Medicare trust fund to run out by 2026, Social Sec by 2034.

[NeoOasis]

Medicare is dumb

You're paying more so that some big government bureaucrat can give you less

Not really. For a fairly small price, the government covers something like 80% of your medical bills. And unlike other healthcare plans, medicare covers the entire US. I'd be perfectly satisfied with this as a basic universal healthcare plan. An added benefit is you can always change to a private plan, or buy gap coverage which is a pretty nifty idea if even the 20% gets out of hand.

[Greed and Death]

There are several that went wrong.

1st is we did not properly invest social security revenue. Social Security funds are required to invested in Govnerment bonds which typically make just above inflation any investment adviser pushing this investment strategy would have been deemed to .
This problem is the fault the Roosevelt Administration which created such a short sighted investment plan when they created the social security program in 1935. Even we worse is we have had decades to fix the problem. The last attempt was in the 1990's while Clinton was in office however it was derided as an attempt to privatize social security and fear mongering was used to beat it.

2nd the fund was stolen from for several decades starting under LBJ in the Unified budget theory, and ending under George H W Bush though the rule was passed under Raegan.

3rd Attempts to means test SSN and to lift the cap have been resisted by both sides.

[Jakker]

Fuck the poor.

What do those who can't work do? Do they just die? Homeless shelters can only serve so many people, you know.

Get a monkey and an organ to grind.

Nulla Bellum, you literally just got back from a 3-day forum ban and you are already starting up trouble again. Your intent in both of your posts is clearly just to anger people. *** Warned for Trolling *** You will not last on this site long if you don't learn how to follow the rules when engaging in conversations with those who have different opinions to your own.

[Kramanica]

Raise the eligibility age and allow more immigration.

Yes, import more poor third world button pushers.

[Kubra]

There are several that went wrong.

1st is we did not properly invest social security revenue. Social Security funds are required to invested in Govnerment bonds which typically make just above inflation any investment adviser pushing this investment strategy would have been deemed to .
This problem is the fault the Roosevelt Administration which created such a short sighted investment plan when they created the social security program in 1935. Even we worse is we have had decades to fix the problem. The last attempt was in the 1990's while Clinton was in office however it was derided as an attempt to privatize social security and fear mongering was used to beat it.

2nd the fund was stolen from for several decades starting under LBJ in the Unified budget theory, and ending under George H W Bush though the rule was passed under Raegan.

3rd Attempts to means test SSN and to lift the cap have been resisted by both sides.

I suppose you're proposing that the social security fund branch out into stocks and real estate?

[Trollgaard]

I honestly don't care. I don't expect to retire unless I win the lottery or something, so doesn't bother me. I'll work till I die.

[Nulla Bellum]

Fuck the poor.

Get a monkey and an organ to grind.

Nulla Bellum, you literally just got back from a 3-day forum ban and you are already starting up trouble again. Your intent in both of your posts is clearly just to anger people. *** Warned for Trolling *** You will not last on this site long if you don't learn how to follow the rules when engaging in conversations with those who have different opinions to your own.

You are engaging in slander.

My intent is to reply to threads with my opinion, which is in this case my opinion is "fuck the poor." I don't much care for the fact that I am taxed by the government to "help the poor," and I'm really not impressed that others may feel the government should take my money and give it to the poor. Let people who "care about the poor" do it on their own dime. The fact that these people are eager to "help the poor" with other people's money rather than their own tells you all you need to know.

I will not be bullied into conforming with thieves.

[Petrolheadia]

Nulla Bellum, you literally just got back from a 3-day forum ban and you are already starting up trouble again. Your intent in both of your posts is clearly just to anger people. *** Warned for Trolling *** You will not last on this site long if you don't learn how to follow the rules when engaging in conversations with those who have different opinions to your own.

You are engaging in slander.

My intent is to reply to threads with my opinion, which is in this case my opinion is "fuck the poor." I don't much care for the fact that I am taxed by the government to "help the poor," and I'm really not impressed that others may feel the government should take my money and give it to the poor. Let people who "care about the poor" do it on their own dime. The fact that these people are eager to "help the poor" with other people's money rather than their own tells you all you need to know.

I will not be bullied into conforming with thieves.

Did you really just call opposing Social Security "fuck the poor", even though it's an universal system for all Americans of all social backgrounds?

Also, I never thought a government-backed pension system is theft on somebody else's dime; I always thought it was saving your own dime and receiving proportionally.

[Nulla Bellum]

You are engaging in slander.

My intent is to reply to threads with my opinion, which is in this case my opinion is "fuck the poor." I don't much care for the fact that I am taxed by the government to "help the poor," and I'm really not impressed that others may feel the government should take my money and give it to the poor. Let people who "care about the poor" do it on their own dime. The fact that these people are eager to "help the poor" with other people's money rather than their own tells you all you need to know.

I will not be bullied into conforming with thieves.

Did you really just call opposing Social Security "fuck the poor", even though it's an universal system for all Americans of all social backgrounds?

Also, I never thought a government-backed pension system is theft on somebody else's dime; I always thought it was saving your own dime and receiving proportionally.

Are you harassing me?

[Petrolheadia]

Did you really just call opposing Social Security "fuck the poor", even though it's an universal system for all Americans of all social backgrounds?

Also, I never thought a government-backed pension system is theft on somebody else's dime; I always thought it was saving your own dime and receiving proportionally.

Are you harassing me?

Debating.

I thought that's why we all came here.

[Kramanica]

Did you really just call opposing Social Security "fuck the poor", even though it's an universal system for all Americans of all social backgrounds?

Also, I never thought a government-backed pension system is theft on somebody else's dime; I always thought it was saving your own dime and receiving proportionally.

Are you harassing me?

Oh, dude, enough already.

[Nulla Bellum]

Are you harassing me?

Oh, dude, enough already.

Just checking. You can be banned for replying to posts directed at you.

[NeoOasis]

I honestly don't care. I don't expect to retire unless I win the lottery or something, so doesn't bother me. I'll work till I die.

Personally I'm hoping to retire by 50, and enjoy a good life of slacking off and staring at ceilings. Granted that would require a lottery win.

[Thermodolia]

You are engaging in slander.

My intent is to reply to threads with my opinion, which is in this case my opinion is "fuck the poor." I don't much care for the fact that I am taxed by the government to "help the poor," and I'm really not impressed that others may feel the government should take my money and give it to the poor. Let people who "care about the poor" do it on their own dime. The fact that these people are eager to "help the poor" with other people's money rather than their own tells you all you need to know.

I will not be bullied into conforming with thieves.

Did you really just call opposing Social Security "fuck the poor", even though it's an universal system for all Americans of all social backgrounds?

Also, I never thought a government-backed pension system is theft on somebody else's dime; I always thought it was saving your own dime and receiving proportionally.

To be honest SS isn’t even a government backed pension. It’s more like a bank account that the government sets up for you. We should make it an actual pension system though, mainly allowing it to invest in the stock market like all other pensions do

[Thermodolia]

There are several that went wrong.

1st is we did not properly invest social security revenue. Social Security funds are required to invested in Govnerment bonds which typically make just above inflation any investment adviser pushing this investment strategy would have been deemed to .
This problem is the fault the Roosevelt Administration which created such a short sighted investment plan when they created the social security program in 1935. Even we worse is we have had decades to fix the problem. The last attempt was in the 1990's while Clinton was in office however it was derided as an attempt to privatize social security and fear mongering was used to beat it.

2nd the fund was stolen from for several decades starting under LBJ in the Unified budget theory, and ending under George H W Bush though the rule was passed under Raegan.

3rd Attempts to means test SSN and to lift the cap have been resisted by both sides.

I suppose you're proposing that the social security fund branch out into stocks and real estate?

I am

[Kramanica]

Oh, dude, enough already.

Just checking. You can be banned for replying to posts directed at you.

No, you were banned for saying fuck poor people.

[Petrolheadia]

Oh, dude, enough already.

Just checking. You can be banned for replying to posts directed at you.

Not if you don't do it like an srsehole.

[Bakra]

There's a real good answer, and it's right on our doorstep. The Germans did it, and it's going to stave off their own programs running amok.

