> What will democrats do about social security cuts once they take control in January?

Phillip_McCavity wrote:You don't pay into social security, its not a savings or investment account.

The money that SS collects in taxes is paid to retired people. Any extra buys US bonds. 

However, with the retiring boomers, all those bonds have been sold. That means, all that is left are taxes. And in a few years, those will not be enough. Since the law doesn't allow general government revenue to pay SS benefits, everyone on SS is going to have to take an immediate 20% cut. Ask any retired people, hey, if your monthly pay is cut 20% can you survive okay? The answer will be no.

Now, there are various ways out of this. Congress could fund sending general revenue to SS, and they did something like this once before.
Effectively, to the “consumer," you pay into Social Security, and later they pay some of it back. Whatever the mechanics or word games you want to play, that is HOW it works to the user.

Hell_Is_Like_Newark wrote:Today that is everyone with a paid off home and a modestly funded IRA / 401k. A $ million ain't what it used to be.
Oh well.  They could always sell and go back to renting.

anon user #3 wrote:Oh well.  They could always sell and go back to renting.
Why don't you just say that you hate people with money?  You don't give a fuq about the poor, in fact you frequently revel in their suffering.


You're a really fuqed up dude, ghoul.

 wrote:Why don't you just say that you hate people with money?  You don't give a fuq about the poor, in fact you frequently revel in their suffering.


You're a really fuqed up dude, ghoul.
I'm not going to feel sorry for someone with a $2 million net worth.

anon user #3 wrote:I'm not going to feel sorry for someone with a $2 million net worth.
That doesn't mean you need to force them out of their home because poor people exist.

You're a fuqing cancer of a human being.

 wrote:That doesn't mean you need to force them out of their home because poor people exist.

You're a fuqing cancer of a human being.
Well, other people were exploited for decades by people who hid behind Capitalism.  Time to pay YOUR BILL.

Nobody owes you anything.  When you exploit others, eventually there is a price to pay.

anon user #3 wrote:Well, other people were exploited for decades by people who hid behind Capitalism.  Time to pay YOUR BILL.
See, right there... You're not about helping the poor, you're about increasing human suffering.

YOU ARE THE PROBLEM with American political discourse, you're too fuqing stupid to see it.

You're a fuqing loser, sadist.

 wrote:See, right there... You're not about helping the poor, you're about increasing human suffering.

YOU ARE THE PROBLEM with American political discourse, you're too fuqing stupid to see it.

You're a fuqing loser, sadist.
People with $2 million net worth have to pay 5%.  WAAAH!!!! WAAAAAAAAH!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhN_aDWAmgQ

anon user #3 wrote:People with $2 million net worth have to pay 5%.  WAAAH!!!! WAAAAAAAAH!!!!
Why not rip their finger nails out too.  Think of how hard you could whack off to that, sadist.

 wrote:Why not rip their finger nails out too.  Think of how hard you could whack off to that, sadist.
Meanwhile if the greedy landlord raises the rent 30% on a single mom who works 70 hours a week, you think that is just fine. 

anon user #3 wrote:Meanwhile if the greedy landlord raises the rent 30% on a single mom who works 70 hours a week, you think that is just fine. 
THEREFORE IT IS OK TO TORTURE PEOPLE!


You're so fuqing hateful and stupid.

 wrote:THEREFORE IT IS OK TO TORTURE PEOPLE!

You're so fuqing hateful and stupid.
Having to pay 5% of wealth when you have over $2 million is not torture.   Having to pay a greedy landlord 50% of your income basically is economic torture. 

This conversation serves no further purpose.  I'm not going to sit here responding to a troll and white whiner  endlessly.

anon user #3 wrote:Nobody cares what a sadist has to say about public policy.
Go torture a cat or something, fuqing psycho.

VP_Spiro_T_Cheney wrote:Working people are taxed enough already.

Some oldsters will just need to tighten their belts.  Means test, cap benefits, etc.    Rather than crying about it, they should be thankful for the lifetime of living beyond their means that they’ve already enjoyed.
For once I agree.

Anyone born before 1965 should get fuq all. You had your chance and you fuqed it for all of us.

 wrote:They can do away with survivor benefits i.e spousal continuation.
Nobody pays their taxes imagining that it's going to pay the bills for some rich guy’s wife long after he's passed away.
They can also do away with those who've made good money getting significantly more in retirement. Cut payouts relative to location.

Essentially, everyone is treated as an individual, and the cutoff for payouts is reduced for the wealthy. No more $ 7K a month because you made more money. The payouts should be the same for everyone with a location consideration.
Your pay-in rate should be determined by the age of your parents at their death. Example: everyone in your family dies before the age of 74, your tax is reduced. Everyone in your family lives to be 90? Your tax is increased.
FUQ location considerations. If you can't afford where you are, go somewhere cheaper. Emigrate if you have to. Fuq you.

'Weighting' merely locks in the insane property price spiral in certain areas.

Also, everyone in my family is exceptionally long-lived (half of those that have died in the past 3 generations got to 95 and three to 100, if we don't count one suicide) and I have no desire to live that long, so it's fortunate for my kids that under your system I'll have drank myself to death before 70.

 wrote:Effectively, to the “consumer," you pay into Social Security, and later they pay some of it back. Whatever the mechanics or word games you want to play, that is HOW it works to the user.
People live 10 - 20 years in retirement, and people get paid the amount of their SS taxes in 3 or 4 years.

You don't have to take it from me, look at your SS statement.

> What will democrats do about social security cuts once they take control in January?

What will democrats do about social security cuts once they take control in January?

Phillip_McCavity wrote:

Re: What will democrats do about social security cuts once they take control in January?

Hell_Is_Like_Newark wrote:

Re: What will democrats do about social security cuts once they take control in January?

anon user #3 wrote:

Re: What will democrats do about social security cuts once they take control in January?

wrote:

Re: What will democrats do about social security cuts once they take control in January?

anon user #3 wrote:

Re: What will democrats do about social security cuts once they take control in January?

wrote:

Re: What will democrats do about social security cuts once they take control in January?

Re: What will democrats do about social security cuts once they take control in January?

anon user #3 wrote:

Re: What will democrats do about social security cuts once they take control in January?

wrote:

Re: What will democrats do about social security cuts once they take control in January?

anon user #3 wrote:

Re: What will democrats do about social security cuts once they take control in January?

wrote:

Re: What will democrats do about social security cuts once they take control in January?

anon user #3 wrote:

Re: What will democrats do about social security cuts once they take control in January?

wrote:

Re: What will democrats do about social security cuts once they take control in January?

anon user #3 wrote:

Re: What will democrats do about social security cuts once they take control in January?

VP_Spiro_T_Cheney wrote:

Re: What will democrats do about social security cuts once they take control in January?

wrote:

Re: What will democrats do about social security cuts once they take control in January?

wrote: