• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would You Take 77 Cents For Every Dollar Social Security Owes You?

Would You Take 77 Cents For Every Dollar Social Security Owes You?


  • Total voters
    19
  • Poll closed .
The question is based off of an Alex Pollock article at Real Clear Markets.

Would You Take 77 Cents For Every Dollar Social Security Owes You? | RealClearMarkets




So would you do it?

Absolutely - now?? You bet...

By the time I retire, or at least am at the age to retire - the dollar will be complete garbage, and living conditions in the U.S. will be severely degraded.

If I could have a percentage of my cut now, I'd take it and get the he!! out of the country - and watch Rome burn from afar.
 
Which public sector? Federal, state or municipal?

the public sector that isn't the private, for profit sector.

Think carefully before you answer, because the latter two don't issue their own currency and thus basically have to balance their budgets, therefore budgetary constraints exist, and so at those levels simply forcing the citizens in a given area who don't want to or have the funds to hire the unemployed will result in a battered tax base and economic suffering.

in a first world society, it's either pay people to work or pay them not to. i prefer the former.
 
On the basis that there is nothing remaining that the taxpayers (who must pay those wages and benefits) want or need them to do. Because if there was, they would already be employing them to do it.

On the basis that those they did hire (e.g. to keep their streets and sewer lines clear, water lines connected and supplied, garbage collected, and so forth) have now unionized against them and inflated their wages and benefits to levels that no longer provide sufficient public funding for more public employees.

On the basis that public sector pensions have resulted in monumental liabilities that have been pinned on the new generation of taxpayers, who happen to be poorer and more underemployed and over-indebted than their parents' and grandparents' generations were at the same age.

On all sorts of bases do I argue that the government does not need to be giving people "jobs" for the sake of them being "employed." I would rather expand welfare (for working age people) than create workfare as a pretense of productivity.

You'd rather give them money and have no goods to show for it...?

You can't find a single infrastructure or service that's understaffed...? Do you have any idea how severely our bridges have deteriorated because they aren't properly maintained...?

These things don't exist because, we aren't already paying for them already...?

Sorry, no, that whole argument has a foundation of soggy bread. Unemployment is pure economic inefficiency. Wasted productivity. It could be used to produce goods and services that increase our GDP and make our dollar stronger. And giving the unemployed money increases aggregate demand wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy more than cutting taxes for the rich (in effect, giving money to the rich).
 
I said no, only because I want it all. But I know I'll be means tested and we have "too much money" so I won't see a penny of it anyway, and I'm ****ing 53.
 
I said no, only because I want it all. But I know I'll be means tested and we have "too much money" so I won't see a penny of it anyway, and I'm ****ing 53.

I'm much in the same boat. The mention of means testing for SS just about gives me a coronary. ****, be responsible, live within one's means, save for retirement and get punished for being responsible while the spendthrifts who earned just as much as I did get rewarded. Pisses me off.

But serious question would you accept cutbacks if it left less of a tax burden on your children (assuming you have kids)? Some of the proposals on fixing SS have been targeted only to the under 55 crowd and those older don't have to bear any burden, these kinds of proposals really bother me. SS needs some fixes but IMO the pain ought to be spread.
 
Does this also mean I would not have to pay SS from here on out?

Yes, look in the quote box in the original post - it identifies what would happen.
 
no. pay me what i was promised. if there isn't enough money, raise taxes, and end the wars.

Well said. I stand and salute you sir.
 
I said no, only because I want it all. But I know I'll be means tested and we have "too much money" so I won't see a penny of it anyway, and I'm ****ing 53.

I see too many people our age being struck down by cancer or other things...I'm not waiting to 'live' life. Anything can happen, any day. Doesnt mean I'd waste it but I sure could put it to good long-term and short-term use.
 
Just curious. How would we fund the new welfare program needed to support those people who spent all their money before retirement? Or would we just float them out to sea?

It's not like SS pays enough for people to live on now. It's a supplement. Many people on SS are on other public assistance programs as well.
 
Just curious. How would we fund the new welfare program needed to support those people who spent all their money before retirement? Or would we just float them out to sea?

IMO, that's their problem. Now you CAN cash out an IRA early and if someone blows through that they'd be eligible to use the existing welfare systems already in place - I'm not sure why there would need to be a new welfare program we have plenty already at both State and Federal levels.
 
Just curious. How would we fund the new welfare program needed to support those people who spent all their money before retirement? Or would we just float them out to sea?

No, just pile them up in warehouses next to cemeteries. We can't afford to pay for these old people when we're so stressed, a guy who makes a million dollars a year can barely afford his 15% tax rate, a private jet, and a dozen mansions. I mean, come on, get your priorities straight.

It's not like SS pays enough for people to live on now. It's a supplement. Many people on SS are on other public assistance programs as well.

I feel like you missed the point. If that supplemental income disappeared, they would need even MORE assistance. Same amount of financial need, just shifted into a different governmental program.

