ChiefsPlanet Mobile
View Poll Results: Which do you prefer
Keep Social Security & All Other Welfare Payment Systems as-is 4 36.36%
Modify SS & Welfare and augment with a Negative Income Tax 3 27.27%
Abolish SS & Welfare and replace with Universal Basic Income 4 36.36%
Voters: 11. You may not vote on this poll
Page 2 of 4
< 12 34 >
Washington DC and The Holy Land>Which of these three is the best option
Discuss Thrower 12:54 PM 04-12-2019
Poll forthwith
[Reply]
Over Yonder 11:28 AM 04-13-2019
Originally Posted by BDj23:
I know. I love the idea of working til I die to foot the bill of boomer retirement!
What do you think of my idea? And if you don't mind sharing, what age are you? I'm 42 and right smack dab in the middle of the group I think would be yucked.
[Reply]
BDj23 11:34 AM 04-13-2019
Originally Posted by Over Yonder:
What do you think of my idea? And if you don't mind sharing, what age are you? I'm 42 and right smack dab in the middle of the group I think would be yucked.
I like your idea, and I'm 34, so I'm in worse shape than you when it comes to retirement.

I've read articles saying that I will need 2 million dollars to retire, how the hell am I ever supposed to save that? I make okay money for someone without a college education. I've been putting 10% into my 401k since 26 and I don't know if I'll ever be able to retire.
[Reply]
listopencil 11:35 AM 04-13-2019
Can I just stick my dick in a blender instead of choosing one of these?
[Reply]
Just Passin' By 11:43 AM 04-13-2019
Originally Posted by listopencil:
Can I just stick my dick in a blender instead of choosing one of these?
:-)


I'm not sure "Stick my dick in a blender" would have beaten out "none of the above", but it might have beaten out the OP's 3 choices.
[Reply]
Over Yonder 11:55 AM 04-13-2019
Originally Posted by BDj23:
I like your idea, and I'm 34, so I'm in worse shape than you when it comes to retirement.

I've read articles saying that I will need 2 million dollars to retire, how the hell am I ever supposed to save that? I make okay money for someone without a college education. I've been putting 10% into my 401k since 26 and I don't know if I'll ever be able to retire.
Even thinking about the potential inflation, 2 million seems pretty insanely high. None of us ever know when our time is up, but damn, a person could live a modest life with 2 mil until like 175 yrs. old or something if you consider the interest you could draw off that money :-)

The question of how much is enough is a tough one I struggle with also. I'm putting 12% into my 401k, but I have only been doing it for a couple of years :-) I wish the 18 yr. old Over Yonder knew then what the 42 yr. old Over Yonder knows now :-)
[Reply]
Randallflagg 04:33 PM 04-13-2019
Originally Posted by BDj23:
So what happens to me? I'm just out all the money I paid into it?


Of course not. You would still be covered......throughout the entirety of your life. But those coming up behind you would have to decide what they wanted to do.


The cutoff date would be say - 2030 - people born after than would be the deciding factor for THEIR old age - not yours.
[Reply]
HonestChieffan 06:37 PM 04-13-2019
Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief:
None of the above. Adjust Retirement age for folks under 50. 69 is too young. When SS was started it it was age 65. The ave. life expectancy was at or close to the for men, who were the dominate wage earners.
Indeed, to right the ship and be reasonable, the under 50's will need to retire later....that is already a real thing so its a no pain gain. And if they want benefits to remain constant, they will need to pay in at a higher rate.

Thats how these things work. We have to reach out and support the elders as we always have.

Those who are earning must support those in their dotage. God bless them as they do as we did.
[Reply]
El Lobo Gordo 01:26 PM 04-14-2019
Originally Posted by Over Yonder:
First off, Social Security and welfare shouldn't be discussed together. They are not the same animals. Welfare needs eliminated cold turkey, right now period. Work or starve, those are your options. Or freeload off a friend or family member that works is also an option I guess.
When discussing the merits of the options presented social security and welfare should be discussed together. One option is for a universal basic income to replace both social security and welfare. Social security and welfare are both entitlement incomes and that does make them the same animal.

