Pitiful portrait

[RobertNashville]

Robert,

I'm sorry, you're missing the point I'm making....

You've paid into the system, but want something out of it and it would be nice to make everybody whole... Where does that money come from?

How much should my generation be expected to pay into the system and get NOTHING out?

You'd have to take 30% of my generations pay just to pay for promised entitlements over the next 20 years, and in return, my generation get nothing when we retire.

Did you miss the part where I said in BIG LETTERS that EVERYONE is going to have to give some??? How can your read that and come up with me claiming that I need to be made whole???

You keep throwing figures around...first it was 50-55% and now it 30%...and then you and the generation behind you will be slaves??? Really??? Do you KNOW that we can't transition to a different, private system while maintaining SS for those on it or close to it or are you just assuming that it can't be done?

Pardon me for saying so but I suspect you are just throwing around percentages to support your position without really having any substantive facts that make the percentages realistic.

If transitioning to a privatized system where everyone caught in the middle of the transition gets screwed some is impossible you feel it will cost you too much, what is your solution?

Do we just cut everyone off right now...both those on it and those not yet on SS? We could have the SSA mail out one last check to those already receiving benefits and include a note that says "that's it...you're on your own".

Edited March 4, 2011 by RobertNashville

[Oh Shoot]

So what do you want to do with all of these retired persons? Kill 'em?

Soylent Green.

Btw, I'll toss in with the 15-40 year olds when the SHTF. Just give me a shake if I've nodded off.

- OS

[RobertNashville]

Soylent Green.

Btw, I'll toss in with the 15-40 year olds when the SHTF. Just give me a shake if I've nodded off.

- OS

Hell...why waste even soylent green on old folks; that costs money we don't have. Better to just let them die of starvation and decrease the surplus population.

[G27]

Hell...why waste even soylent green on old folks

I don't think that's what he meant...

[Oh Shoot]

Hell...why waste even soylent green on old folks; that costs money we don't have. Better to just let them die of starvation and decrease the surplus population.

What's that big whoosh?

Old folks would be the Soylent Green.

- OS

edit: yup, Crimson

Edited March 4, 2011 by OhShoot

[mav]

Since y'all mentioned it, did you know that they will be remaking Soylent Green, which will be released in 2012?

[mikegideon]

Since y'all mentioned it, did you know that they will be remaking Soylent Green, which will be released in 2012?

Should be a much bigger hit this time around

[RobertNashville]

What's that big whoosh?

Old folks would be the Soylent Green.

- OS

edit: yup, Crimson

OIC (said the blind man)

[Guest Lester Weevils]

It's a statement of fact... When was the last time you've seen a revolution started by retired persons? The fact is younger generations are much more likely to be the ones in the street over having their taxes increased.

Hi JayC

Us Boomers have had it our way for our entire lives. Do you think we will change in our dotage?

Have you never encountered Hells Grannies? Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Me and all my boomer friends have bitched about taxes since our first jobs, but nobody took to the streets over it and most people bent over and paid the taxes.

We paid (and are still paying) our parents' retirements and our parents paid our grandparents retirements. So you might as well do the same. But it really is impossible for your generation because my generation only had about 2 kids per family and population demographics are against you. If you want social security ya'll better raise at least 5 kids per family and put em to work early.

Inflation, cutbacks, raised taxes. All are nearly fatal solutions for the national well-being.

They say that defaulting on federal bonds would be bad news. That ain't nothin compared to defaulting on all the old folks. Raising retirement age, means testing, cutting payments either explicitly or by inflating it down to nothing-- Those are all just various sneaky ways to default. The millions of boomers will not be deceived or especially amused about getting ripped off.

I seriously think that controlled Federal bankruptcy is the least painful solution (though this is unlikely because it makes too much sense).

Abolish social security (except for people currently collecting) and part out federal assets to pay off every penny that EVERYBODY has paid into the system. Pay off boomers, X'ers, Millenials.

Thataway everybody is happy that they got their money back. Everybody gains renewed confidence in the full faith and credit of the govt.

It could be done indirectly without cancelling Social Security-- When the worthless social security bonds must be cashed to make SS payments, rather than raising tax on the kids, the Feds would sell assets to the highest bidder.

The problem is that the politically connected and influential fat cats (the majority of them foreigners) would buy a lot of valuable property at fire-sale prices. It would benefit the rich more than it benefits retirees who are owed the money. Because it would mostly benefit the wealthy and connected, this is the scenario most likely to happen (but not terribly likely).

It would be better to piece out Fed assets directly to individual citizens. Maybe the payback for your 20 years social security payments could be some Federal timberland in Wash State, or a piece of ANWR, or whatever. The Feds own LOTS of valuable assets.

