the word "blame" in any discussion of this issue. It's pointless, since no one's every going to be retroactively punished for their poor judgment.

We need to (without blaming anybody) look at the demographic and financial projections, understand what they are telling us, and then decide whether we want to:

(a) start taking the action to fix the problem now, or

(b) just let the engine run dry until it seizes up, and then start over again from square one.

If I consented to plan (b), then there would be some blame....my kids and grandkids would have every right to blame ME.

611 posted on 01/03/2011 9:31:30 AM PST by Notary Sojac (Imagine the parade to celebrate victory in the WoT. What security measures would we need??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 603 | View Replies]

To: justlurking
Its a tax, not an investment, and Uncle Sam isn't going to pay you interest on tax money.

Yeah, it would have been great if the government had allowed everyone to invest that cash instead of taking it. There would be a bunch of happy people right now, having turned that $130K into a real retirement portfolio. One that could have kept the owners in style in their golden years.

But the government had other plans. It took your money (and everyone else’s) and turned into a money losing proposition. A boondoggle on an epic scale.

612 posted on 01/03/2011 9:32:38 AM PST by ex 98C MI Dude (Alea Iacta Est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 601 | View Replies]

To: ex 98C MI Dude
How did I figure out the $130,169.69 number? Taking max taxable income for that year and used the rate the ssa.gov showed for that year. Added the whole shooting match up for the last 45 years, and that is the absolute top of what someone, by law, could pay into the system. Any excess contributions are returned to the payer at the end of the tax year the overage occurred.

What if you continue working to 70? Actually, my "age" isn't 65, it's 66 and 10 months due to the ratcheting up of the retirement age.

613 posted on 01/03/2011 9:34:40 AM PST by meyer (Obama - the Schwartz is with him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 604 | View Replies]

To: SeeSac
You are wrong about that.

If an employer matches 5% of your contribution, you can still, only meet the maximum. If Employer contributions exceed the max contribution allowed each individual, the money goes back to the employer.

An example of that is me; I contributed the maximum allowed of $22,000 off the top of my gross and the 5% Employer match had to be sent back to the employer in full. In fact, such programs reduce your 401K advantage because you cannot take as much off the gross income, which may put you into a higher bracket. The 5% employer contribution is added into the total each year, so you lose part of the advantage of a 401K.

614 posted on 01/03/2011 9:36:16 AM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP ( Give me Liberty, or give me an M-24A2!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 605 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Have him turn in his pension and just collect SS and we’ll see what he thinks...


615 posted on 01/03/2011 9:37:02 AM PST by b4its2late (Ignorance allows liberalism to prosper.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeeSac

Read the post again. You will find I did, and even added a little bit in the final figures. In 1984 there was a 0.3 percent rebate for the employee, making the effective rate 5.4%, not 5.7% like it was supposed to.


616 posted on 01/03/2011 9:37:45 AM PST by ex 98C MI Dude (Alea Iacta Est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 605 | View Replies]

To: meyer
I completely agree with getting rid of all the welfare accretions that have attached themselves to the SS system.

That may well be the easiest part of the fix.

My problem is with those Freepers who complain about those accretions in order to not confront the long-term demographic collapse of the core system.

617 posted on 01/03/2011 9:38:04 AM PST by Notary Sojac (Imagine the parade to celebrate victory in the WoT. What security measures would we need??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 608 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac

I have looked into the pure ‘welfare accretions’ (nice term), and while it seems hard to get a straight number on the cost of those, it does seem to be around 10% at most.


618 posted on 01/03/2011 9:40:20 AM PST by drbuzzard (different league)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 617 | View Replies]

To: meyer
If you keep working, you keep contributing. And they will start to take money back from you if you exceed the other cap they set... how much they ‘allow’ you to make while drawing SS.

And if you die the day before retirement, the government keeps the whole thing. They like when people do that. It is why SS retirement was set at 65. Half of the population was supposed to kick off before they reached that age, and most of the rest shortly after.

