ChiefsPlanet Mobile
View Poll Results: What do you think?
Yes, socialism is bad! 7 33.33%
No, I love socialism! 14 66.67%
Voters: 21. You may not vote on this poll
Page 11 of 12
« First < 7891011 12 >
Washington DC and The Holy Land>Should we cut Social Security and Medicare benefits?
NJChiefsFan27 01:14 PM 02-25-2020
Scientific poll incoming!
[Reply]
HemiEd 08:56 PM 02-26-2020
Originally Posted by El Lobo Gordo:
It isn't your money that the government holds in some account for you. If it was your money, you could leave it to your heirs. It is a program to transfer wealth from relatively poor people to wealthier ones. It is closer to theft than socialism.
Your and idiot. It is actually slanted more towards the poor in it's payout. See the posts above, Rainmans is a good one if you want to actually learn something, or Pats.
[Reply]
El Lobo Gordo 09:22 PM 02-26-2020
Originally Posted by HemiEd:
Your and idiot. It is actually slanted more towards the poor in it's payout. See the posts above, Rainmans is a good one if you want to actually learn something, or Pats.
Sorry dummy you are just plain wrong. Take your head out of the hole it is in and see reality for what it is. Social security takes money from young people entering the work force who have nothing and gives it to old people who have acquired a life time of assets. It transfer wealth from a poorer class to a class that has more wealth. Tax the poor give to the rich is what social security does. You just can't accept that because you let yourself be brainwashed all these years.

Social Security also favors wealthier people throughout the entire program. Poorer blue collar workers enter the work force earlier while their richer white collar counter parts go to college. Rich white collars guys live longer than blue collar guys. The poor blue collar guys get screwed on both ends. They start "paying" into the program earlier and therefore "pay" into it longer. The poorer blue collar guys get screwed yet again when their stream of payments ends sooner because they die earlier than the white collar guys.
[Reply]
Al Czervik 09:50 PM 02-26-2020
Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco:
No b**** that's what you call it. You've repeatedly demonstrated that you don't know what socialism is yet you claim to support it. That's why we all laugh at you. I've shown your post the people i know and some of them think that you're the dumbest motherfuker on the planet. I remind them that you are not alone.
QFT......

Rotting corpses buried in the Titanic have more common sense than Lonedolt
[Reply]
Rain Man 10:25 PM 02-26-2020
Originally Posted by El Lobo Gordo:
Sorry dummy you are just plain wrong. Take your head out of the hole it is in and see reality for what it is. Social security takes money from young people entering the work force who have nothing and gives it to old people who have acquired a life time of assets. It transfer wealth from a poorer class to a class that has more wealth. Tax the poor give to the rich is what social security does. You just can't accept that because you let yourself be brainwashed all these years.

Social Security also favors wealthier people throughout the entire program. Poorer blue collar workers enter the work force earlier while their richer white collar counter parts go to college. Rich white collars guys live longer than blue collar guys. The poor blue collar guys get screwed on both ends. They start "paying" into the program earlier and therefore "pay" into it longer. The poorer blue collar guys get screwed yet again when their stream of payments ends sooner because they die earlier than the white collar guys.
Interesting perspectives.

I guess one could make an argument that Social Security is taking money from younger people to give to older people. But the older people had the same money taken away from them to give to the generation before that. It's not free money for older people, other than a bit of the redistribution toward lower-income older people. So from a young person's perspective, I think the way to think about it is that you're loaning money to the government at a set interest rate, and it'll be repaid with interest when you're old. That's not a bad thing as long as the system works.

Of course, one must acknowledge that there are some problems with the system. I'm no expert in it, but I feel like the challenges to social security are not mismanagement, but demographics. Over the course of the last sixty years, we've seen slowdowns in birth rates that have produced fewer young people for a generation, and we've got longer life spans on the back end. If there's a need to ratchet back the system, it'll hurt both younger people who are paying in now and older people who have already paid in.

The blue collar thing is interesting to think about. Payments are based on a person's highest 35 years of earning, so yeah, someone who works more years may pay more in. I've never thought about that.

And yeah, the system pays less to people who don't live as long. I guess that's not good from an equity perspective, but ... you're dead. The purpose of the program is for living people to have food and shelter, so they don't care too much about dead people. There are some survivor benefits that can offset it, but the bottom line is that you pay into the program so you can have more money while you're alive. If you want to live longer, stop smoking, start exercising, and eat vegetables and you can increase your odds of winning the game.