Let the refugees in, make all the illegal immigrants citizens, and we bought ourselves another generation or two to sort it out. Or keep procrastinating, but that's better than the immediate alternative.

[Aclion]

How about we just stop making payment for the next 25 years and let the fund replenish themselves? Yes that will be hard for the people trying to retire right now, but they're the ones who repeatedly blocked reforms for all these years, so i'm not inclined to be sympathetic.

[Torrocca]

hey why don't we like help poor people not be poor lol what a radical idea amirite?

[Trumptonium1]

Out of interest is Social Security means tested?

Repeal it.

Make the recipients pay back what was stolen to those who earned it.

Social Security is not theft, it's paying in advance.

It's easy to see it from the perspective of generational theft, however. The only arguments are moral or financially relative (portion of income).

Simply put, the value of contributions of people 50 years ago are extremely small compared to contributions people make today. Since Social Security does not use contributions to buy appreciating assets, contributions are minimised by inflation. Half a century of inflation means anyone who contributed 50 years ago and is 85 having retired 20 years ago is basically outliving their contributions and living on young people's work, just as they had to subsidise the old when they worked.

And while I don't advocate anything, let's not pretend people who retired more than they worked (100+ year olds) are anything other than a burden. There's almost a million of them and there'll be a hundred thousand in the US by 2020.

---

---

At the risk of embarassing myself as I don't know about anything else than the raw rates and average wages (so I'm only using that)....

Let's assume someone is 78. Their first year of work, 1960, they were on average wage. The OASDI/SS Rate back then was 6% and there was no Medicare. The maximum taxed earnings were 4800 a year. The average wage in 1960 was 4007 dollars, or 333 dollars a month.

That means the person on average wage for that year contributed exactly 240 dollars to the Social Security Fund for their old age and disability insurance. Since this 240 was not used for anything other than distributed or stored on the balance sheet, it lost value to inflation and it basically means that person literally contributed 240 dollars, far below the 7500 the average person contributes to SS today.

If we treat SS as a bank account, that person would have the equivalent of 240 to take out for that year worked and can never touch it again. If we treat SS as a guaranteed salary scheme, that person would have only 240 dollars a year for that year worked. Obviously, that's not how it works.

For someone born in 1942 earning average wage all their life it would roughly look like this:

1960 - 240 dollars paid
1961 - 255 dollars
1962 - 268 dollars
1963 - 319 dollars
1964 - 331 dollars
1965 - 337 dollars
1966 - 415 dollars
1967 - 459 dollars
1968 - 490 dollars
1969 - 566 dollars
1970 - 594 dollars
1971 - 676 dollars
1972 - 742 dollars
1973 - 887 dollars
1974 - 940 dollars
1975 - 1010 dollars
1976 - 1079 dollars
1977 - 1144 dollars
1978 - 1277 dollars
1979 - 1407 dollars
1980 - 1534 dollars
1981 - 1832 dollars (thanks Reagan)
1982 - 1947 dollars
1983 - 2042 dollars
1984 - 2259 dollars
1985 - 2372 dollars
1986 - 2477 dollars
1987 - 2635 dollars
1988 - 2904 dollars (15.3% SS rate, highest ever, maintained at this rate to today)
1989 - 3075 dollars
1990 - 3217 dollars
1991 - 3337 dollars
1992 - 3509 dollars
1993 - 3539 dollars
1994 - 3634 dollars
1995 - 3780 dollars
1996 - 3965 dollars
1997 - 4196 dollars
1998 - 4416 dollars
1999 - 4662 dollars
2000 - 4920 dollars
2001 - 5037 dollars
2002 - 5088 dollars
2003 - 5212 dollars
2004 - 5454 dollars
2005 - 5654 dollars
2006 - 5914 dollars
2007 - 6182 dollars

A total contribution of 118228 to social security over a person's lifetime.

Assuming a lifetime of 30 years of retirement, this person should not be taking out more than 3941 in social security every year.

Even a lifetime of 10 years after retirement would only constitute 11 822 a year.

