|
Well when the bernie bros take over they will tell each of us what we need....or not.
The problem with ssi is not that people view it as retirement income. The problem is it has been obscenely expanded and corrupted by the political class to perpetuate their hold on power. It will unfortunately probably have to crash and burn before its replaced with a viable program. |
Originally Posted by GucciBoy
(Post 3143859)
I know this is how most people think of it, and it has become a retirement plan in people’s eyes, but it simply isn’t that. You’re quoting my post that says that you aren’t “paying into” social security as of that’s some sort of opinion. Yes, there is no mechanism to prevent you from drawing it if you don’t need it, and that’s part of the problem with the system, but my post is the furthest thing from absurd. It’s absolutely the intent of social security. The reference about being indigent that you bolded to point out my absurdity is straight from many of FDR’s speeches made while trying to get social security enacted in this country.
You aren’t paying yourself, you’re paying the people who are currently drawing their benefits. If and when you collect your check, it won’t be your money being returned to you, it’s going to come from the people that are paying in at that time. I don’t know how to put it any more plainly. It's a shame it couldn't have been designed as a plan where by we all actually do invest the payroll deduction into our own account with a reasonable range of investment choices with fair returns. It would have made our population the wealthiest in the world, instead it was designed as a socialist ponzi scheme. |
Originally Posted by GucciBoy
(Post 3143859)
I know this is how most people think of it, and it has become a retirement plan in people’s eyes, but it simply isn’t that. You’re quoting my post that says that you aren’t “paying into” social security as of that’s some sort of opinion. Yes, there is no mechanism to prevent you from drawing it if you don’t need it, and that’s part of the problem with the system, but my post is the furthest thing from absurd. It’s absolutely the intent of social security. The reference about being indigent that you bolded to point out my absurdity is straight from many of FDR’s speeches made while trying to get social security enacted in this country.
You aren’t paying yourself, you’re paying the people who are currently drawing their benefits. If and when you collect your check, it won’t be your money being returned to you, it’s going to come from the people that are paying in at that time. I don’t know how to put it any more plainly. Ragardless, I think you are alone in Siberia on this one. Never in my life have I heard anyone, hardcore left or right, try to make the argument you appear to be making. But that’s the thing with entitlements. Once started... |
Originally Posted by FangsF15
(Post 3143880)
If you want to go down the “intent” road on legislation that is many decades old, I’m game. Heck I don’t even have to go back that far, “If you like your doctor, you can keep it”...
Ragardless, I think you are alone in Siberia on this one. Never in my life have I heard anyone, hardcore left or right, try to make the argument you appear to be making. But that’s the thing with entitlements. Once started... I’m sure you’re correct about me being virtually alone on this. Because of that, SS will always be mired in financial issues and political bs. |
Originally Posted by Myfingershurt
(Post 3143333)
Yeah but to get unemployment you have to also be actively searching for other work. Even if you can’t be an airline pilot they could still expect you to apply to 135/91 operators.
|
Originally Posted by GucciBoy
(Post 3143859)
You aren’t paying yourself, you’re paying the people who are currently drawing their benefits. If and when you collect your check, it won’t be your money being returned to you, it’s going to come from the people that are paying in at that time. I don’t know how to put it any more plainly.
I get what you are arguing (not saying I buy it), you are just doing a poor job word smithing. |
Originally Posted by Jaww
(Post 3145533)
I mean, if somebody was trying to sell me a Ponzi scheme, this is how I think they would word it.
I get what you are arguing (not saying I buy it), you are just doing a poor job word smithing. Jaww, what he is describing is exactly how social security works. You really should know how your social programs and government operate. Every government program has some level of social engineering involved. Social security could have easily been devised as an actual retirement program with personal accounts and reasonable investment choices but instead was designed as a giant socialist ponzi scheme. Bureaucracies always seek more power over people, it is a slow creep over many years. |
Originally Posted by Seneca Pilot
(Post 3145556)
Jaww, what he is describing is exactly how social security works. You really should know how your social programs and government operate. Every government program has some level of social engineering involved. Social security could have easily been devised as an actual retirement program with personal accounts and reasonable investment choices but instead was designed as a giant socialist ponzi scheme. Bureaucracies always seek more power over people, it is a slow creep over many years.
|
Originally Posted by Jaww
(Post 3145559)
I agree it’s a Ponzi scheme. Just seems odd he would use that language for someone trying to defend it.
In this case Mr. Ponzi...AKA Uncle Sam. Its one thing if those working today were directly paying todays beneficiaries. Its something else when the premiums are sent to the money changer who uses the money in some ways for their own benefit, and what they end up short just borrows and the rest of those supporting the plan also end up paying that too. Ssi is paid from general revenue fund. It stopped being a segregated and protected program quite a while ago. |
Originally Posted by Jaww
(Post 3145559)
I agree it’s a Ponzi scheme. Just seems odd he would use that language for someone trying to defend it.
I’m not trying to defend it. I’m trying to correct the erroneous notion that the money that is withdrawn from your check for social security is funding your future payments. It’s not. That’s just the way it is. You can point to the SS statement you get every year, but that’s only theoretical based on current law. They can change it and you won’t have any claim to the money you would’ve gotten had they not changed it. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:27 AM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands