You aren't paying in for future payouts. You're paying in for the current generation of recipients. That's part of your social contract as an American - to look out for other citizens and ensure old people don't starve to death.
Vote Public Lands
- Thread starter mfb99
- Start date
You aren't paying in for future payouts. You're paying in for the current generation of recipients. That's part of your social contract as an American - to look out for other citizens and ensure old people don't starve to death.
Functionally I am, because both parties have robbed the coffers. There should be plenty of money from those folk’s decades of paying in to pay them, but it has been robbed.
According to the calculator on ssa.gov the amount I pay in is averaged over 30 years and effects the payout, so it appears that I am indeed paying for future payouts.
Nobody wants to stop payments to old people that would otherwise starve, but it makes a good scapegoat to continue a failed system of what is basically another income tax.
Last edited:
Assuming I never made more money than I make right now, and assuming I averaged a rate of return in the market of 6% (which is low) i could retire at 62 with a principle of 1.72 million. If interest paid 2%, I would make 34k a year on it and never touch the principle.
Or I could take 4786 dollars a month from the principle (ignoring interest accruing on it) for 30 years.
It’s almost like there’s a reason that public schools don’t teach finance or economics.
SS is a joke.
I used to favor republicans because democrats run on an overt platform of economic illiteracy, but lately it is becoming clear the Rs only give lip service to fiscal responsibility and are not much better than the dems( see mine and Bens comments about the deficit which is out of hand).
Back to public land- At the end of the day, it is easy for me to vote for a D like Tester in a state like Montana, a state mostly unaffected by ‘progressive’ nonsense like California. If I lived in California, Oregon etc voting for anti hunting Ds based on public lands issues would be tough to stomach.
Or I could take 4786 dollars a month from the principle (ignoring interest accruing on it) for 30 years.
It’s almost like there’s a reason that public schools don’t teach finance or economics.
SS is a joke.
I used to favor republicans because democrats run on an overt platform of economic illiteracy, but lately it is becoming clear the Rs only give lip service to fiscal responsibility and are not much better than the dems( see mine and Bens comments about the deficit which is out of hand).
Back to public land- At the end of the day, it is easy for me to vote for a D like Tester in a state like Montana, a state mostly unaffected by ‘progressive’ nonsense like California. If I lived in California, Oregon etc voting for anti hunting Ds based on public lands issues would be tough to stomach.
Last edited:
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Those are valid points, MTGomer. As you seem to agree, the "success" is a matter of perspective and perhaps economic status.
Kind of nit picky, but the maximum SS tax rate for 2019 is 12.4 percent, shared equally between employee and employer. And realize that anything earned over $132,900 will not be taxed, so you can invest that privately. We can only hope for smarter, stronger, more forward looking congress people to tackle the SS solvency issue.
The 2.9 percent rate for Medicare may also be something you wish you and your employer could invest elsewhere, but many of us gray-whiskered folks have "suddenly" become aware of the value of that investment over our earning careers. (Personally the financial ease of visiting a physician has identified, diagnosed, and treated a cancer condition which allowed regain of strength and ability to hike, backpack, and climb the mountain yesterday to find the elk ... albeit no shots were fired; too far away. So don't try to wrest that Medicare card from my cold, so far bloodlessly clean hands!)
I don't disagree that it could be run better and that politicians raid it.
But the solution you offer is not workable in the long term, or for the greatest good. SS has kept people from literally dying of starvation, as have other safety net programs. We've seen what happens when we don't have those both at the state and federal level. People die in their houses from lack of heat, they ration medicine and end up killing themselves because eating cat food is more important than healthcare, and then there was the whole 1920's, which proved the case pretty resoundingly for safety nets.
To say that people are a bad with money or that they didn't invest ignores the very real issue at play - which is lack of liveable wages for a vast majority of Americans. You cannot invest money that's been spent before your check has even arrived.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
There definitely seem to be diametrically opposed paradigms operating in this country right now, I agree with Ben. MTGomer, I think your math and evaluation of the return provided by SS is spot on, although apples to oranges, but the difference is I never expect to personally receive anything tangible from my tax dollars or ss payments(sure I get to use public services, roads, and am protected by our military). I see SS and taxes as part of the social contract of being part of this country and as a way I can help those are less fortunate or capable.
Similarly I have life insurance that I will never see a cent of , it's something that I pay for, for someone else.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Now that is an expression by a grateful, engaged citizen ... a reflection of what truly "makes America great"!
BigHornRam
Well-known member
What are you going to do when those smarter, stronger, forward looking progressives tell you we need to liquidate federal assets to keep SS solvent? Go with the flow?
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Sell some tanks and jets to the Saudis.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Not a bad joke Straight Arrow.
Not at all...bipartisan as well.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
But it's still a joke. Venezuela, here we come!
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Each generation has to decide what they think social security, the benefit levels and taxes of the current system were set by the baby boomers and projected to be solvent to 2037. As millennials come of age and elect their own into office they will have to decide how they want to proceed moving forward, perhaps that means raising taxes, lowering benefits, restricting payments to certain tax brackets or other sorts of restructuring to the US budget.
I'm not saying SS is a perfect system or even a good system, hell it's not my generations system in the first place, but I do think there should be some system and recognize that no matter what that system is it will be flawed and also that it will likely look nothing like the current iteration.
3855WIN
Well-known member
Tester not making a strong stand on the Kavanaugh deal really ticked me off. I feel like he turned his back on America with that.
BrentD
Well-known member
that was a losing situation for him. He can't afford to burn votes in a losing situation like that. He walks a very fine line in Montana.
JohnCushman
Well-known member
Vote however you want..it's your right as an American citizen. You don't have to justify it on a forum to a bunch of strangers....
3855WIN
Well-known member
Sat back and let a decent man get trashed. He easily could’ve come out in support of him and slow down the character assasination.
3855WIN
Well-known member
What votes would he burn? Montana Dems would still vote for him. And more Republicans would as well.
Did you see Tester's rational for not voting to confirm? Ford wasn't the reason. You can believe that or not and I can't debate you on that point if you think he is lying. Just curious if you looked a little deeper than the Ford issue.
FYI, Ford was not an issue for me and I am not educated enough to know if I would agree with Tester's rational. As Brent mentioned, he has to walk a fine line if he wants to continue at his job. We will find out soon enough if it was the right call or not. Not his job to "slow down character assassination" and from what I have seen, he didn't participate going that route.
Looking for an honest answer, would you have voted for him either way?
