Posted on 10/04/2025 8:57:23 AM PDT by dwilkins
It seems like the Total Fertility Rate collapse is a mega-trend that is not being incorporated into conservative expectations. In addition to the economic problem of a system historically based on perpetual growth, we are going to have to come up with a practical answer to entitlements like Social Security. I don't think our present system can accommodate this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2GeVG0XYTc
![]() |
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
AND, be VERY careful of word usage. Your uncle is ENTITLED to recieve his SS check. It is based upon (roughly) upon what he cotributed over a lifetime. That was the original social contract FDR et al guaranteed when they pushed through SS. Likewise, Veteran’s benefits were earned and they are entitled to them.
BUT, Medicaid, SNAP checks, Child tax credits, Obamacare payments, and midnight basketball programs are all grouped by democrats under the umbrella of so-called “entitlements” that can’t be touched. Ths is wrong usage of a word and bad policy. It’s intentionallly misleading.
In our areal, property taxes go down significantly once you hit 63 (I think).
Hubby and I are in our late 50s and pay 5 times more than those a few years older than us. We can take a little bit of a hit now, but we have younger families who moved in a few years ago and I don’t know this affects them.
Our taxes went up from last year over $3k. Our home “value” has tripled in 10 years but I seriously don’t think we could sell it for what they are assessing it at.
What a mess!
For SS, I am for a phased out system. At whatever point you are, you start paying less in with the understanding you are getting less out later. It would take a LOT of education and private retirements, but I’m guessing it will never happen because of all the folks who put in nothing 🙄
I wouldn’t go that far. I’m just looking at the most practical solution here and I think means testing for SS is likely to be a big part of trying to rescue SS. There’s more wealth inequality today than at any other time in human history. If something isn’t done about this you can expect future generations to embrace even more socialism/communism. It’s just commonsense as I see it.
It is true that he was forced to pay into the system, but it is a little hard to say exactly how much his contributions actually were and how much he would have left if he had been allowed to avoid paying into the system.
The maximum amount of contributions that a wage earner currently collecting social security benefits could have paid into the system is $107,509.24. At $4000 a month this would be paid back in approximately 27 months not including interest.
If the same contributions were put in a savings account during the same time period, the $107,509.24 would have grown to approximately $260,435. That would provide $4000 a month for approximately 65 months or 5 and 1/2 years. Of course, social security has automatic cost of living increases which would shorten that time period. Grok found the historic savings rates and did all the calculations.
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg%3D%3D_7ed74815-ee64-4d7c-baba-ceadbdcf1f7e
It doesn’t matter if he doesn’t “need” it. He paid into it, involuntarily, all his life. At the risk of imprisonment if he didn’t pay his taxes.
We don’t get to steal from people because they have done well. Most do well because they work hard, stay off dope, are honest, are innovative, have self discipline, keep the law, and treat people decently.
“I am for a phased out system.”
*********************************
If you phase out SS you’re still going to wind up with many millions of elderly who can no longer support themselves and will require welfare benefits in one form or another. At least with SS people are at least financing a good portion of their retirement income.
How much did he pay into the system?
[...] that he really doesn’t need [...]
Who are you to determine that?!
Regards,
Good. Charities benefit. Far better than our very depraved government.
I have never met a homeless elderly. Perhaps some of the addicts I see staggering around here are “elderly,” but I doubt it, addiction usually kills us by the time we are 50.
I guess if this Uncle loaned us $10,000 we should not pay it back. Cause he’s “rich.”
Jeez, I collect 2k@ mo in SS and I’m going bankrupt.
But the problem is not SS. the problem is me.
You forgot to factor in a bit of luck which many if not most of the wealthy had. If you think most of the wealthy earned it all by the sweat of their brow and busted their azz 24/7 you probably don’t know very many wealthy people. I find it amusing on here with people citing certain principles (like they earned it and thus entitled to it) while some of these same people excoriate Libertarians like Rand Paul and Thomas Massie for doing the same thing when it comes to matters of principles. You sometimes have to weigh the practical against the ideal.
Did you use just the employee contributions or also include the employer’s contributions?
Remember—the employer contribution is money that could have been paid to the employee.
If you did not include the employer contribution then double your numbers.
It is not like that.
Phasing out starts with the younger workers. The elderly will get 100% of what they put it.
Workers in their 20s don’t contribute to SS yet so they contribute straight into private retirement. 30s will be prorated something like 25% SS and 75% private, 40s - 50% SS and 50% private, 50s - 75% SS and 25% private, and 60s+ still get 100% SS they put in.
The rate follows the generation so by the time the now 20 year olds are 65, they will have funded their own retirement privately.
This is similar to what they did in Chile
Loads of our kids are getting doctor’s notices making them eligible for payments from SS before they are even adults.
The scam in every nook of this country is what will bring us down IMO.
And the percentages are just estimates, it could be more precise than that.
But what should NOT happen is if SS goes insolvent and all elderly and future elderly have NOTHING.
A system that relies on an equal amount of younger workers to fund the retirees is really problematic right now because birth rates have plummeted and our labor force is shrinking.
“Good. Charities benefit. Far better than our very depraved government.”
***************************
Most charities spend 90% of collected funds on administrative expenses (read inflated salaries) and only 10% go to what the charity is ostensibly supporting.
Those already in the system can opt out at any time. Thereafter they pay no tax, but they forfeit all accumulated benefits. Opting out will pay off for some who are younger, and their forfeited benefits will make up the shortfall in funding for the payouts to the older legacy participants.
Probably, but not certainly, this will over time lead to a gradual elimination of the program.
Democrats will squawk, but the argument of freedom of choice will be a powerful one for them to overcome. If it's as great a program as the Democrats claim, then new workers will continue to opt in.
There hasn’t been an influx of homeless elderly because the elderly poor have access to government subsidized housing which is growing increasingly scarcer. These same people are usually collecting Snap benefits and subsidized medical so the government is still paying out for them. At least with people paying into SS they are at least paying forward for some of their upkeep. Without SS you’ll have millions of elderly out on the streets and that should be unacceptable in a society as rich as we are. I look at SS as kind of an enforced savings program for otherwise irresponsible people.
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.