This is far from the median 17000 for a retired person. The median retired person didn't earn the average wage, so their contributions would be even less than that. In theory a 65 year old should be receiving a shitload more than an 85 year old, however SS is counted on standards of living at the time, so they get the same rate if they both were on average wage.

But of course a 100 year old who retired 40 years ago would be getting about 500 dollars a year in social security, with their first year of work in 1936 not even contributing as SS didn't exist and their second a grand total contribution of 25.01 dollars, their highest being 2083 dollars.

[Salandriagado]

Out of interest is Social Security means tested?

Social Security is not theft, it's paying in advance.

It's easy to see it from the perspective of generational theft, however. The only arguments are moral or financially relative (portion of income).

Simply put, the value of contributions of people 50 years ago are extremely small compared to contributions people make today. Since Social Security does not use contributions to buy appreciating assets, contributions are minimised by inflation. Half a century of inflation means anyone who contributed 50 years ago and is 85 having retired 20 years ago is basically outliving their contributions and living on young people's work, just as they had to subsidise the old when they worked.

And while I don't advocate anything, let's not pretend people who retired more than they worked (100+ year olds) are anything other than a burden. There's almost a million of them and there'll be a hundred thousand in the US by 2020.

---

---

At the risk of embarassing myself as I don't know about anything else than the raw rates and average wages (so I'm only using that)....

Let's assume someone is 78. Their first year of work, 1960, they were on average wage. The OASDI/SS Rate back then was 6% and there was no Medicare. The maximum taxed earnings were 4800 a year. The average wage in 1960 was 4007 dollars, or 333 dollars a month.

That means the person on average wage for that year contributed exactly 240 dollars to the Social Security Fund for their old age and disability insurance. Since this 240 was not used for anything other than distributed or stored on the balance sheet, it lost value to inflation and it basically means that person literally contributed 240 dollars, far below the 7500 the average person contributes to SS today.

If we treat SS as a bank account, that person would have the equivalent of 240 to take out for that year worked and can never touch it again. If we treat SS as a guaranteed salary scheme, that person would have only 240 dollars a year for that year worked. Obviously, that's not how it works.

For someone born in 1942 earning average wage all their life it would roughly look like this:

1960 - 240 dollars paid
1961 - 255 dollars
1962 - 268 dollars
1963 - 319 dollars
1964 - 331 dollars
1965 - 337 dollars
1966 - 415 dollars
1967 - 459 dollars
1968 - 490 dollars
1969 - 566 dollars
1970 - 594 dollars
1971 - 676 dollars
1972 - 742 dollars
1973 - 887 dollars
1974 - 940 dollars
1975 - 1010 dollars
1976 - 1079 dollars
1977 - 1144 dollars
1978 - 1277 dollars
1979 - 1407 dollars
1980 - 1534 dollars
1981 - 1832 dollars (thanks Reagan)
1982 - 1947 dollars
1983 - 2042 dollars
1984 - 2259 dollars
1985 - 2372 dollars
1986 - 2477 dollars
1987 - 2635 dollars
1988 - 2904 dollars (15.3% SS rate, highest ever, maintained at this rate to today)
1989 - 3075 dollars
1990 - 3217 dollars
1991 - 3337 dollars
1992 - 3509 dollars
1993 - 3539 dollars
1994 - 3634 dollars
1995 - 3780 dollars
1996 - 3965 dollars
1997 - 4196 dollars
1998 - 4416 dollars
1999 - 4662 dollars
2000 - 4920 dollars
2001 - 5037 dollars
2002 - 5088 dollars
2003 - 5212 dollars
2004 - 5454 dollars
2005 - 5654 dollars
2006 - 5914 dollars
2007 - 6182 dollars

A total contribution of 118228 to social security over a person's lifetime.

Assuming a lifetime of 30 years of retirement, this person should not be taking out more than 3941 in social security every year.

Even a lifetime of 10 years after retirement would only constitute 11 822 a year.

This is far from the average 16000 for a retired person.

I was under the impression that Social Security bought US government bonds?

[Petrolheadia]

There's a real good answer, and it's right on our doorstep. The Germans did it, and it's going to stave off their own programs running amok.

