Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by devildog2067, Sep 16, 2012.
yes, me too.
I'd go with "you deserve what you can pay for".
Someone said in an earlier post about having "entered into a contract" by paying into SS, and expecting to get it back. That makes the arrangement almost voluntary. I seem to remember that it was automatically deducted from my paycheck, to pay for those ahead of me. I don't remember being given the option of NOT paying it.
Those of you who mention about paying into it, what if it had been presented to you as a direct marketing pyramid scheme where you had to do all of the leg work? So some guy approaches you to be on his team, basically stating a portion of your earnings will go to him, and the guy whose team he's on. And all you have to do is find 5 other guys to be under you, and each of them finds 5 other guys, and each of them finds five other guys and so on, and so on...... Any one of us would tell that guy to **** OFF, and slam the door in his face. Because that is exactly what SS is, a ponzi scheme, accept the guy asking you to voluntarily do this is part of the government, and if you somehow refuse to join, well right behind him is the full force of the federal government that will make you "voluntarily" comply.
My step father whom in many ways is a nice guy, but not particularly smart in many ways has a logic stream, that defies logic, he loves to throw at me when we have this argument on SS. He says the following:
"There are a lot of people out there that just couldn't or didn't save for retirement, and if it wasn't for SS all of those people would be on WELFARE!"
You see what he did there, yes the horror if SS didn't exist all of those people would be on government welfare, and somehow that's worse.
SS was created by the government, looted and stolen from by the government, and will be made insolvent by the government. The same government promises to pay back that money by creating iou's, but in the meantime they're gonna need more of your money to get by.
I'm 45, and I believe that given reasonable health expectations, that I will need to work for the at least the next 40 years, so that my retirement plan of being found dead at my desk in school can be fully implemented. You see I have more than a few nieces and nephews, and I don't want to be taking away money from them and their children so that I may retire on the backs of them and their generation.
To Rabbi, and Certified Funds, I learn something useful anytime I read one of your posts. Thanks.
The only just way to organize a society is to base it on the voluntary cooperation of equals, with each person asserting his or her rights in a civil manner and respecting the rights of others in the same way. Government is how we manage that interaction.
Right now government has forgotten or chooses to ignore that and acts as if they were separate and above the individuals who make up society. The attitude has so permeated society that we have people who think that government money is like sunshine, it just falls from the sky, always has done so and always will. It does not, cannot and certainly will not in the future.
Our choice now, this year, this fall is simple. Will America become more like Greece and Spain, addicted to government programs to the point of destroying the prosperity that makes them possible or will we be like the Germans and Swedes, recognizing the only possible end to the path we are on and trying to curb the growth of entitlements and government spending?
Fairness is a mirage. Equal distribution of insufficient resources just means we all starve to death at the same time. The only way out is forward, creating enough wealth to make the majority of people moderately prosperous. Certainly there will be poor and wealthy, but a society with a large, moderately comfortable middle class can afford to help the poor. The alternative is to grow government to the point that everyone is poor, and no one will be able to help themselves, much less anyone else.
At age 37, I wonder if I ever will retire. I am about 1 1/2 years from being eligible retire from the Guard but will not because of the health insurance for my family. I have about 8 years into the 25 year state retirement here. So I will be eligible to draw my state pension at about age 54 and my military retirement at age 58. So, my "retirement" plans are both based on state/fed gov retirements. I am not under any illusion that I will ever draw SSI so not planning on that. I can't help but wonder if any of my pension plans will be there. As stated, I know I will probably never be able to quit working completely.
So my question is, what is the safest bet on trying to plan for reaching that age? Are 401 type plans any safer that government type retirement plans?
Input would be appreciated
It's a right if a big enough majority of voters say it is and will stay that way until it can't be sustained at which point it won't be a right until enough time has passed and enough people forget about it and enough voters say so and it will be a right again. Just a hunch.
Generally speaking, retirement in pre-modern industrial societies was reserved for when you were too old and a little out of date for the rigors of industrial life.
What did they call a retired farmer?
A Farmer. Ok... the younger generation took over operation of the homestead, but remember those were the day of extended families.
If the feds breached the contract with SS, what is one to do when they don't have the money?
The lifetime of contributions of the current retirees and soon to be retirees is gone. It's gone. The workers today are funding the retirees now in the system.
How much more money should be extorted from current and future workers to support a broken system? Something has to be done. No one wants to face reality. We are being crushed under the weight of trillions of debt.
I'll ask again, when is the tax payer going to tell the .gov enough is enough?
My suggestion to those that are so against SSA, don't collect when you hit your retirement years, don't be a hypocrite. You HAD to pay into the system, but you don't have to collect, to collect/file would make you an accomplice.
Stand strong behind your principles
By the time you hit retirement age a meteor could hit this planet and we could all be gone. I take from your evasiveness that while you're against SSA in principle, you'll be at the local office filing at age 62.
It seems fundamentally wrong to me that in the richest country in the world, or one of the richest at least, people should need to work until the day they die. Well into their old age. That just seems wrong, when so many other people have more money than they know what to do with.
Makes me think of two words: greed; and sharing. I guess I could add caring there also.
We were all raised with different morals I guess. To each his own.
P.S. I've got a good job, retirement account, good family support, and three boys, so I'm not worried about my old age. But not everyone is lucky enough to have those things.
That's kind of like suggesting that if I have such a problem with the mugger mugging people then I shouldn't take back the money he took from me given the chance. Does not compute.
Don't you know? Obamacare is the solution to the Social Security funding problem. Once everyone is on Obamacare and SS cost spiral out of control, they just start rationing services and medicines. Problem of too many retirees is solved. A 3 month shortage of insulin will knock a lot of people out of the roles.
A 6 month shortage of blood pressure medicines, and Medicare funding is solved.
Some of your situation is not luck, it is hard work, good planning and SELF CONTROL.
When the government start taking responsibility for the jobs of charities (taking care of those that can't care of themselves), and taking money for those charitable works at the point of a gun. Some stopped giving as much to charity (apparently Democrats more so than Republicans, as republicans give more).
There used to be hundreds of charity hospitals around the country. No some much now. Doctors used to do much more charity care, now that the government takes money from their pocket at gunpoint to care for those same people means they are not so inclined.
How can people not see this?
Michel de Montaigne believed in it, and he cites antiquity.
I invested what I could from my meager municipal salary and retired at age 51.
The problem with "greed", "caring" and "sharing" is that those words can mean anything.
However, the argument for a public pension system is much less subjective: market failures.
Think about a timeline of a person's life: they grow up (0-25), get a job (25-), have children (25-40),buy a house (30-45), etc.
If a person had to provide for their parents, and themselves and their children they would have a lot less money for anything else. This leads to several possibilities:
1. They won't have children. Children used to free labor - back before Social Security. But today children are a luxury good. If people knew they had to provide for aging relatives more would likely chose not to reproduce.
2. They won't go to college. Or maybe even HS. Before the 1930s the average American had about an 8th grade education. Again, without a modern welfare state people have a difficult time putting off getting to work.
3. If they do have children, they won't be able to invest in them. Good schools, child care, etc. cost money. When a person has to sock away everything they make just to prepare to care for aging relatives, they won't be able to invest in their children.
4. Kiss the consumer economy goodbye. With people forced to save every nickel there will be less money for consumption. As people purchase fewer cars, houses, iPods, etc, do kiss all those jibs goodbye.
In short, our entire modern capitalist system depends on the government to do a little consumption smoothing. Probably every single person on this thread has a job that depends on the modern economy for our livelyhoods.
Whats that you say, you're an engineer and you don't work for the gubermint? Well, unless you engineer outhouses and horse drawn buggys you need a strong consumer economy. Petroleum engineer? You need people to by cars to need your petroleum. Chemist? You need a consumer industry or the pharmaceutical industry or both. Medical doctor? Again, maybe if you practice frontier medicine out of a little black bag you can get by in a system without a modern welfare state. But more advanced medicine will have a pretty rough go in a cash and carry economy.
And you think there's any sort of finance industry without government? Again, take away the government consumption smoothing and you loose the credit industry. Mortgage industry does down the tubes becaue people will want to save to buy a house instead of taking out a loan. And if you have real estate to sell, better cut the price to whatever a person can shove under their mattress.
Again, with aging parents, relatives and their own retirements to save for, people will have to save a lot more.
It used to be that the different between conservatives and liberals was the difference between utopianist liberals and realist conservatives. Somewhere along the way conservatives got screwed up and turned around. They decided to stop talking about "is" and got obessed with "shoulds".
Social security is an is. Let's let communists talk about fictional utopias that are both unworkable and unpopular and instead be conservative by embracing the is.
An is position could be to slowly raise the retirement age to help account for increased life expetectencies. An is positsiton might be raise the cap on payroll taxes.
But talking about whether a public program that is nearly 80 years old, represents about 1/3 of the federal budget and hast the support of 4/5ths of the American public is a "right" is a utopianist fantasy.
Not so much of a comment on the SS reimbursement thing, but when did it become such a bad thing to continue working?
I like to work. My Dad is still working. He's 77. He swears that the rocking chair would be the death of him.
Edited to add: I have no intention of quitting. Most farmers go till they die, and I don't foresee myself being any different, barring illness or incident, of course.
In the city people retire and that is how it has always been from what I have seen. In the old days people could grow beans and taters and live and that does not hold true nowadays. Immigration has destroyed America and other countries because the theory that we need workers has undermined the economy. But to say that retirement is a "luxury" is not realistic and kind of boneheaded. As people live longer they will need retirement and money to live. Or people will just have to walk out in the woods and "off themselves".
for me, retirement did not mean I could stop working, it only meant that I would have to have another job, since my retirement pay is not that robust. I may even have to get several jobs, since I can not make anywhere near the amount I was making before I retired....this economy is killing me...