619 posted on 01/03/2011 9:43:16 AM PST by ex 98C MI Dude (Alea Iacta Est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 613 | View Replies]

To: SgtHooper

I certainly agree with you and your post was so well said. My husband is drawing ss now tho he is still working. I will be eligible in another year. I certainly hear the difference in arguments depending on the age of those debating this subject. You are right. The younger people make it sound as though we are taking from them and are leeches. They have no idea what it feels like to have paid into the system for a lifetime then be told you get nothing back possibly.


620 posted on 01/03/2011 9:45:05 AM PST by DallasSun (Courage~Fear that has said its prayers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 357 | View Replies]

To: SgtHooper

I certainly agree with you and your post was so well said. My husband is drawing ss now tho he is still working. I will be eligible in another year. I certainly hear the difference in arguments depending on the age of those debating this subject. You are right. The younger people make it sound as though we are taking from them and are leeches. They have no idea what it feels like to have paid into the system for a lifetime then be told you get nothing back possibly.


621 posted on 01/03/2011 9:45:18 AM PST by DallasSun (Courage~Fear that has said its prayers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 357 | View Replies]

To: drbuzzard
Ok, then please explain where that money is going to magically come from. You do realize that all government income is from current taxpayers right?

All government debt must eventually be paid by future taxpayers. I think that's obvious to most people, even if they don't want to admit it.

But, here's the problem: you are proposing that the burden of solution be imposed on a small set of people. You are belittling their claim of ownership without acknowledging that their claim really isn't any more valid than anyone else's.

Rather than insisting that those of us that acted responsibly in the past must now accept more responsibility (for the benefit of the deadbeats of all kinds), let's talk about who should share this sacrifice:

My point is that if sacrifice is to be made, it must be shared by everyone: not just the ones that are politically powerless to stop it. Otherwise, the proponents are nothing more than armed robbers using the federal government as the weapon.
622 posted on 01/03/2011 9:46:34 AM PST by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good WOMAN (Sgt. Kimberly Munley) with a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 572 | View Replies]

To: Lion Den Dan

Re: “Graham is a poster child for abortion. Why did his mama not do the right thing. I am anti abortion but in a few cases, exceptions should have been made.”

*************

Ha ha — I agree with you — there’s a line I’ve used on a few particularly obnoxious characters over time and it stops them cold: “The best answer to YOU (so and so), would’ve been abortion!”


623 posted on 01/03/2011 9:50:04 AM PST by CaliforniaCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: drbuzzard
So by virtue of making utterly specious assumptions (that you were investing), you come up with a nonsensical value. How useful.

I was starting to think that you might have a point. Now I know that you are just another asswipe.

What you paid in is a fixed amount. It has nothing to do with what that money might have been worth.

Money today has a future value, based on an expected rate of return. It is the basis of private annuity contracts.

Money in the past has a present value as well. But, it's easy to determine what it's worth, based on historical interest rates.

If you think money in the past isn't worth more, just try to explain that to the IRS. If they audit your return and assess you for back taxes, you'll also be assessed for interest, at the published annual rates. You might be able to get the penalties waived, but you'll still pay the interest.

If you fall behind on a loan or mortgage, the bank will do the same thing.

624 posted on 01/03/2011 9:52:39 AM PST by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good WOMAN (Sgt. Kimberly Munley) with a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 606 | View Replies]

To: ex 98C MI Dude

Just the contributions from 2000 to date are $125k.


625 posted on 01/03/2011 9:53:42 AM PST by SeeSac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 616 | View Replies]

To: freeangel

RE: “Here comes that “wealthy seniors”
thing again. Is a wealthy senior one that’s scrimped and saved their whole working life to put $500,000 into a retirement fund for themselves while the governmant gave away their tax money to those who have spent their entire lifetime on welfare?”

