Reply With Quote
You might have to sell a golf cart.
"significant down-payment on comprehensive en lement reform. "
There He Goes Again. SS is not an Orwellian, criminalizing "en lement".
You pay money in, you get YOUR MONEY out. You are "en led" to it, you deserve it, because it's YOURS, not somebody else's money that you don't deserve, which is what en lement in the mouths of the Repugs and conservative always implies.
And federal unemployment insurance is not another nasty en lement. It's insurance.
You might have to sell a golf cart.
Ouch.
Oh, the humanity.
I guess all the people whose jobs are being lost through budget cuts are getting "screwed" also.
And which countries are those? Better situations, how?
If they were so "better" than why did "progress"ives go into hiding here? Wasn't it a "progress"ive that brought about Prohibition? The Noble Experiment. That worked out great.
Also, SS initially was SSI. I stood for Insurance, so.......
You guys are real comedians. I'm just saying that when you pay the max into it for 50 years and they then change the rules where you don't get it back it hardly seems equitable. Might as well just do away with it entirely and just take regular tax money from the "ants" and give it to the "grasshoppers" that didn't save for retirement.
If that were true, then SS wouldn't be set up like the ponzi scheme that it is. Everybody would have an individual account, everybody's individual contributions would go into that individual account and everybody could start withdrawing money from that individual account when they hit the retirement age.
I thought republicans loved the rich? You mean rich people would get less benefits than the poor or middle class?
Heh, we only tease because we like ya.
For the most part we all know the en lements will have to change, and most proposed changes won't affect the people like you that have paid into the system the longest.
That is only fair, and as much as I think the system needs changing would not throw my support behind anything that would change the benefits at the last minute for you.
That said, it is a *lot* easier for people in the upper income brackets to stay there and to have enough saved up. It takes money to make money, and if you have to spend most of your income on the basics like shoes for the kids, food, and so forth, that doesn't leave a lot left over to chunk into an IRA.
I am *acutely* aware of that at the moment, being far behind the eight ball when it comes to that. I have told the wife that even though our income is rising, our standard of living will have to stay about where it is for the rest of our lives to make sure enough is saved up.
Most people my age (40) and younger aren't quite as cognizant about just how much they will have to have, and how little these programs will actually be able to pay out when we get close.
My rough estimate is that one has to have a minimum of $2M saved up at 65 to be able to kick back at a very modest standard of living. If one has less than that, expect to be working well beyond that point.
That's a bit like saying Duncan is a ty player because he missed a free-throw.
Not buying it. Are all your arguments this weak?
I agree with your 2 million number if you play fair and are reasonably healthy. Forget any long term end of life care help from medicare unless you are penniless. I've already told my wife I'm probably gonna have to work at least until 70 for our numbers to work.
I believe that was the original plan of SS.
Well, I think they'll introduce it in some sort of "grandfather" method, and not just all at once. That said, if changes are going to be made to the SS, it's going to screw someone over. Again, look at the public unions, and all the conservatives who were saying that they should voluntarily give up their benefits. Same idea.
Pretty much all of this seems common sensical. I have thought for a very long time that an indexed retirement age makes more sense. Also, it would seem that the 43k number must also be indexed to avg cost of living or some such thing. A fiscally conservative republican (or democrat, etc)!!!!???!!! I am confused.
Oh, o Porfessor Lambeau. Well, Duncan is part of the team and not really the team, as to what I was asking. "progress"ives, not a "progress"ive. Thanks for playing though.
Are all your assumptions this bad?
70 years old??? Life expectancy in the US is right now 75-80... You break your back and chip in for 50+ years and you only get 5-10 out of it?
Not to mention that who's hiring 65+ years olds out there to good to great paying jobs(*)?
* Bankers and CEOs need not apply
Yep. It sucks. But we're well beyond the point where decisions about SS can be made based on what's perceived to be "fair" or a "good deal" for individuals. This has become an actuarial problem in need of an actuarial solution. Tough for us, everyone should plan accordingly.
"This has become an actuarial problem in need of an actuarial solution."
Big ing Lie
The federal govt borrowing SS fund to pay for govt has been a POLICY decision that can be reversed.
What the Repugs are saying now is that the fed govt must DEFAULT on its loans from SS and make Human-Americans poorer.
So, in Repug/VRWC world, the Feds/Fed won't ever default on its US treasury bonds (aka loans borrowed from) held by Wall St Corporate-Americans, but it will default default on loans from Human-Americans' SS account.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 04-15-2011 at 09:30 AM.
Obama just said today it could all be fixed with tax increases on the wealthy and he wasn't touching SS, Medicare, or Medicaid. Good luck with that.
Human americans are going to eat that $6 trillion in one form or another. It's unavoidable. Paying back social security just means that money has to be taken from somewhere else.
Neither party is going to allow a default on a treasury bond held by anyone other than the taxpayers. democrats = republicans.So, in Repug/VRWC world, the Feds/Fed won't ever default on its US treasury bonds (aka loans borrowed from) held by Wall St Corporate-Americans, but it will default default on loans from Human-Americans' SS account.
Actually, I'm confused as what they mean too. Nobody called me out on it, but my own answer is likely in error.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
