This message was self-deleted by its author

[devilgrrl]

This message was self-deleted by its author (devilgrrl) on Sat Aug 17, 2013, 10:41 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[leftstreet]

1. 79 million boomer$ turning 65, 170 million by 2030

Our rich overlords won't rest until they get every last penny from our pockets and piggybanks

Smells like Bullshit!

[Sekhmets Daughter]

3. 170 million what by 2030?

The entire Boomer generation was about 75 million strong....and not all of them will live to retirement age...

[leftstreet]

8. 170 million people

Sorry, should have made the distinction

[Sekhmets Daughter]

12. 170 million total people collecting Medicare by 2030? Half the population?

Sorry, I must be particularly dim, but I'm not getting this at all.

[leftstreet]

19. It's a projection, just like pop increase numbers n/t

[Sekhmets Daughter]

21. I'm not buying it...

Census Bureau projections are about 72,091,915 age65+ out of 373,503,674 total population.

[leftstreet]

35. In millions: 48 currently, add 78 boomers, add 12 disabled

Keep adding and you'll find projections that nearly half the population (not just seniors) will potentially be in need of some kind of subsidized assistance at some point

You can Google all this

[Sekhmets Daughter]

36. 75 million boomers born between 1946 and 1964

a few million have already passed through this life, as will many of those 48 million currently collecting. I have Googled all of this. Your own numbers which assume immortality for all only add up to 138 million. It is absurd to settle for a situation in which half the population needs assistance...and assistance is not SS or SSI

[leftstreet]

44. Either way

the point being made by many is that Big Insurance/Big Pharma see massive potential in privatizing and making profits off our needs

Allowing vultures to profit off 10 people or 10 million people, it's the thin end of the wedge

[HereSince1628]

4. THe silly thing is they just aren't patient...WE CAN'T TAKE IT WITH US!

We will spend it. Admittedly, most of our savings and benefit claims will relate to spending in our last month or so of life.

They don't need to screw around with brinksmanship to get their hands on it...they just have to be patient.

What are they afraid of? It can only be that they'll die first, and not be able to take it with them either.

[Johonny]

2. the people telling you it is a problem; told you it went bankrupt in 1998

that previous prediction turned out to be wrong. I know you are shocked.

[Egalitarian Thug]

58. I thought it was 1995

http://books.google.com/books/about/Bankrupty_1995.html?id=EO8S3KHyV3cC

Our adamant refusal to even attempt to understand national economics creates a very lucrative market in fear mongering and thievery that continues today.

[Bjorn Against]

5. I chose other because while Social Security is fine it could be much better with one small change

The Social Security tax should be taxed at high income levels as well, there is no reason the wealthy should continue to pay so much less into the system than rest of us do.

[Nye Bevan]

6. They would then get much higher Social Security checks upon retirement,

since the size of the benefit is linked to the size of the contributions.

[Bjorn Against]

7. Even so having more money flow through the Social Security system would strengthen the program

I don't have a problem with them getting some benefit returns like everyone else does, but certain caps would probably need to be put into place to ensure we are not paying out obscenely large benefits to millionaires.

[HiPointDem]

46. they already get benefits like anyone else who pays in and are taxed on them because

of their high retirement incomes.

why don't you just leave well enough alone, because what you're asking for is to turn SS into welfare.

[Bjorn Against]

49. Social Security is already welfare and it always has been welfare

Just because the right-wing has demonized that word does not make it a bad thing.

[HiPointDem]

50. bullshit.

[Bjorn Against]

52. It is wefare, it falls under the general welfare clause of the Constitution

The Constitution explicitly calls on the federal government to provide for the general welfare of its citizens, that is what Social Security does. We should be concerned about the welfare of our citizens and I am going to embrace that term not run from it.

[HiPointDem]

53. that's not what welfare means in the common tongue. and you know it.

[Bjorn Against]

54. I am using the word correctly, it is the right-wing frame that is incorrect

Here is how the dictionary defines welfare:

wel·fare   [wel-fair]
noun
1.
the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; well-being: to look after a child's welfare; the physical or moral welfare of society.
2.
welfare work.
3.
financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government: Thousands of jobless people in this city would starve if it weren't for welfare.
4.
( initial capital letter ) Informal . a governmental agency that provides funds and aid to people in need, especially those unable to work.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/welfare?s=t

The word "welfare" is a good word, don't let the right-wing steal our language and demonize it.