*************

Yep, you got that right! Those would be the ‘wealthy seniors’ in question!!! Save save save; then watch the govt. rip your savings away from you............ oh yeah, that’s just swell!


626 posted on 01/03/2011 9:54:25 AM PST by CaliforniaCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ex 98C MI Dude
Its a tax, not an investment, and Uncle Sam isn't going to pay you interest on tax money.

Look, you were the one that claimed that people were getting back more money than they put in. I simply pointed out the error(s) in your calculation.

Yeah, it would have been great if the government had allowed everyone to invest that cash instead of taking it. There would be a bunch of happy people right now, having turned that $130K into a real retirement portfolio. One that could have kept the owners in style in their golden years.

If you want to compare what someone put into Social Security to what they are receiving, then this is exactly how you have to evaluate it. The government doesn't loan money to you for free, and neither do you.

Try to tell the IRS that you don't owe interest on the back taxes after you are audited. You might be able to avoid the penalties, but you won't avoid the interest.

627 posted on 01/03/2011 9:57:15 AM PST by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good WOMAN (Sgt. Kimberly Munley) with a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 612 | View Replies]

To: DallasSun
The younger people make it sound as though we are taking from them and are leeches.

And that would be wrong. I've never called any SS or Medicare recipient a "leech" or anything similar.

Nevertheless, we have to face the facts that (1) the programs are unsustainable as currently structured, (2) there is not enough to cut in the rest of the Federal budget to remotely offset this problem, and (3) we can't just tax the next three generations for whatever it takes to keep the benefits flowing.

628 posted on 01/03/2011 9:58:11 AM PST by Notary Sojac (Imagine the parade to celebrate victory in the WoT. What security measures would we need??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 621 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Session’s maybe eight hours old and he already veers hard left?

Let’s start eliminating entire departments before we start hammering individuals some more.


629 posted on 01/03/2011 10:00:15 AM PST by RinaseaofDs (Does beheading qualify as 'breaking my back', in the Jeffersonian sense of the expression?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Way too many responses on this thread are knee-jerk “no.” When we talk about out-of-control spending, what the Hell do you think we’re talking about? One of the largest entitlement expenditures is benefits to seniors. How are we supposed to reduce the size of government without cutting spending on seniors? I don’t care what anyone on this thread says—today’s seniors did not pay for the benefits they are getting. And even if some did, why should some 20 year old making $10 per hour pay for a wealthy senior’s benefits? That is the very definition of generational theft.

We have been running a Ponzi scheme for years and now today’s seniors don’t want it to end because they’ll take a cut. Well, that just means young people will be totally screwed instead of just majorly screwed. The people who got the windfall are dead. You can’t dig them up and get the money back. Today’s seniors have to take a cut if we are going to restore sanity.

Now, that doesn’t mean that the ONLY cut is going to be cuts to benefits to wealthy seniors. It would have to be part of a comprehensive program to slash other social spending, slash government worker benefits and make other adjustments for non-wealthy seniors, like raising the retirement age to 70 or 71 before you get Social Security and Medicare.

The bottom line is that every single one of us has to take a cut in government spending to reduce government.


630 posted on 01/03/2011 10:03:31 AM PST by Opinionated Blowhard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

RE: “Then don’t call it ‘Social Security’ anymore, call it what it really is, ‘welfare.’”

*********************

EXACTLY! Well put! A bad idea from its inception has turned into the greatest welfare program in the country (add Medicare to that, too) because so much more has been added to the program than ensuring actual seniors, 62 and up, to get a relatively small monthly stipend in old age after years of work and forced contributions.

MANY many people simply cannot work much beyond sixty and in recent years, those who WANTED to could not find any jobs at all in many locales around this country anyway. Shall they be punished at, say, age 62, if they are infirm or NO ONE WILL OFFER THEM A JOB no matter how qualified they may be?