Let the refugees in, make all the illegal immigrants citizens, and we bought ourselves another generation or two to sort it out. Or keep procrastinating, but that's better than the immediate alternative.

Let's not pretend that does not bring its own problems...

[Trumptonium1]

Out of interest is Social Security means tested?



It's easy to see it from the perspective of generational theft, however. The only arguments are moral or financially relative (portion of income).

Simply put, the value of contributions of people 50 years ago are extremely small compared to contributions people make today. Since Social Security does not use contributions to buy appreciating assets, contributions are minimised by inflation. Half a century of inflation means anyone who contributed 50 years ago and is 85 having retired 20 years ago is basically outliving their contributions and living on young people's work, just as they had to subsidise the old when they worked.

And while I don't advocate anything, let's not pretend people who retired more than they worked (100+ year olds) are anything other than a burden. There's almost a million of them and there'll be a hundred thousand in the US by 2020.

---

---

At the risk of embarassing myself as I don't know about anything else than the raw rates and average wages (so I'm only using that)....

Let's assume someone is 78. Their first year of work, 1960, they were on average wage. The OASDI/SS Rate back then was 6% and there was no Medicare. The maximum taxed earnings were 4800 a year. The average wage in 1960 was 4007 dollars, or 333 dollars a month.

That means the person on average wage for that year contributed exactly 240 dollars to the Social Security Fund for their old age and disability insurance. Since this 240 was not used for anything other than distributed or stored on the balance sheet, it lost value to inflation and it basically means that person literally contributed 240 dollars, far below the 7500 the average person contributes to SS today.

If we treat SS as a bank account, that person would have the equivalent of 240 to take out for that year worked and can never touch it again. If we treat SS as a guaranteed salary scheme, that person would have only 240 dollars a year for that year worked. Obviously, that's not how it works.

For someone born in 1942 earning average wage all their life it would roughly look like this:

1960 - 240 dollars paid
1961 - 255 dollars
1962 - 268 dollars
1963 - 319 dollars
1964 - 331 dollars
1965 - 337 dollars
1966 - 415 dollars
1967 - 459 dollars
1968 - 490 dollars
1969 - 566 dollars
1970 - 594 dollars
1971 - 676 dollars
1972 - 742 dollars
1973 - 887 dollars
1974 - 940 dollars
1975 - 1010 dollars
1976 - 1079 dollars
1977 - 1144 dollars
1978 - 1277 dollars
1979 - 1407 dollars
1980 - 1534 dollars
1981 - 1832 dollars (thanks Reagan)
1982 - 1947 dollars
1983 - 2042 dollars
1984 - 2259 dollars
1985 - 2372 dollars
1986 - 2477 dollars
1987 - 2635 dollars
1988 - 2904 dollars (15.3% SS rate, highest ever, maintained at this rate to today)
1989 - 3075 dollars
1990 - 3217 dollars
1991 - 3337 dollars
1992 - 3509 dollars
1993 - 3539 dollars
1994 - 3634 dollars
1995 - 3780 dollars
1996 - 3965 dollars
1997 - 4196 dollars
1998 - 4416 dollars
1999 - 4662 dollars
2000 - 4920 dollars
2001 - 5037 dollars
2002 - 5088 dollars
2003 - 5212 dollars
2004 - 5454 dollars
2005 - 5654 dollars
2006 - 5914 dollars
2007 - 6182 dollars

A total contribution of 118228 to social security over a person's lifetime.

Assuming a lifetime of 30 years of retirement, this person should not be taking out more than 3941 in social security every year.

Even a lifetime of 10 years after retirement would only constitute 11 822 a year.

This is far from the average 16000 for a retired person.

I was under the impression that Social Security bought US government bonds?

I .. missed that point.

Either way it still stands since productivity (&wages) rose much faster than inflation, those 240 dollars would not be worth 6000 with long-term treasury notes, but about 3.5-4k using 10Y's.

Also there's the point that in our modern economy, treasury notes bring pretty shit returns.

[Herskerstad]

Repeal it.

Make the recipients pay back what was stolen to those who earned it.

Hello bankruptcy.