IMO, that's their problem. Now you CAN cash out an IRA early and if someone blows through that they'd be eligible to use the existing welfare systems already in place - I'm not sure why there would need to be a new welfare program we have plenty already at both State and Federal levels.

Yeah, mcdonalds' CEO has no obligation to his workers. If those workers were productive, they'd stop working and sit on their ass, collecting money from a business they run called mcshonalds. They agreed to this rigged system out of pure desperation and lack of opportunity, and if they don't get rich by abusing the labor glut by underpaying workers, that's their own damn fault.
 
I feel like you missed the point. If that supplemental income disappeared, they would need even MORE assistance. Same amount of financial need, just shifted into a different governmental program.


Why would they automatically need more assistance unless you are assuming they misspend the lump sum? Yes it will be less but who knows how old they are? Maybe they'll continue to work, at least part time. I would. Maybe they'll die before they spend it all. You have no idea.
 
Why would they automatically need more assistance unless you are assuming they misspend the lump sum? Yes it will be less but who knows how old they are? Maybe they'll continue to work, at least part time. I would. Maybe they'll die before they spend it all. You have no idea.

I don't know what you're saying.

Say one goes from receiving $500 from social security and $500 from financial need programs (welfare/foodstamps/etc). Person budgets $1,000 for food/shelter/bills.

Now there's no more social security. They only get $500 from remaining financial need programs. Person still needs another $500 to live. You're suggesting they're on their own ???? The problem will just fix itself because they can go back to work, or just get on with it and die?
 
I don't know what you're saying.

Say one goes from receiving $500 from social security and $500 from financial need programs (welfare/foodstamps/etc). Person budgets $1,000 for food/shelter/bills.

Now there's no more social security. They only get $500 from remaining financial need programs. Person still needs another $500 to live. You're suggesting they're on their own ???? The problem will just fix itself because they can go back to work, or just get on with it and die?

What happened to the lump sum SS they got?
 
the public sector that isn't the private, for profit sector.

Think about how the different public sectors must budget and obtain financial resources.

in a first world society, it's either pay people to work or pay them not to. i prefer the former.

Then you must only buy American-made. What are you doing to encourage others to do the same?
 
You'd rather give them money and have no goods to show for it...?

If they were capable of producing something of value the public wanted and needed, why wouldn't the public already expend their resources to hire them to do it?

You can't find a single infrastructure or service that's understaffed...? Do you have any idea how severely our bridges have deteriorated because they aren't properly maintained...?

Infrastructure is built by highly educated and trained proven professional firms, not unemployed people holding shovels. All the infrastructure spending in the world will not employ our unemployed and underemployed.
 
Think about how the different public sectors must budget and obtain financial resources.

the public sector is funded by taxes. i'm for reprioritizing and finding new sources of revenue.

Then you must only buy American-made.

incorrect, though i would support manufacturing more goods here, whether privately or publicly.

What are you doing to encourage others to do the same?

i can only control my own shopping habits, though i do try to support companies that embrace humane manufacturing practices. when it comes to clothes and electronics, though, it's pretty difficult. tariffs could be a useful tool.
 
the public sector is funded by taxes. i'm for reprioritizing and finding new sources of revenue.

Different public sectors gather their financial means through very different types of taxes. Hence the idea that the public sector should simply hire the unemployed begs the question, which level of the public sector? Sounds like you haven't thought that far into it.

incorrect, though i would support manufacturing more goods here, whether privately or publicly.

So you just loft up the notion that more stuff should be produced here even though people (including yourself) don't want the stuff that's produced here. Quite the conundrum.
 
Different public sectors gather their financial means through very different types of taxes. Hence the idea that the public sector should simply hire the unemployed begs the question, which level of the public sector?

the federal level, which is responsible for managing the program.

Sounds like you haven't thought that far into it.

incorrect.

So you just loft up the notion that more stuff should be produced here even though people (including yourself) don't want the stuff that's produced here.

incorrect. quit inventing ridiculous arguments, or i will stop responding.
 
If they were capable of producing something of value the public wanted and needed, why wouldn't the public already expend their resources to hire them to do it?



Infrastructure is built by highly educated and trained proven professional firms, not unemployed people holding shovels. All the infrastructure spending in the world will not employ our unemployed and underemployed.

No, you can't argue that the public does not want anything more that the government could potentially pay the currently unemployed to produce. That argument has not been demonstrated by the fact that we aren't already paying for it.

Because, let's face it, if Nancy Pelosi came on TV and said we should put pay the unemployed to manufacture clothing and office supplies for sale on the open market, you'd have tens of millions of republicans screaming bloody murder at the mere suggestion.
 
Would you support changes if it means not screwing over younger generations even more?



The younger generations will have to play the hand that they're dealt -just like we will have to.

They'll be depending on their children and grandchildren just like we are now.
 
Back
Top Bottom