Posted on 06/08/2015 1:58:26 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Comparing total benefits to “total contributions” is nonsense, because it doesn’t account for the time value of money. Given the average long-term bond rates in the 80’s, dividends dwarf actual contributions.
Someone in their 80’s will get a substantial return on SS contributions, but that has ended for anyone nearing retirement now. Depending on your average income, the equivalent return rate. may be negative.
That money was stolen from you. They spent it. It’s gone, gone, gone.
Now, the only way for you to “get yours” is to rob a whole new generation, and the generations to come.
If this constitutional republic is to survive, someone is going to have to find the courage to stop the robbery.
Ted Cruz, “On the Issues” would cut social security cola for seniors now collecting,
“Social Security benefits right now grow about 1% greater than inflation; we should have those benefits grow at the rate of inflation, not 1% more.”
http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/Ted_Cruz_Social_Security.htmQ: How would you protect Social Security for today’s seniors and strengthen it for future generations?
A: On Social Security, I am campaigning on a series of very specific reforms. For seniors receiving Social Security or near Social Security, there should be no changes in benefits whatsoever. For younger workers, we need to do three fundamental reforms.
1. Gradually increase the retirement age.
2.Social Security benefits right now grow about 1% greater than inflation; we should have those benefits grow at the rate of inflation, not 1% more.
3. Third change that I think is absolutely critical is to allow taxpayers to have a portion of the Social Security funds go to a personal account that they own and control.
Source: Texas Tribune Interview in 2012 AARP Senate Voter Guide , Aug 24, 2012
Did he say at what age he would change it?
Are you asking the followers of the other 35 candidates or just me?
I thought you might know...?
I can probably find out easily, but then, so could you, I imagine.
fair enough
As is the case with the entire concept of "income" taxes. Legalized slavery, nothing more. It's merely a matter of degree.
“SSDI is administrated by the. Social Security Administration, but the funding is from income taxes (the general fund).”
Not entirely true. Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) is an insurance program funded by Social Security (payroll taxes). To qualify, you must have worked a certain amount of quarters and “paid in” to the system.
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a disability program for low-income disabled also administered by the Social Security Administration but funded through general income taxes. There is no work requirement in this program, so it is essentially welfare for the disabled.
Sorry, you are absolutely correct. I typo’ed the acronym on my phone. :(
Yeah, so is SSI. There is no SS “lock box”.
A millionaire that sits around and collects an unemployment checks is no better than an nonfunctioning alcoholic/ drug addict that sits around and collects unwmployment checks. They are both gaming the system.
As someone pointed out, I typo’ed: I did indeed mean SSI. SSDI is funded by payroll taxes, but you aren’t eligible unless you have contributed.
There is no lock box, but it would be an accounting fiction anyway. The excess contributions in the trust fund are in long term treasury bound equivalents, and are being redeemed now.
The real problem: when the trust fund is gone, benefits will be reduced, by law. Currently, it will be about 23% in 2033.
so it’s Marxist to screw rich people, hatefull and racist to screw poor people, and A-OK to screw middle class people. Got it.
And, he made his big dough on the sale of his company.
Sounds very similar to another statist’s quote...
“...We’re not, we’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that’s fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money. But, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or providing good service. We don’t want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy.”
If they decide to means test it will only benefit those who do no planning for the future. Regardless of their lives earning. There are many people who save hundreds of thousands of dollars during their lives who never made more than $50,000 and even more that make Hundreds of thousands a year and save nothing. So where is the justice in taking earned benefits away from those that saved to help those that didn't?
‘And yes you seem to have strong Marxist tendencies.
Well, those are fine sentiments. Why don’t we reduce the benefits on those who had abortions or didn’t replace themselves since the entire problem stems from a society with a negative birth rate and an aging population.
We can reduce benefits on those that only had two children or no children. Since they didn’t have the added expense of raising children who will be paying into the system.
Is that a just solution?
The truth is that there isn’t one and I suppose that we will never see our stolen money, but when the SHTF, there deserves to be quite a few politicians at the end of a hangman’s rope.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.