simple question

[JohnnySavage]

Still not at all analogous.

A) It was not voluntary

B) His parents care was promised to his parents for the meager sums that the initial recipients (who voted the ponzi scheme into place) paid into it. It is a pay-as-you-go scheme , not a familial account scheme.

I have wanted to opt out of this system since 1982 when I first noticed the theft from my paycheck. I would settle right now for the sum total of all of my money back, no interest, no future benefits.

You are offering me the opportunity to say. "Thanks for the rape, no thank you for the victims compensation."

You miss the point.

 

[Que]

You miss the point.

You miss the point. Accepting meager compensation for money taken from you by the mobacracy is not taking charity. Getting return of principle is unlikely, return on principle. less so.

If you were a TWA mechanic in the heady days of Carl Ichan, and your pension took a haircut and you screamed loudly about it at the time, are you then required not to take the truncated union pension to "show principle?"

 

[JohnnySavage]

You miss the point. Accepting meager compensation for money taken from you by the mobacracy is not taking charity. Getting return of principle is unlikely, return on principle. less so.

If you were a TWA mechanic in the heady days of Carl Ichan, and your pension took a haircut and you screamed loudly about it at the time, are you then required not to take the truncated union pension to "show principle?"

SSI and Medicare isn't an account you (or the government) establish for yourself.

Current revenues pay for current retirees.

The point is - don't bitch about government handouts when you are taking them yourself.

The same argument can be made for the mortgage interest deduction. Don't bitch about someone receiving a few hundred dollars a month in food stamps when you are reducing your taxes by more than that that with the tax code.

 

[cowslinger64]

It really is impossible to have a rational discussion with you retards.


I have cared for two family members in end of life situations and I know for a fact that the financial expense is not great at all, the emotional expense is an entirely different subject.

I believe that that answer Dolf's question.

Ishmael

Everyone, and I do mean EVERYONE, is going to get sick and die. There are NO exceptions. It is also true that 80% of the dollars spent on healthcare on your behalf will be spent in the last 6 months of your life if heroic effort is expended on your behalf. It doesn't matter if you're 6 months old or 160 years old, those are the raw statistics. At some point the burden of costs will become overwhelming, even for the government, and they will begin to decide who is deserving of extraordinary treatment and who is going to die. And the population that made no provision to take care of themselves will have no recourse but to submit to the will of the state.

Ishmael

So you weren't heroic?

 

[Pookie]

And that was all quite voluntary, right moron?

Ishmael

How about after you've drawn out what you figure you paid in over the years, you refuse to take anymore.

Seems like that would be keeping with your ideals, wouldn't it?

 

[Pookie]

Our Usual Suspects never argue for income prioritization. Every month I examine my income and make a list of what I can and cant do when the money is deposited. This month I paid property taxes, in May I gotta give my grandson some money for high school graduation. It means some other stuff needs to wait till June or July.

...

You're another one that will refuse your social security payment after you've been given back what you paid in, right?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

You're another one that will refuse your social security payment after you've been given back what you paid in, right?

The average American uses 250K of Social Security/ Medicare; the average Social Security/Medicare account earns 300K over 40 years. That's a 50K profit for the government. I fail to put my finger on your problem with using SS/M. That 50K surplus keeps Barry in the air to Maui for about 30 minutes.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

if a person of limited means is given 12 months to live, should they have all their health, social care and basic income paid for by the state?

NO. simple solution

 

[NeverEndingMe]

clearly the people that say 'YES' have never worked a day in their life.


how do you people get to be so lazy?

 

[Que]

SSI and Medicare isn't an account you (or the government) establish for yourself.

Current revenues pay for current retirees.

The point is - don't bitch about government handouts when you are taking them yourself.

The same argument can be made for the mortgage interest deduction. Don't bitch about someone receiving a few hundred dollars a month in food stamps when you are reducing your taxes by more than that that with the tax code.

Again, that tired argument is trotted out every time anyone objects to government largesse.

SS was sold as a retirement plan and it is propped up by the belief that it is a contract. If you required it be printed on each persons check, "This is a tax on your earnings and there is no promise, stated or implied that you will ever receive any benefits from this program in the future" there would be armed revolt.

Taking back a portion of that which was taken from you against your will, for the direct benefit of others is not "taking a government handout." Period.

Saying that it is analogous does not make it so.

Your mortgage interest deduction argument is equally specious. Huge difference from a program where the government takes less of your actual, earned money from your pocket than they otherwise might have, from the government reaching into someone else's pocket and putting money in yours that was never yours to begin with.

I am quite familiar with both, invalid analogies. Repeating them again and telling me I don't "get it" doesn't make them valid analogies.

 

[Que]

You're another one that will refuse your social security payment after you've been given back what you paid in, right?

Is there an online tutorial for specious reasoning that you all get a certificate from?

 

[NeverEndingMe]

here is what America should do....


in terms of Social Security and Welfare - you are only allowed to take money based on what you put in. so if you put $10 into social security that is all you get. If you need more, then you get a fucking job

same goes for welfare and other obama programs

 

[RobDownSouth]

You miss the point.

He's quite famous for doing that.

 

[dolf]

here is what America should do....


in terms of Social Security and Welfare - you are only allowed to take money based on what you put in. so if you put $10 into social security that is all you get. If you need more, then you get a fucking job

same goes for welfare and other obama programs

dear naked, rabid, counter sitting man

what of those too disabled to ever work?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Anything that runs counter to Teh Narrative is called "tired" or "invalid".

 

[Pookie]

The average American uses 250K of Social Security/ Medicare; the average Social Security/Medicare account earns 300K over 40 years. That's a 50K profit for the government. I fail to put my finger on your problem with using SS/M. That 50K surplus keeps Barry in the air to Maui for about 30 minutes.

So as long as you're average, no problem. 300K gives you 20K per year for 15 years. So if you retire at 65, you run out at 80.

No problem.

 

[Que]

So as long as you're average, no problem. 300K gives you 20K per year for 15 years. So if you retire at 65, you run out at 80.

No problem.

You would see "no problem" if an investment advisor came to you and said, Ok, I have run the numbers for this plan:

Over the next 40 years we will be using dollar cost averaging and we will be taking 15% out of your check every two weeks. Using the principles of tax-deferred investing and compounding over this span of 40 years, I calculate that you forgoing 1/3 of a million dollars should yield you a very comfortable retirement of $20,000 per year for 15 years.

 

[Pookie]

You would see "no problem" if an investment advisor came to you and said, Ok, I have run the numbers for this plan:

Over the next 40 years we will be using dollar cost averaging and we will be taking 15% out of your check every two weeks. Using the principles of tax-deferred investing and compounding over this span of 40 years, I calculate that you forgoing 1/3 of a million dollars should yield you a very comfortable retirement of $20,000 per year for 15 years.

I was being sarcastic.

My whole point is if you're depending on a investment only for your retirement, a whole lot of people are going to run out of money long before they die. And that isn't from living a lavish retirement.

 

[Que]

I was being sarcastic.

My whole point is if you're depending on a investment only for your retirement, a whole lot of people are going to run out of money long before they die. And that isn't from living a lavish retirement.

My whole point is with what we are spending on the scheme, everyone should be living lavishly in retirement. 15% of your income invested very conservatively would be a nice nest egg. Given that the first dollars you pay in are "paid back" not only without interest but with markedly inflated dollars you are not even treading water.

 

[Pookie]

And let's not forget that the cost of living isn't stagnant. Throw in some moderate inflation over those retirement years you're living off a diminishing investment, and you have fun times.

Just pray the roof don't leak and the HVAC doesn't go out ... and the ...

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

So as long as you're average, no problem. 300K gives you 20K per year for 15 years. So if you retire at 65, you run out at 80.

No problem.

The average benefit is 12K per year for Social Security. Many of us have pensions, too. I do. My house is paid for. I do OK.

 

[Pookie]

My whole point is with what we are spending on the scheme, everyone should be living lavishly in retirement. 15% of your income invested very conservatively would be a nice nest egg. Given that the first dollars you pay in are "paid back" not only without interest but with markedly inflated dollars you are not even treading water.

I agree that we should expect more from what is being paid in, but it is a guaranteed monthly check for life ... no matter if you live to be 66 or 106. It won't run out on you when you realize you're one of the "lucky" ones who seems to live forever.

It's a trade off, sure. But it is social "security".

 

[Pookie]

The average benefit is 12K per year for Social Security. Many of us have pensions, too. I do. My house is paid for. I do OK.

Of course the amount varies based on what you paid in. Many do have pensions. Most don't. For those who own a house, great. Many rent for various reasons. Some their fault, some not.

Hopefully nothing tragic ever happens to your home, or that insurance pays to cover it back to something livable.

 

[Que]

I agree that we should expect more from what is being paid in, but it is a guaranteed monthly check for life ... no matter if you live to be 66 or 106. It won't run out on you when you realize you're one of the "lucky" ones who seems to live forever.

It's a trade off, sure. But it is social "security".

That is not "security" especially since there is no contract and the benefits can be cut or eliminated at anytime.

It is not a "trade off." It is essentially a fraudulent ponzi scheme dependent on an ever increasing number of suckers paying into the system, except the gov't is doing it under legal authority so it isn't called that. By the way, there are nowhere near enough people paying into the system already, and people are living longer.

The type of investment vehicle that you are describing does exist and it is regulated and it must have adequate reserves and these are calculated by actual actuaries according to well established quite reliable actuarial tables.

It is called an annuity and it provides a specific defined amount for life whether you live to be 40 or 110. Social Security does not even promise that. Such an annuity could be purchased for far less, and payout far more than SS. Take a look at an annuity schedule sometime and be shocked. The first say $150 I paid in 1982 working a minimum wage job, 40 years later is a significant amount of income stream. The money put away in your last years does the least, but it is still better than a vague assurance that 535 people and some bureaucrats in charge of your COLA increase will see to it that you have what you "need."

None of it has anything to do with where ou live and the cost of living there.

 

[Pookie]

That is not "security" especially since there is no contract and the benefits can be cut or eliminated at anytime.

As long as there is an elderly voting block, there will be social security.

....

The type of investment vehicle that you are describing does exist and it is regulated and it must have adequate reserves and these are calculated by actual actuaries according to well established quite reliable actuarial tables.

It is called an annuity and it provides a specific defined amount for life whether you live to be 40 or 110. Social Security does not even promise that. Such an annuity could be purchased for far less, and payout far more than SS. Take a look at an annuity schedule sometime and be shocked. The first say $150 I paid in 1982 working a minimum wage job, 40 years later is a significant amount of income stream. The money put away in your last years does the least, but it is still better than a vague assurance that 535 people and some bureaucrats in charge of your COLA increase will see to it that you have what you "need."

None of it has anything to do with where ou live and the cost of living there.

So why was social security implemented to begin with? Also, how do you propose to switch over to what you suggest?