McCarthy loses Speaker vote 3 times…

[oze]

I think the scenario that I think most of us would support, people below a certain age would be able to opt out. I can only imagine how what that 6.2% would be worth after 50 years, if I had been allowed to invest it myself. However, what percentage of current earners do y'all guess would just say, "Woo-hoo! Biden just gave me a 6.2% raise! Let's buy a boat!" Which would, I guess, help the economy in the short term. But what happens when these people retire, completely destitute? Do the ants among us get forced to support those silly grasshoppers? If not, then what happens to them? Without a snarky comment, I don't have an answer.

 

[HoosierLife]

Couch it however you want, but if you're advocating for the government to force me to pay into a system so that you can be paid out of that system, it is what it is.

You're not getting back what you paid into the system, because what you paid in was already spent. The only way the current beneficiaries get paid is because they are being paid what I and others are currently paying into the system.

I have no choice but to write it off, because there's zero chance I'm going to see anything I pay into SS. And, yes: taking money out of my paycheck to pay someone else's retirement is wealth redistribution - i.e. socialism.

I’m pretty sure they call that a Ponzi Scheme nowadays.

 

[bwframe]

 

[d.kaufman]

 

[indyblue]

Lol

The hosue speaker?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Couch it however you want, but if you're advocating for the government to force me to pay into a system so that you can be paid out of that system, it is what it is.

You're not getting back what you paid into the system, because what you paid in was already spent. The only way the current beneficiaries get paid is because they are being paid what I and others are currently paying into the system.

I have no choice but to write it off, because there's zero chance I'm going to see anything I pay into SS. And, yes: taking money out of my paycheck to pay someone else's retirement is wealth redistribution - i.e. socialism.

And who have I been supporting these last nearly 50 years?

 

[chipbennett]

I think the scenario that I think most of us would support, people below a certain age would be able to opt out. I can only imagine how what that 6.2% would be worth after 50 years, if I had been allowed to invest it myself. However, what percentage of current earners do y'all guess would just say, "Woo-hoo! Biden just gave me a 6.2% raise! Let's buy a boat!" Which would, I guess, help the economy in the short term. But what happens when these people retire, completely destitute? Do the ants among us get forced to support those silly grasshoppers? If not, then what happens to them? Without a snarky comment, I don't have an answer.

That's 12%, not 6%: 6% from you, 6% from your employer.

 

[chipbennett]

And who have I been supporting these last nearly 50 years?

So you understand why my support for the GOP is... unenthusiastic.

 

[jamil]

Couch it however you want, but if you're advocating for the government to force me to pay into a system so that you can be paid out of that system, it is what it is.

True

You're not getting back what you paid into the system, because what you paid in was already spent. The only way the current beneficiaries get paid is because they are being paid what I and others are currently paying into the system.

False. You pay in with the promise of getting paid when you're eligible. A Ponzie scheme, if you will.

I have no choice but to write it off, because there's zero chance I'm going to see anything I pay into SS. And, yes: taking money out of my paycheck to pay someone else's retirement is wealth redistribution - i.e. socialism.

Partially true. Socialism is "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." If it were real ass socialism, in a practical way, when people are no longer productive, just euthanize them. Only half joking there.

Social Security isn't by itself stand-alone socialism, it is a tax, the proceeds of which, pay the retirement benefits for people who've payed into the system before they retired. Again, I think whoever described it as a Ponzie scheme earlier is more correct. As it relates to socialism, it's on the spectrum though.

 

[jamil]

That's 12%, not 6%: 6% from you, 6% from your employer.

Employers can buy boats too.

 

[oze]

That's 12%, not 6%: 6% from you, 6% from your employer.

Right. Thanks.

 

[rhamersley]

So, we have a speaker yet?

 

[KLB]

So, we have a speaker yet?

We're arguing about SS and Ponzi schemes here, get your own thread!

 

[cg21]

Turned off the news a few months ago just now hearing about some current events….. and I have to say this one I’m pretty excited about I like Jordan.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I disagree. The entire economy would collapse from the effect of trying to kill millions of elderly OR shifting the burden elsewhere.

Millions of elderly live on the verge of poverty. Many are in nursing homes that take their SS payments to fund their care. When it stops thousands of nursing homes across the country would go out of business. Overnight. Where would we put these elderly then? Another government program I know you would not want. OR, force them to live with family that may not be able to support them, presuming they have a family at all. Presuming they have no family OR family that refuses to take care of them, what is your solution? You must have one before putting their nursing home out of business.

There are many elderly who are making it in their own homes, barely. Take away their lifeline of SS then what do we do? Same problem with those in nursing homes with a little bit of a cushion that maybe(?) selling their home would give them a few years of safety. And then what?

The vast majority of Americans, conservative and liberal, would not want to see peoples parents and grandparents thrown into crisis. There would be NO vote for it. That is reality. So killing overnight is an option that is entirely beyond achievement. Again, let's not let perfect get in the way of good. And I don't think killing it overnight would be perfect but far from it.

I agree 100% with reducing and/or removing social programs. I 100% disagree with just shutting most (not all) of them down instantly. They didn't just pop up overnight and trying to get rid of most of them overnight would be catastrophic.

I think you entirely missed my point.

But this thread is already derailed enough, so maybe we should start a social security thread if we want to argue about social security for 3 posts before getting off on another subject...

 

[Shadow01]

I think the scenario that I think most of us would support, people below a certain age would be able to opt out. I can only imagine how what that 6.2% would be worth after 50 years, if I had been allowed to invest it myself. However, what percentage of current earners do y'all guess would just say, "Woo-hoo! Biden just gave me a 6.2% raise! Let's buy a boat!" Which would, I guess, help the economy in the short term. But what happens when these people retire, completely destitute? Do the ants among us get forced to support those silly grasshoppers? If not, then what happens to them? Without a snarky comment, I don't have an answer.

If allowed to opt out of SSI, I have no issue passing destitute people in the city streets that chose not to make their own retirement plans. You are not entitled to receive forced help from those that chose to live frugally and make plans for their own retirement years. You get to do 2 things in this life. Live by your choices and die by those same choices. Both rest on your shoulders not the person across the street.

 

[BugI02]

If allowed to opt out of SSI, I have no issue passing destitute people in the city streets that chose not to make their own retirement plans. You are not entitled to receive forced help from those that chose to live frugally and make plans for their own retirement years. You get to do 2 things in this life. Live by your choices and die by those same choices. Both rest on your shoulders not the person across the street.

I would recommend you reform the other entitlements, the ones that recipients did not contribute to, first

Otherwise, when you make people destitute by cutting off social security and/or medicare you will just end up paying more via taxes to support them, in a less free and more government dependent style, with increased waste due to the greater amount of government attached to the project

 

[jamil]

We're arguing about SS and Ponzi schemes here, get your own thread!

Nah. When news comes it’ll come. You know how to scroll.

 

[Shadow01]

I would recommend you reform the other entitlements, the ones that recipients did not contribute to, first

Otherwise, when you make people destitute by cutting off social security and/or medicare you will just end up paying more via taxes to support them, in a less free and more government dependent style, with increased waste due to the greater amount of government attached to the project

But we should not allow taxes to be raised to take care of the destitute. They made their choice.

 

[jamil]

But we should not allow taxes to be raised to take care of the destitute. They made their choice.

Well those that want to fund welfare should eagerly put their money where their mouth is.