This would not cost the kids anything. It would benefit the kids. All the kids have parents. So if ole dad accepts a payment of some acres in Cherokee National Forest-- The kids would inherit that land when dad passes on. If dad only gets dribs and drabs of inflated social security dollars, the kids don't inherit squat. It is a better deal all around. The Feds have owned too much for too long.

[mikegideon]

This has been a nice discussion, but I don't think the government has the balls to default on the boomers. It's fun for the young 'uns to talk about it, I guess. May be overlooking the fact that the boomers have lots of wealth and power. I doubt that it will ever turn into demonstrations in the street.

I'm getting older, but I'm not being fed through a straw yet. I have lots of friends of ALL ages that wouldn't stand for a brutal end to social security. I'm all for conservative government. I ain't for moral bankruptcy. So, cool it with the BS, and cut somewhere else. I'm way high on the creditor's list.

Oh yeah... Lester for President

[mikegideon]

More old farts...

[Guest mosinon]

I think the lesson of this thread is as follows:

Cut the hell out of government spending but not for me.

Which, maybe, just kinda, might be the problem.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I think the lesson of this thread is as follows:

Cut the hell out of government spending but not for me.

Which, maybe, just kinda, might be the problem.

A lot of folks yeah maybe. But me and several of the others just want what we paid. Not a penny more. Not a penny less. If I paid in a quarter million inflation-adjusted bucks, I don't want a half million back. I don't want a hundred thousand back. I want my quarter million and we'll call it even, no hard feelings.

[mikegideon]

I think the lesson of this thread is as follows:

Cut the hell out of government spending but not for me.

Which, maybe, just kinda, might be the problem.

Probably since the beginning. That's why it hasn't already happened. Draconian budget slashing usually does more damage than anything else. Don't we pay those weasels enough to manage this thing? If we look at it from a business perspective, it's a turnaround situation. The turnarounds that succeed are not the ones that cut into the meat. They get smarter, leaner and meaner. Our government can't seem to do that, because we hire complete idiots to run the place.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Well, "cutting government spending" is an interesting turn of phrase for a social security default (by whatever method).

For instance, if the govt cancels building a missile or a bridge to nowhere, then that would be cutting govt spending. If the govt closes down a useless office and fires some employees then that would be cutting govt spending.

If the govt sees fit not to pay off a bond it sold to Goldman Sachs or King Saud, then it is NOT cutting govt spending. That is known as debt default.

Same way if they default social security. Ain't saying it can't happen, but don't glamorize it as "cutting government spending". It is no more cutting govt spending than defaulting on Goldman Sachs or King Saud would be "cutting government spending".

[mikegideon]

Well, "cutting government spending" is an interesting turn of phrase for a social security default (by whatever method).

For instance, if the govt cancels building a missile or a bridge to nowhere, then that would be cutting govt spending. If the govt closes down a useless office and fires some employees then that would be cutting govt spending.

If the govt sees fit not to pay off a bond it sold to Goldman Sachs or King Saud, then it is NOT cutting govt spending. That is known as debt default.

Same way if they default social security. Ain't saying it can't happen, but don't glamorize it as "cutting government spending". It is no more cutting govt spending than defaulting on Goldman Sachs or King Saud would be "cutting government spending".

Some folks will spin anything to make it sound palatable. I agree with you 100%

Edited March 4, 2011 by mikegideon

[G27]

A lot of folks yeah maybe. But me and several of the others just want what we paid. Not a penny more. Not a penny less. If I paid in a quarter million inflation-adjusted bucks, I don't want a half million back. I don't want a hundred thousand back. I want my quarter million and we'll call it even, no hard feelings.

Well, I agree, and that could easily be step one in the process - guarantee those who paid in get exactly what they paid in - no more, no less.

Those that didn't pay - no soup for you!

Combine that with a move towards ending SS and you'd have a winner.

[Caster]

SS should be voluntary. I'm fully aware of how the system was supposed to work but it ain't working that way is it? It's nothing more than FRD's new deal commie crap and I don't understand how they can FORCE me to participate. I don't want a check when Im old I want my money now. I'm sick of paying up so some old fart who thinks he deserves something because he paid in all his life can have MY money. AND don't tell me it doesn't work that way, I know several people who have drawn out WAY more money than they ever put in. One old man in particular is 86 yrs old. He's been retired about as long as I have been alive. He will tell you in a heartbeat that he drew out what he paid in, in less than the first ten years. BS! what about the other nearly two decades? AND the millions just like him? Me and you guys get that bill. Our founding fathers would spilled blood for that kind of theft.

I should say, I don't bear ill will to anyone who takes it. The problem is rampant and it's not going to stop until it runs aground. SO, get all you can get your hands on guys while you still can.