So overall, I agree with some of your points, but from a policy perspective they don't bother me that much. I'm a little bothered by the whole "working more years if you enter the work force young", because my dad put me to work at the age of 12. It seems like there would be a way to credit that money back once someone hits their 36th year of earning, but in the big picture a person's lowest earning years probably aren't producing much in terms of social security taxes.
[Reply]
patteeu 10:29 PM 02-26-2020
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
Interesting perspectives.

I guess one could make an argument that Social Security is taking money from younger people to give to older people. But the older people had the same money taken away from them to give to the generation before that. It's not free money for older people, other than a bit of the redistribution toward lower-income older people. So from a young person's perspective, I think the way to think about it is that you're loaning money to the government at a set interest rate, and it'll be repaid with interest when you're old. That's not a bad thing as long as the system works.

Of course, one must acknowledge that there are some problems with the system. I'm no expert in it, but I feel like the challenges to social security are not mismanagement, but demographics. Over the course of the last sixty years, we've seen slowdowns in birth rates that have produced fewer young people for a generation, and we've got longer life spans on the back end. If there's a need to ratchet back the system, it'll hurt both younger people who are paying in now and older people who have already paid in.

The blue collar thing is interesting to think about. Payments are based on a person's highest 35 years of earning, so yeah, someone who works more years may pay more in. I've never thought about that.

And yeah, the system pays less to people who don't live as long I guess that's not good from an equity perspective, but ... you're dead. The purpose of the program is for living people to have food and shelter, so they don't care too much about dead people. There are some survivor benefits that can offset it, but the bottom line is that you pay into the program so you can have more money while you're alive.

So overall, I agree with some of your points, but from a policy perspective they don't bother me that much. I'm a little bothered by the whole "working more years if you enter the work force young", because my dad put me to work at the age of 12. It seems like there would be a way to credit that money back once someone hits their 36th year of earning, but in the big picture a person's lowest earning years probably aren't producing much in terms of social security taxes.
A lot of Republican populists are upset with Republicans like Paul Ryan because they're in favor of legal immigration at current or even greater rates, but I'm convinced that in Ryan's case (and other GOP like him) it's not about keeping wages low for corporations (as the cynics would tell us) but instead about dealing with this demographic issue you're talking about.

We can't reduce our birthrate, cut immigration and continue to have the pay as you go entitlement system we have today. One of those things has to give.
[Reply]
Rain Man 10:40 PM 02-26-2020
Originally Posted by patteeu:
A lot of Republican populists are upset with Republicans like Paul Ryan because they're in favor of legal immigration at current or even greater rates, but I'm convinced that in Ryan's case (and other GOP like him) it's not about keeping wages low for corporations (as the cynics would tell us) but instead about dealing with this demographic issue you're talking about.

We can't reduce our birthrate, cut immigration and continue to have the pay as you go entitlement system we have today. One of those things has to give.
Yeah, I can see that being true. That's the pyramid more so than the social security system. I don't know if continued population growth is sustainable in the long term, but who knows? Maybe 200 years from now it'll be cities on Mars paying into the system. But for now, increasing immigration is an easy answer as long as they're legal and paying into the system.

I like it when different policy discussions merge. Want to save social security? Let's talk immigration!
[Reply]
patteeu 10:49 PM 02-26-2020
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
Yeah, I can see that being true. That's the pyramid more so than the social security system. I don't know if continued population growth is sustainable in the long term, but who knows? Maybe 200 years from now it'll be cities on Mars paying into the system. But for now, increasing immigration is an easy answer as long as they're legal and paying into the system.

I like it when different policy discussions merge. Want to save social security? Let's talk immigration!
I'm skeptical of how good an idea it is to have a system based on perpetual population growth too. Maybe the era of automation will be an opportunity for a new paradigm, but I don't know what it is or how we get there. Maybe the Yang guy will run again in 2024 and have it all figured out.
[Reply]
Rain Man 11:04 PM 02-26-2020
Originally Posted by patteeu:
I'm skeptical of how good an idea it is to have a system based on perpetual population growth too. Maybe the era of automation will be an opportunity for a new paradigm, but I don't know what it is or how we get there. Maybe the Yang guy will run again in 2024 and have it all figured out.
I'm placing my bets on a robot-operated society that is affluent enough to give everyone a Universal Basic Income with no regard to their production capability.
[Reply]
Loneiguana 05:42 AM 02-27-2020
Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco:
No b**** that's what you call it. You've repeatedly demonstrated that you don't know what socialism is yet you claim to support it. That's why we all laugh at you. I've shown your post the people i know and some of them think that you're the dumbest motherfuker on the planet. I remind them that you are not alone.
Dumbass thinks social security isnt socialism, dumbly says others dont know what it means. Looks to other idiots for confirmation.