[HiPointDem]

55. nope. the general "welfare" doesn't = a "welfare program". "welfare" has

meant "welfare" aka afdc, aka tanf, for all of my 60 years.

it ain't me redefining "welfare" where government benefits are concerned, it's you.

possibly part of the mindset trying to redefine "entitlement" as "welfare".

[Bjorn Against]

56. Read the definition I posted again, it is much more broad than AFDC and TANF

And Social Security does fit into the definition, it exists primarily to provide stability to people who are retired or disabled and can not work. Welfare is not a bad thing and we should stop pretending it is.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

22. They don't.

[Bjorn Against]

23. As a percentage of their income yes they do.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

24. Everyone pays the same percentage....

7.65% or 15.30% for the self-employed.

Have you ever paid the maximum into Social Security? There is a cap on benefits which is why there is a cap on contributions. It's not the same thing as the rich benefitting more from a stable government so they should pay more....

[AnotherMcIntosh]

30. Because there is a cap on contributions, "Everyone" DOES NOT pay "the same percentage."

Also, "Everyone" DOES NOT pay "the same percentage" because the wealthy receive much of their wealth through capital gains and there is no SS tax on capital gains.

The "same percentages" are only applicable to wages and net-earnings from self-employment below the cap. Capital gains are excluded, as are wages and net-earnings from self-employment above the cap

[Sekhmets Daughter]

32. What part of 'percentage' do you not understand?

If you earn $50K in 2012 your contribution to SS will be $3,825 this year. If you earn $110,100K this year, you will pay $$8,422 into SS...we'll ignore the payroll tax holiday for the sake of this discussion. If you earn the median wage of $26K a year, your contribution will be $1,989 per year. Had wages kept pace with GDP the median wage in 2010 would have been $92K and the SS contribution would have been $7,038. Do you now begin to see the problem?

If not, by all means continue to focus on the minutia of the problem and the extraordinarily small portion of the population that has absolutely no ordinary income every year...it won't solve the problem, but obviously it makes you feel like some sort of class warrior.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

38. Are you pretending to not know what you obviously do know?

You recognize that there is a cap for SS taxes.

You recognize that employees pay "7.65%" on wages up to the cap.

You also recognize that the self-employed pay "15.30%" on net earning from self-employment up to the cap.

Yet, you pretend to believe that regardless of the cap, that "Everyone pays the same percentage."

For 2012, the maximum taxable earnings amount for Social Security (OASDI) taxes is $110,100. Obviously, when an executive employee earns twice the amount of the cap as a salary, or $220,200, the percentage on the executive's earnings of $220,200 is 1/2 of "7.65%" and not "7.65%." 1/2 of 7.65% = 3.825%.

Also obviously, when an executive employee earns twice the amount of the cap as a salary, or $220,200, and receives another $220,200 as capital gain, or a total of $440,400, the percentage of the tax on the executive's income is 1/4 of "7.65%" and not "7.65%." 1/4 of 7.65% = 1.9125%.

An executive who pays 1.9125% SS taxes on income under such circumstances is not paying the same percentage as those who earn less than the cap as wages and pay "7.65%" SS taxes on their earnings.

Your insult ("What part of 'percentage' do you not understand?&quot just shows your ignorance or your pretended ignorance.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

40. You are forgetting that there is also a cap on BENEFITS....

The maximum benefit for 2012 is $2,513 a month....Would you care to double that? Triple it? Quadruple it? And that would help SS how?

If you understand one half of the percentage problem, why can't you recognize the other half?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

41. First, an insincere pretense at ignorance. Now, a red herring. You can do better than that.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

42. A red herring? Really?

There is a cap on contributions because, and only because, there is a cap on benefits. You like the progressive income tax system, correct? Yet I'm sure you know that those paying the top rate, don't pay that rate on all of their income, but just that amount above $338,350. And while it can positively be argued that those who earn more income, ultimately benefit more from a stable government, there is no compensating argument for raising the cap on SS contributions without raising the benefits.