It's my belief though that there's only one way for a real man to live his life and it isn't walking on the backs of others.

In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground

[mikegideon]

SS should be voluntary. I'm fully aware of how the system was supposed to work but it ain't working that way is it? It's nothing more than FRD's new deal commie crap and I don't understand how they can FORCE me to participate. I don't want a check when Im old I want my money now. I'm sick of paying up so some old fart who thinks he deserves something because he paid in all his life can have MY money. AND don't tell me it doesn't work that way, I know several people who have drawn out WAY more money than they ever put in. One old man in particular is 86 yrs old. He's been retired about as long as I have been alive. He will tell you in a heartbeat that he drew out what he paid in, in less than the first ten years. BS! what about the other nearly two decades? AND the millions just like him? Me and you guys get that bill. Our founding fathers would spilled blood for that kind of theft.

I should say, I don't bear ill will to anyone who takes it. The problem is rampant and it's not going to stop until it runs aground. SO, get all you can get your hands on guys while you still can.

It's my belief though that there's only one way for a real man to live his life and it isn't walking on the backs of others.

Walking on the backs of others??? I'm STILL paying.

[Caster]

Walking on the backs of others??? I'm STILL paying.

So am I Mike, so is every middle class, middle aged hard working american. AND we'll continue to pay, even after the next generations share is long spent.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Walking on the backs of others??? I'm STILL paying.

Me too. I don't make much money and I pay enough social security to buy a new car, cash on the barrel, every two years.

If the youngsters are gonna default on SS, they need to do it IMMEDIATELY so I can start saving that money for my soon-to-be-dotage.

[Caster]

I'd like to see a massive exodus of below retirement age workers leave standard employment and move to contract labor on a 1099. Then refuse to pay. Then let's see what happens. It wouldn't take more than a 1/4 of the working class to cripple the whole thing.

[JayC]

Robert,

My post didn't indicated you said, you wanted to be made whole... only a comment from me that it would be nice to do so but the money just isn't there.

I made the comment you paid into the system and what *something* out of it... I believe that has been your past statements, that you do want something out of SS - I agree for the record, you've stated you're willing to take some hair cut.

The 30% comment is to cover all entitlements for retired persons, not just SS... That is about what we would have to charge just to cover those entitlements in taxes alone, those numbers come from the CATO institute... Now, the reality is that people making more money will probably be expected to pay a large amount than people making less. But, we'd need to increase taxes by at least 30% over all to pay for entitlements through the end of the baby boomer generation... And in fairness a very big chunk of that is medicare more so than SS.

I'm already paying ~50%-55% taxes... that is an estimate but here is how I come up with the math... I'm in the 33% tax bracket, I pay 15% (since I'm self employed) into FICA, that is 48%, then I pay 10% sales tax on anything I buy, lets say 50% of my income goes into taxable purchases, so that adds another 5% onto my tax bill... so we're at 52%, then I pay local property taxes, licenses and fees for my business, my vehicles, and business use taxes... So yeah my current tax burden is 50-55% or in that general range.

That doesn't take into account 'invisible' taxes... such as corporate tax rates increase the costs of products I buy... Or overhead from having to deal with a massive government bureaucracy.

So, yeah, I can see my tax burden being 75-80% of my earnings, to keep SS and medicare in the black, and not pass along more debt to my childrens' children... Maybe my math is off somewhat... but it's not off a lot

There is no good solution to the problem... we just have to get rid of entitlements... and it's going to be very painful. But we can't expect the younger folks to pick up the tab.

Frankly, with SS the right choice is to reduce payments today on people currently in retirement and those going into retirement. Force the government to sell off assets to build a true trust fund for SS, and make it impossible for congress to touch that money.

Then we need a constitutional amendment that limits the size of the federal government to 7% GDP, no exceptions, and state governments to 2-3% GDP... Which would automatically reduce the tax burden to about 10% of GDP... but that will never happen...

We'll continue to kick the can down the road, unless the ponzi scheme which is the federal government completely collapses into chaos, then people who are on SS and medicare will get nothing.

Did you miss the part where I said in BIG LETTERS that EVERYONE is going to have to give some??? How can your read that and come up with me claiming that I need to be made whole???

You keep throwing figures around...first it was 50-55% and now it 30%...and then you and the generation behind you will be slaves??? Really??? Do you KNOW that we can't transition to a different, private system while maintaining SS for those on it or close to it or are you just assuming that it can't be done?

Pardon me for saying so but I suspect you are just throwing around percentages to support your position without really having any substantive facts that make the percentages realistic.