Pathetic and stupid.

You truly have to be one ignorant and stupid person to claim s.s. isnt socialism.
[Reply]
El Lobo Gordo 05:52 AM 02-27-2020
Originally Posted by patteeu:
I'm skeptical of how good an idea it is to have a system based on perpetual population growth too. Maybe the era of automation will be an opportunity for a new paradigm, but I don't know what it is or how we get there. Maybe the Yang guy will run again in 2024 and have it all figured out.
A social security check doesn't make you better off. The goods and services you purchase are what make you better off. If social security checks stop coming would we stop producing the goods and services that the elderly use?
[Reply]
HemiEd 08:28 AM 02-27-2020
Originally Posted by El Lobo Gordo:
Sorry dummy you are just plain wrong. Take your head out of the hole it is in and see reality for what it is. Social security takes money from young people entering the work force who have nothing and gives it to old people who have acquired a life time of assets. It transfer wealth from a poorer class to a class that has more wealth. Tax the poor give to the rich is what social security does. You just can't accept that because you let yourself be brainwashed all these years.

Social Security also favors wealthier people throughout the entire program. Poorer blue collar workers enter the work force earlier while their richer white collar counter parts go to college. Rich white collars guys live longer than blue collar guys. The poor blue collar guys get screwed on both ends. They start "paying" into the program earlier and therefore "pay" into it longer. The poorer blue collar guys get screwed yet again when their stream of payments ends sooner because they die earlier than the white collar guys.
Let me guess, "You are special"

Employees pay 6.2% of their income in SS tax until they reach an income of $132,900 matched by their employer. So that is 12.4 % no matter what your age, 16 or 65, nor does it matter if you wash dishes or anchor a news channel.

The person paying in the max after making $132,900, pays $16,479.60 with employer contribution.

The entry level employee making $7 an hour pays $1,805.44 with employer contribution.

The higher paid employee/employer paid in roughly 9+ times as much as the entry level person.

Then once it is time to collect, the lower income person actually receives a higher benefit based on percentage paid in.


But the program is stealing from the poor to give to the rich?
[Reply]
GloryDayz 08:39 AM 02-27-2020
Originally Posted by HemiEd:
Let me guess, "You are special"

Employees pay 6.2% of their income in SS tax until they reach an income of $132,900 matched by their employer. So that is 12.4 % no matter what your age, 16 or 65, nor does it matter if you wash dishes or anchor a news channel.

The person paying in the max after making $132,900, pays $16,479.60 with employer contribution.

The entry level employee making $7 an hour pays $1,805.44 with employer contribution.

The higher paid employee/employer paid in roughly 9+ times as much as the entry level person.

Then once it is time to collect, the lower income person actually receives a higher benefit based on percentage paid in.


But the program is stealing from the poor to give to the rich?
More wealth redistribution to the fucking lazy!
[Reply]
2bikemike 09:26 AM 02-27-2020
Originally Posted by patteeu:
A lot of Republican populists are upset with Republicans like Paul Ryan because they're in favor of legal immigration at current or even greater rates, but I'm convinced that in Ryan's case (and other GOP like him) it's not about keeping wages low for corporations (as the cynics would tell us) but instead about dealing with this demographic issue you're talking about.

We can't reduce our birthrate, cut immigration and continue to have the pay as you go entitlement system we have today. One of those things has to give.
I have been saying this for years. Both legal and Illegal immigration. The more people you can put on the payroll the more taxes you can collect across the board.

IMHO it is the whole reason politicians from all stripes want to normalize the illegal aspect. Bring them out of the shadows.

They all know that Social Security is a pyramid scheme. You gotta refresh that bottom layer to push out the top layer.
[Reply]
HemiEd 10:44 AM 02-27-2020
Originally Posted by GloryDayz:
More wealth redistribution to the ****ing lazy!
Victims!
[Reply]
HemiEd 10:47 AM 02-27-2020
Originally Posted by 2bikemike:

They all know that Social Security is a pyramid scheme. You gotta refresh that bottom layer to push out the top layer.
Furthermore, the longer you keep those illegals paying in on fake SS numbers that they will never collect on, the better it is for the bottom line of the program.
[Reply]
Page 11 of 12
« First < 7891011 12 >
Up