Social Security doesn't have a potential problem because those making above $110,100 a year don't pay enough....It has a problem because there are too few people making $110,100 a year. Because there are too many people who qualify for the EITC even though they work 40 hours a week. Wages are too low to sustain the system long term. Raising, or eliminating the cap, is a short term fix for a long term problem.

While the maximum benefit in 2012 is $2,513. a month...the average retiree is collecting $1,229. a month because they never made enough money to make the maximum contribution. Raising the cap doesn't address that issue does it? Your benefit is based on your contributions....

Furthermore, the owners of capital don't give a rat's ass about their employees. Think Papa John's here. If you raise or eliminate the cap on contributions, even more employers will go the 1099 route and the workers will be hit with the full 15.30% If you've ever had to pay that 15.30% you must know, it hurts. There is no simple fix to the SS problem...and certainly no short term fix.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

43. Yes, a red herring. Let me explain:

red herring
n.,
An observation that draws attention away from the central issue in an argument or discussion.

In response to #23, you claimed at #24 that "Everyone pays the same percentage...."

Then, when it was explained at #30 and #38 that "Everyone" DOES NOT PAY "the same percentage...," you sought to change the subject by claiming at #40 that "You are forgetting that there is also a cap on BENEFITS...."

Your effort to change the subject at #40 does not support your original erroneous statement that "Everyone pays the same percentage...." They don't.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

45. Yes I know a non sequitur when I see one...I was simply taking the discussion to the next step....

They don't pay the same percentage, however those who pay the maximum pay considerably more in actual dollars....In my opinion the percentage argument is simply bullshit. But you're correct, I should not have taken any short cuts.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

25. There are numerous

inequities built into the Social Security system, but the cap on contributions is not really one of them. Allow me to explain.

Years ago your benefit was calculated based on 'lifetime" earnings...They changed that to "earnings for the last 40 quarters (10 years) of employment. The theory being that income is maximized during a worker's 50s. Of course those of us who have been paying attention, know that is no longer true, particularly since this recession but even before, older workers were /are being laid off and forced into lower paying jobs....Thus their SS benefits have been drastically reduced.

People who have healthy 401Ks or stated benefits retirement plans have a tendency to retire at age 62 taking a lower SS benefit. Why? Because their accountants have pointed out to them that the increase to "full" benefits does not equal what they stand to gain by retiring 4 years early at a reduced benefit.

The best way to fix SS is to increase the minimum wage which will result in all wages going up and ending the drain on the system of people retiring at age 62.

[JustAnotherGen]

33. Amen!

I'm being humourous here -

And I'm one of the people that a change of that nature would impact - and I dare the American people to stand up and make the Government make me pay it. Triple, double, dog dare the 95%.


Seriously though - tax me. Tax me for that purpose. I'll swear on my mother's soul - when you get to that mark - you seriously are not missing the money every other week.

And I wish folks who lean Republican who seem to think I need this break to create a job? I wish they'd wise up and realize - screw justanothergen! I don't want my mother eating cat food in her old age.

[2naSalit]

37. And what about

all those members of Congress and others who don't pay the SS tax on their income and get FREE health care for life We start by charging Cheney for all that heart surgery BS when EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT HE HASN"T GOT A HEART TO BEGIN WITH! We we're ripped off on that one for sure.

And if we were investing in a single payer system, it would level out the costs to everyone and then we would have to have this argument. Soc sec. could then be a given for those unable to work to have affordable housing since we wouldn't have to have individual arrears for medical costs.

[yardwork]

57. It would be risky to remove the incentive for the rich to stick with social security.

One reason it has lasted so long is that the rich get their piece of the pie. Yes, it's proportionately a much bigger piece of the pie, but letting them hog a lot of it helps ensure that they will let the rest of us keep our meager portions.

[Hatchling]

9. Social Security isn't a problem.

Getting them to pay back what they borrowed (robbed) from the fund is the problem.

[Big Blue Marble]

26. Kudos for getting to the core of this issue.

Under Reagan with the agreement of Tip O'neal, we got hit with the largest tax
increase in history and it taxed every dollar earned by low-income workers.

It was suppose to fix social security, instead the funds were borrowed to
cover Reagan's tax cuts for the rich. This system has been in place ever since.
Now the rich do not want to have their taxes raised to pay back the funds
so they blame the victims of what I call the greatest theft in history.