Only at the beginning of history have all humans worked or starved. Abel worked from the day he could walked until the day Cain clobbered him. Technology and the accumulation of knowledge has given us a production capacity that not all human beings need to work. First it was the ruling class that got the benefit of not having to work. Then children, who instead of laboring, could now attend schools. Now its elderly who don't need to work an can retire in their golden years. The process of automation and technology culling segments of humanity that have to work to feed/clothe/shelter us all is proceeding exponentially.

Some argue there is a day when most human beings will be unemployable. I don't know if that is true or not, but if it is, here are couple possible outcomes. The first is the road we appear to be on. An army of social workers who telle us how much to spend on housing, how much on food, how much on medical care, how much on telecommunications, etc. This current hodgepodge of welfare and entitlements programs like social security can easily morph into a society where the government manages every aspect of your life, especially in a world where humans have become unemployable.

Another other option is get rid of welfare, and social security, and the whole lot. Get rid of minimum wage and unemployment benefits. Give every one a universal basic income in the form of a technology dividend that you get to keep on top of whatever else you can earn. Tax consumption to pay for it. Those that consume more get taxed more. Those that consume less, get taxed less. There would no longer need to be an army of social workers and various government programs, each with it own rules and eligibility requirement. People would manage their own lives.
[Reply]
Over Yonder 03:09 PM 04-14-2019
Originally Posted by El Lobo Gordo:
When discussing the merits of the options presented social security and welfare should be discussed together. One option is for a universal basic income to replace both social security and welfare. Social security and welfare are both entitlement incomes and that does make them the same animal.

Only at the beginning of history have all humans worked or starved. Abel worked from the day he could walked until the day Cain clobbered him. Technology and the accumulation of knowledge has given us a production capacity that not all human beings need to work. First it was the ruling class that got the benefit of not having to work. Then children, who instead of laboring, could now attend schools. Now its elderly who don't need to work an can retire in their golden years. The process of automation and technology culling segments of humanity that have to work to feed/clothe/shelter us all is proceeding exponentially.

Some argue there is a day when most human beings will be unemployable. I don't know if that is true or not, but if it is, here are couple possible outcomes. The first is the road we appear to be on. An army of social workers who telle us how much to spend on housing, how much on food, how much on medical care, how much on telecommunications, etc. This current hodgepodge of welfare and entitlements programs like social security can easily morph into a society where the government manages every aspect of your life, especially in a world where humans have become unemployable.

Another other option is get rid of welfare, and social security, and the whole lot. Get rid of minimum wage and unemployment benefits. Give every one a universal basic income in the form of a technology dividend that you get to keep on top of whatever else you can earn. Tax consumption to pay for it. Those that consume more get taxed more. Those that consume less, get taxed less. There would no longer need to be an army of social workers and various government programs, each with it own rules and eligibility requirement. People would manage their own lives.
Remember, I offered a third option. :-)

Also, entitlement incomes? We need to define what entitlement incomes are I guess. Who is "entitled" to welfare? I know who is "entitled" to Social Security, but I don't know who is "entitled" to welfare.
[Reply]
El Lobo Gordo 03:38 PM 04-14-2019
Originally Posted by Over Yonder:
Remember, I offered a third option. :-)

Also, entitlement incomes? We need to define what entitlement incomes are I guess. Who is "entitled" to welfare? I know who is "entitled" to Social Security, but I don't know who is "entitled" to welfare.
Social Security and Welfare are both entitlements because if you meet the eligibility requirements, by law you get the payment. Social Security is a contributory entitlement program(meaning you have to pay into it to satisfy the eligibility requirements). Where as Welfare is a non-contributory entitlement program(meaning you can get it even if you don't pay any taxes).

The world has been and continues to move toward circumstances where less and less people have to work. Change occurred over millennium, then centuries, and now decades. Soon it will be years, and then months. We need to have a discussion on how to handle this. Very soon, most people won't need to work in order for there to be enough for everyone. How do we decide who has to work and who doesn't?
[Reply]
Randallflagg 04:05 PM 04-15-2019
Originally Posted by El Lobo Gordo:
Social Security and Welfare are both entitlements because if you meet the eligibility requirements, by law you get the payment. Social Security is a contributory entitlement program(meaning you have to pay into it to satisfy the eligibility requirements). Where as Welfare is a non-contributory entitlement program(meaning you can get it even if you don't pay any taxes).

The world has been and continues to move toward circumstances where less and less people have to work. Change occurred over millennium, then centuries, and now decades. Soon it will be years, and then months. We need to have a discussion on how to handle this. Very soon, most people won't need to work in order for there to be enough for everyone. How do we decide who has to work and who doesn't?

Nope. Try NOT paying your SS Taxes and see what happens to both YOU and your employer.

It is a law based on a promise. Now, if the federal government wants to end the REQUIREMENT to pay SS Taxes, fine. Right now, however, it is NOT a voluntary contribution.
[Reply]
El Lobo Gordo 12:07 AM 04-16-2019
Originally Posted by Randallflagg:
Nope. Try NOT paying your SS Taxes and see what happens to both YOU and your employer.

It is a law based on a promise. Now, if the federal government wants to end the REQUIREMENT to pay SS Taxes, fine. Right now, however, it is NOT a voluntary contribution.
Some employers/employee are exempt from social security. Many county employees don't pay into it because there is an exemption for employees covered by a public retirement system that meets certain federal standards. Since these employees don't contribute into social security, they are not entitled to payments from social security when they retire.

Because you or someone on your behalf(like a spouse) have to contribute to social security, it is considered a contributory entitlement program. I don't know where you got "voluntary" as that is word I did not use.
[Reply]
Randallflagg 08:42 AM 04-16-2019
Originally Posted by El Lobo Gordo:
Some employers/employee are exempt from social security. Many county employees don't pay into it because there is an exemption for employees covered by a public retirement system that meets certain federal standards. Since these employees don't contribute into social security, they are not entitled to payments from social security when they retire.

Because you or someone on your behalf(like a spouse) have to contribute to social security, it is considered a contributory entitlement program. I don't know where you got "voluntary" as that is word I did not use.


I guess I get a tad "testy" when someone tells me that the "tax" I paid for vast majority of my working life - nearly 60 years - is an "entitlement".

It was never to be an entitlement. It was intended to supplement older folks in their "golden" (bullshit) years. It was to be a "mandatory" tax from which we would receive our money back upon reaching that particular age.

So, to me, that is a non-voluntary retirement plan put forth by the United States Government (in particular FDR and the Congress).

It's hardly older folks' fault that we have allowed our "servants" to cheat, rob and steal from that fund each and every year from its' inception till now. No one asked us.

However, a promise was made (a law) and I damned well expect it to be kept.
[Reply]
theoldcoach 08:50 AM 04-16-2019
Originally Posted by Randallflagg:
I guess I get a tad "testy" when someone tells me that the "tax" I paid for vast majority of my working life - nearly 60 years - is an "entitlement".

It was never to be an entitlement. It was intended to supplement older folks in their "golden" (bullshit) years. It was to be a "mandatory" tax from which we would receive our money back upon reaching that particular age.

So, to me, that is a non-voluntary retirement plan put forth by the United States Government (in particular FDR and the Congress).

It's hardly older folks' fault that we have allowed our "servants" to cheat, rob and steal from that fund each and every year from its' inception till now. No one asked us.

However, a promise was made (a law) and I damned well expect it to be kept.
Amen!
[Reply]
GloucesterChief 06:32 PM 04-16-2019
Originally Posted by Randallflagg:
I guess I get a tad "testy" when someone tells me that the "tax" I paid for vast majority of my working life - nearly 60 years - is an "entitlement".

It was never to be an entitlement. It was intended to supplement older folks in their "golden" (bullshit) years. It was to be a "mandatory" tax from which we would receive our money back upon reaching that particular age.

So, to me, that is a non-voluntary retirement plan put forth by the United States Government (in particular FDR and the Congress).

It's hardly older folks' fault that we have allowed our "servants" to cheat, rob and steal from that fund each and every year from its' inception till now. No one asked us.

However, a promise was made (a law) and I damned well expect it to be kept.
The supreme court already said that the Fedgov can alter the deal at will. You better pray they don't alter it further.
[Reply]
Page 2 of 4
< 12 34 >
Up