If transitioning to a privatized system where everyone caught in the middle of the transition gets screwed some is impossible you feel it will cost you too much, what is your solution?

Do we just cut everyone off right now...both those on it and those not yet on SS? We could have the SSA mail out one last check to those already receiving benefits and include a note that says "that's it...you're on your own".

[RobertNashville]

Robert,

My post didn't indicated you said, you wanted to be made whole... only a comment from me that it would be nice to do so but the money just isn't there.

I made the comment you paid into the system and what *something* out of it... I believe that has been your past statements, that you do want something out of SS - I agree for the record, you've stated you're willing to take some hair cut.

The 30% comment is to cover all entitlements for retired persons, not just SS... That is about what we would have to charge just to cover those entitlements in taxes alone, those numbers come from the CATO institute... Now, the reality is that people making more money will probably be expected to pay a large amount than people making less. But, we'd need to increase taxes by at least 30% over all to pay for entitlements through the end of the baby boomer generation... And in fairness a very big chunk of that is medicare more so than SS.

I'm already paying ~50%-55% taxes... that is an estimate but here is how I come up with the math... I'm in the 33% tax bracket, I pay 15% (since I'm self employed) into FICA, that is 48%, then I pay 10% sales tax on anything I buy, lets say 50% of my income goes into taxable purchases, so that adds another 5% onto my tax bill... so we're at 52%, then I pay local property taxes, licenses and fees for my business, my vehicles, and business use taxes... So yeah my current tax burden is 50-55% or in that general range.

That doesn't take into account 'invisible' taxes... such as corporate tax rates increase the costs of products I buy... Or overhead from having to deal with a massive government bureaucracy.

So, yeah, I can see my tax burden being 75-80% of my earnings, to keep SS and medicare in the black, and not pass along more debt to my childrens' children... Maybe my math is off somewhat... but it's not off a lot

There is no good solution to the problem... we just have to get rid of entitlements... and it's going to be very painful. But we can't expect the younger folks to pick up the tab.

Frankly, with SS the right choice is to reduce payments today on people currently in retirement and those going into retirement. Force the government to sell off assets to build a true trust fund for SS, and make it impossible for congress to touch that money.

Then we need a constitutional amendment that limits the size of the federal government to 7% GDP, no exceptions, and state governments to 2-3% GDP... Which would automatically reduce the tax burden to about 10% of GDP... but that will never happen...

We'll continue to kick the can down the road, unless the ponzi scheme which is the federal government completely collapses into chaos, then people who are on SS and medicare will get nothing.

Limiting size of governments...that's great...getting rid of "entitlements"...no argument form me...taxes are to damn high...absolutely correct (and by the way everyone pays 15% into SS/Medicare; not just the self-employed).

There are no good solutions...fine...then what bad solution do you think we should go with...what do we actually DO with SS right now? I can't find a real clear answer to that question in your post.

I say the only moral thing to do is to transition into a largely private (although likely government mandated) 401(K) type of retirement system. There would have to be a determination of a specific age so that those who are already on SS or are "close" to SS retirement don't just have the run pulled out from under them...yes, that means that everyone currently working is going to get screwed some and some will get screwed worse than others. I'm getting the impression that you don't like that "transition" approach???

But if you aren't for a transition approach; what IS your answer to the problem?

Do we cut everyone off right now...completely and just declare the program dead?

If we do the "cut it off cold turkey" approach are you ready for the consequences of that?

Are your parents or grandparents (if they are alive) living on solely or significantly dependent on SS/medicare to live? If so, are you willing to have them all (your and your spouse's as well assuming you are married) move in with you so you can take care of them until they pass? If you just end SS than those are the kind of choices people in their 20s and 30s and 40s are going to have to make. And I suppose those on SS/in nursing homes receiving full-time care that never had children and have no close family just get dumped in the street because they have no one to move in with.

This is a firearms related forum and I suspect that most of us here believe in liberty, freedom, and personal responsibility (including being wise with our finances and preparing for the future)...if so and if WE can't even get in the same ball-park on an issue like SS/Medicare (and related government entitlement programs) then I can't help but wonder how the hell we can expect a bunch of politicians to ever deal with the problems.

[mikegideon]

I'd like to see a massive exodus of below retirement age workers leave standard employment and move to contract labor on a 1099. Then refuse to pay. Then let's see what happens. It wouldn't take more than a 1/4 of the working class to cripple the whole thing.

You have obviously never tangled with the IRS. I'm an expert at that. Before you refuse to pay, you can do something to prepare. Make sure you don't have any assets of any value. It's really that simple. They probably won't throw you in jail... they just take all your stuff. Oh yeah, the 1099 thing... they'll go after that money too. Had it happen to one of my vendors.