631 posted on 01/03/2011 10:03:47 AM PST by CaliforniaCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SeeSac
That is right in line with max contributions from 2000 (including employer match). Which tells me you make at least $106,800 a year.

Social Security ‘contributions’ (taxes) have really been ramped up in the last 20 years. Max contribution from 1971 through 1980 came in at $7594.94. Max contribution from 2001 to 2010 came in at $58,125. That does not include the employer contribution, just employee.

632 posted on 01/03/2011 10:03:52 AM PST by ex 98C MI Dude (Alea Iacta Est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 625 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac
Nevertheless, we have to face the facts that (1) the programs are unsustainable as currently structured, (2) there is not enough to cut in the rest of the Federal budget to remotely offset this problem, and (3) we can't just tax the next three generations for whatever it takes to keep the benefits flowing.

I think you'll find that a lot of people agree, including me. The question is: how do we fix it?

My problem is that this proposal is trying to fix it by targeting successive groups of people with insufficient political power to fight back. That's nothing more than armed robbery, with the federal government as the weapon.

Spread the sacrifice around to everyone (including federal pensions, federal employees, government bond holders, and all other entitlements), and you might get more support. I realize that's politically difficult, but at least everyone has to contribute.

633 posted on 01/03/2011 10:04:11 AM PST by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good WOMAN (Sgt. Kimberly Munley) with a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 628 | View Replies]

To: Opinionated Blowhard

Further to my last post:

Oh, and by the way, I’m getting close to retirement and would take a pretty big hit if what I advocate goes through. But if it was part of a comprehensive package that was real and verifiable, I’d take the hit.


634 posted on 01/03/2011 10:07:23 AM PST by Opinionated Blowhard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 630 | View Replies]

To: justlurking

I think you have to leave the bond holders out of it. I agree on your other suggestions.


635 posted on 01/03/2011 10:07:46 AM PST by Notary Sojac (Imagine the parade to celebrate victory in the WoT. What security measures would we need??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 633 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

RE: “Hey a$$hat, you’d do well to do a little research before you start calling people names.

You’re exposing yourself.”

*********************

You brought on the verbal assaults yourself with that post of yours, POST NUMBER 24!


636 posted on 01/03/2011 10:08:07 AM PST by CaliforniaCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Opinionated Blowhard
The bottom line is that every single one of us has to take a cut in government spending to reduce government.

You are absolutely right.

But, that's not what Lindsey Graham is proposing. He is proposing that a subset of people deemed "unworthy" of Social Security benefits be denied.

And who is that subset? People who sacrificed their entire lives to invest and save in addition to their Social Security contributions.

When you have a proposal that spreads the sacrifice around to everyone, let's hear it. Otherwise, you are advocating nothing more than armed robbery, using the federal government as a weapon.

637 posted on 01/03/2011 10:09:40 AM PST by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good WOMAN (Sgt. Kimberly Munley) with a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 630 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac
I think you have to leave the bond holders out of it.

Why? The Social Security "trust fund" is literally a stack of special US treasury bonds in someone's file cabinet in a government office.

If you are going to default on those bonds, why not the others as well? Because it will ruin our bond rating?

Sorry, but Social Security bondholders "invested" in those bonds in that file cabinet at the point of a gun. If anyone should be protected from a default, it's them -- not the ones that invested voluntarily.

638 posted on 01/03/2011 10:12:39 AM PST by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good WOMAN (Sgt. Kimberly Munley) with a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 635 | View Replies]

To: justlurking

Nice of you to lecture me on common knowledge. I understand present and future value of money.

However you’re assuming a lot of things. You’re assuing the government gives a damn about it when they have to pay out. I can assure you they don’t.

Your assumption also predicates that Social Security is some flavor of investment such as an annuity. It is not. It is a wealth transfer program. It always has been, and always will be. Watching people get on a high horse defending wealth transfer (from the present taxpayers to the past ones) by calling detractors ‘Marxists’ is the height of irony (not to say you did, but it’s pretty common so far in this thread).

But to get back to a rather important point which has been stated umpteen times, it doesn’t make any difference what you imagine the government owes you, or exactly how you might imagine your ‘contribution’ to be calculated, there is no money. There is only a claim on future taxpayers, and that claim will be appreciably worse than the claim that was on you.

I will acknowledge that you have been wronged. I’ve always thought Social Security was criminal. I’d love to see it killed right now. However we both know that won’t happen. Thus we are left with figuring out how to mitigate the mess we have.

I’m getting tired of restating why I favor means testing, and I don’t need to say again that I’m not in favor because of class warfare. It doesn’t matter if I do since someone will label me a Marxist anyway.


639 posted on 01/03/2011 10:13:06 AM PST by drbuzzard (different league)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 624 | View Replies]

To: justlurking
The calculations were correct as far as straight numbers are concerned. And people would be getting more back than contributed, under those conditions. It doesn't change the fact that people could have/would have done much better had they been left in control over their own destiny.

Assuming, of course, that they invested the money instead of spent it. Judging by 401K participation rates, only about half would have invested. The rest likely would be reaching into your pocket demanding you share your wealth.

Its only fair, you see./s

640 posted on 01/03/2011 10:13:12 AM PST by ex 98C MI Dude (Alea Iacta Est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 627 | View Replies]

To: sand lake bar

Picking and choosing WHO gets those “benefits” is the call of a marxist.

A conservative recognizes the need for cuts, and wants them applied EQUALLY between those being skewered. You seem big on class warfare....i.e. a liberal cornerstone. But then you know that.


641 posted on 01/03/2011 10:13:12 AM PST by battletank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 574 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
I do agree SS benefits should be linked to life expectancy. If they had been doing this since the implementation of SS, it may not be in the dire straits it is now.

It should reset each year, based on acuarial tables.

642 posted on 01/03/2011 10:13:46 AM PST by Conservativegreatgrandma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drbuzzard

RE “As for those who say they deserve it because they paid in, well I’m sorry, but like all other ponzi schemes someone gets left holding the bag. Unless you want the entire economy taken down, which is what we get if we keep waiting to face this unpleasant truth, we have to get on the road to controlling the entitlements and that means Social Security and Medicare.”

************************

There’s a big difference between THIS Soc. Sec. Ponzi scheme and other Ponzi schemes, like Madoff’s — WE did not jump into it willingly. We were FORCED into it by this government. HUGE DIFFERENCE!

Think of another way to prop up this economy — “Means testing?” Yeah, sure, that’ll work out REAL well...... LOL


643 posted on 01/03/2011 10:14:15 AM PST by CaliforniaCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: justlurking

Good points. The tax base needs to be broadened and that raising income taxes for the lower and middle classes is going to be part of the solution. Everybody is going to be impacted by taxes and spending cuts in order to solve the deficit issue we have today.


644 posted on 01/03/2011 10:16:39 AM PST by al_again2010
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 591 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal

RE: “Many on this thread really think they’re NEVER going to get old and sick and perhaps penniless even if they were considered “wealthy” when they retired.”

*************

Yes, I’m willing to bet the FR pro-means testers, et al, are still pretty young and/or have set-in-stone provisions for their own ‘old age, like yes, even military pensions.

A whole host of other folks who thought they were ‘comfortable’ in pre-retirement years are finding they are scrimping and saving now more than ever due to no fault of their own.


645 posted on 01/03/2011 10:19:37 AM PST by CaliforniaCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: justlurking

Don’t get me wrong. There are a lot of proposals out there to screw the rich by cutting benefits without any real sacrifice by the middle class or anyone else. That is just a back door tax increase so if all Lindsey is proposing is reducing benefits to seniors, I’d oppose it.