Why don't more people get the ruse?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

31. "Why don't more people get the ruse?" In part, it's due to the MSM failure to explain this. It can

also be blamed on the Republicans and the 3rd-wayers.

[Fire Walk With Me]

10. Everyone on DU should hear this Thom Hartmann piece on the subject:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101779848

[kentuck]

11. SS is only a problem if we keep cutting the payroll taxes...

Then it becomes part of the deficit and we have to borrow the money to pay for it. Then it is much easier to be cut. Those that argue otherwise have not thought it through.

[HooptieWagon]

13. Its bullshit.

SS operates like insurance. Your payments aren't saved for you retirement. Your payments go towards current retirees, when you retire your SS income will be paid by future workers. SS is actuarily sound, as long as workers are paying in, there is money to pay out.
SS was adjusted back in the 80s in anticipation of baby-boomers retirement. This is why a surplus was built up. This surplus was invested in govt bonds, and spent by republicans instead of raising taxes. If the government pays that money back to SS, then along with money being paid in there is sufficient funding to pay future obligations to boomers. If the govt doesn't pay the money back, boomers will still collect SS from future revenues at about an 80% level.
IMO, cutting SS for boomers would be unfair. Not only did boomers contribute to SS for past SS recipients, they also contributed towards their future SS checks... something no other generation has been required to do.

[lovuian]

14. It is a scam and it is Wallstreets plan

to get the people to invest in their SCAM and gambling casino

[reformist2]

18. Yep. That's all this is.

[99Forever]

15. The only "problem" with SS...

... is that the greedy fucking 1% hasn't yet figured out the way they can steal it, but they're working on it and those that could stop them are making the usual sounds of capitulation.

[reformist2]

16. Wall Street wants their hands on it, so they can siphon off 1% per year in "management fees"...

That is really all anybody needs to know. They will never stop lobbying for it. We just need to recognize this and tell our congressmen to stop talking to them about it.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

17. It's a scam being foisted upon us by Corporate Dems...

all the way to the top.

[Egalitarian Thug]

20. Currently a steaming pile. I might become a real problem if we don't change the economic

course this nation has been on for half a century in the very near future.

[fredamae]

27. Exactly Where is our $ & What is it being used for?

"By 1983, Social Security was in trouble. Congress increased Social Security taxes more than was needed in order to have a surplus ready for the retiring baby boomers 30 years in the future[/b]."

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/opinion/article/Tax-system-benefits-only-the-rich-1152714.php#ixzz2COu7xnDt

[AnotherMcIntosh]

47. The Social Security funds are being used to finance the military-industial complex.

[Kaleva]

28. I voted other as I do think some improvements can be done.

[INdemo]

29. The key is put people back to work and the entitlement programs

funding will increase..FDR figured this out and its pretty simple arithmetic..More people working more payroll deductions.
The government owes Social Security 2.7 Trillion...This should not be included in the budget...
The reason Social Security is supposedly going broke (which it isn't) is because a Republican controlled Congress kept pulling funding from Soc Security pre 2006..among the programs that benefited was tax cuts for the wealthy from these funds..
The Republicans have been using this "dont tax the job creators fo 100 years...whatever we do dont tax the rich.

[Zorra]

34. Right now, truth in DU Politics Forum: Rep. Alan Grayson: "This is An Artificial Crisis, to

Steal From the Middle Class"

Highly recommend it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251247147

[woo me with science]

39. Yet another,

indeed.

[MrMickeysMom]

48. 12.4% ...

Medicare and Social Securty (balance 15.3 is the payroll tax altogether to fund these programs which labeled by bullshit artists as "entitlements".

Medicare is not adding to the deficit. The way to solve both non-crisis is to elevate the cap on the current payroll tax set at $110,000.

Double or eliminating the cap altogether our seniors and those with disabilities would have the care and support that is essential in an enlightened society.

[Cleita]

51. Actually Bernie Sanders addressed just this today on the Thom Hartmann show.

He said that SS hasn't contributed one cent to the deficit and actually has a surplus of almost three trillion dollars. This steaming pile is so high, Mitt Romney's horse couldn't jump over it.