The worst arguments I ever get in with my friends, who are my age and approaching retirement, are on this issue. My stepfather was as conservative as they come but on this issue, he insisted that he “paid in” and so his benefits should not be touched. I just can’t get around the fact that we have a major problem—entitlements, including entitlements to seniors, are completely out of control. They will destroy this country and that’s no hysteria. Our parents got a windfall but now they are dead. Someone is going to take a major hit. That is what is so frustrating. I, and I suspect a lot of other decent American seniors, would be willing to take a painful cut if they were sure it was part of shared sacrifice. Yet our politicians are too small minded and craven to make true proposal on spending cuts that result in shared pain.


646 posted on 01/03/2011 10:20:22 AM PST by Opinionated Blowhard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 637 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

RE: “You could address that underlined part to everyone on this thread who thinks “means testing” is hunky dory.”

********************

Agree — 1000 percent!!!


647 posted on 01/03/2011 10:21:05 AM PST by CaliforniaCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: drbuzzard
Nice of you to lecture me on common knowledge. I understand present and future value of money.

Then start acting and writing like you do so, rather than pretending otherwise.

However you’re assuming a lot of things.

I didn't assume a thing. I used the government's own publication of historical long-term Treasury bond rates:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/data/Annual/H15_TCMNOM_Y30.txt

[That's just one of my sources for the rates back to 1962, but you get the idea]

The special US treasury bonds in the "trust fund" have effectively the same yield. So, it's not unreasonable to use them to calculate the present value of a past stream of Social Security contributions.

You’re assuing the government gives a damn about it when they have to pay out.

In the posting that you replied to, I was pointing out the errors in someone's calculations about the value of their past contributions. Anything else that you attributed to that posting was a figment of your imagination. So, f*** off.

I’m getting tired of restating why I favor means testing, and I don’t need to say again that I’m not in favor because of class warfare.

I don't care how you try to rationalize it, means testing is class warfare.

If you want to reduce benefits across the board, you have my 100% of my support. But, if you advocate targeting a subset "because they can afford it", you're nothing more than an armed robber, who has been pointing the federal government's gun at me for the past 40 years.

648 posted on 01/03/2011 10:22:58 AM PST by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good WOMAN (Sgt. Kimberly Munley) with a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 639 | View Replies]

To: CaliforniaCon
There’s a big difference between THIS Soc. Sec. Ponzi scheme and other Ponzi schemes, like Madoff’s — WE did not jump into it willingly. We were FORCED into it by this government. HUGE DIFFERENCE!

That is 100% true. And yet, here we are. We have a system that is broken. It pays out benefits that are not sustainable. The problem is here right now. Curse the politicians who created the problem in the 30s forward. Curse the seniors who took benefit windfalls early in teh life of the system. But they are dead and someone has to pay for it. Who?

Those of us at or near retirement age are going to be dead when the s___t hits the fan. Our kids are going to be the ones living in a country with crushing taxes to pay interest on debt held by the Chinese or in a country that defaulted on its debt. Look at Greece--that is the US after you and I are dead.

649 posted on 01/03/2011 10:27:10 AM PST by Opinionated Blowhard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 643 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

I’ll make these thieving P’s OS a deal. Give me back a lump sum of what my portion of the SSI deduction has been to date, let me move it offshore where you lying thieves can’t touch it, EVER, keep my employer’s portion of this rip off, and stop taking any more of my money that you want to give to the AARP lobby, and we’ll call it even.

Yeah, the party’s over — maybe some of those that are still sucking down the cash from an unsustainable program should help clean up the mess. Instead, your plan is for those us that are still working to get cornholed. I respectfully decline.

Any more of this s-—t, I can dissolve my corporation, go sole prop and use chack cashing shops to live as much off the grid as I can. See how they like taxing somebody with 10k of reportable income instead of what the screw me out of now...


650 posted on 01/03/2011 10:27:35 AM PST by L,TOWM (The Democratic Party Platform: Lies, promulgated by Liars whose only real talent is Lying.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 551-600601-650651-700701-730 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson