- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Social Security's insolvency date is now a year earlier
Posted on 6/18/25 at 6:39 pm to armytiger96
Posted on 6/18/25 at 6:39 pm to armytiger96
quote:
think it needs to be "privatized" which means that the money put into the system is NOT put into a general pool but into an account with my name on it. Either that or Gov't force you to put whatever the equivalent of FICA Tax payments into your 401K or something to that effect.
I'd be happier with that than the current system.
Ideal to me would be give me back what I paid in right now (in my 401k would be fine) and let me quit paying into it. 2.5% is abysmal.
1
Posted on 6/18/25 at 6:59 pm to DownshiftAndFloorIt
quote:
Ideal to me would be give me back what I paid in right now (in my 401k would be fine) and let me quit paying into it. 2.5% is abysmal.
That would be great as well. However, I think it needs to "forced" on everyone. I'm completely hypocritical here b/c I despise nanny state policies. However, I fear what our society will look like when most Americans fail to adequately save for retirement and there is no Social Security.
Posted on 6/18/25 at 9:52 pm to TigersnJeeps
quote:
SS has no Constitutional basis....
Pretty sure Congress can pass laws and levy taxes according to the Constitution….
Posted on 6/18/25 at 10:11 pm to DakIsNoLB
quote:
They are drawing survivor's benefits, which is legal under social security. Your mother is drawing hers based on what she paid in; your father got to draw his based on what he paid in. I responded to AugustaDawg with your mother can likely only draw the maximum of the two. SS has never allowed one person to draw the full amount from both their own and their deceased spouse.
Oh, I know how it works, but it seems unfair. She does get the maximum of the two. Still seems unfair that someone who didn't pay squat in and get gets the survivor's benefit, but since my mom and all others like her who actually worked their asses off can't get survivor's benefit from my dad who worked his arse off also and had to pay that crap all those years but died before he drew one damn check. I'm not saying those ladies don't deserve that check. Their husbands worked and paid it in, but both my parents worked forever and had that forcibly taken from them. She, and others like her, deserve their deceased spouse's check also. Otherwise, don't take the shite out because my father could've invested all that money and my mom would've had a bunch more now to live. Shitty Ponzi scheme.
Posted on 6/18/25 at 10:34 pm to Galactic Inquisitor
quote:
That's the cost of a birthday parade.
quote:
by Galactic Inquisitor
post significantly less. like a lot.
Posted on 6/18/25 at 10:41 pm to RLDSC FAN
quote:
Will we ever fix SS?
I am not sure why millennials and younger are even paying into it ATM. There's little to no reason to think it will be around by the time they retire.
Posted on 6/18/25 at 10:44 pm to RLDSC FAN
I honestly don’t understand why this is rocket science
Just raise payroll taxes to ensure the money coming in equals money going out
1950s…..we raised payroll taxes to shore up ss
1960s……we raised payrolls taxes to shore up ss
1980s…….we raised payroll taxes to shore up ss
Why can’t it be done again?
Just raise payroll taxes to ensure the money coming in equals money going out
1950s…..we raised payroll taxes to shore up ss
1960s……we raised payrolls taxes to shore up ss
1980s…….we raised payroll taxes to shore up ss
Why can’t it be done again?
Posted on 6/18/25 at 11:33 pm to fallguy_1978
quote:But are you getting points back from using cards instead of cash? Just kidding. These are all great ideas actually.
I'll spend less now to save as much as I can. We live in a more modest house than many in our income bracket, drive pretty basic vehicles, mostly so we can save more for retirement and retire as young as possible.
Posted on 6/18/25 at 11:35 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
quote:Like George Strait? Lol
She gets a strait government pension
Posted on 6/19/25 at 6:02 am to RLDSC FAN
Pretend it’s funding for Ukraine
Posted on 6/19/25 at 6:50 am to Klark Kent
quote:
post significantly less. like a lot.
Hard to process that you elected a war-mongering, tax-and-spend liberal? Cope harder
Posted on 6/19/25 at 6:57 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
am not sure why millennials and younger are even paying into it ATM. There's little to no reason to think it will be around by the time they retire.
Gen X was told the same thing when we entered the work force 30+ years ago.
Posted on 6/19/25 at 7:15 am to TigersnJeeps
quote:
SS has no Constitutional basis....
but it isn't going anywhere...
Why would it need to be an amendment for the people of this country to agree to help out the vulnerable among us?
Posted on 6/19/25 at 7:43 am to RLDSC FAN
I think someone said this last year when they allowed certain pensioners collect full benefits in certain situations where if you had a mother who worked in a school system where she had a pension and her deceased husband collected social security. She couldn’t collect both benefits in the past. They updated the laws to remove that previous penalty on benefits. Those additional benefits could help drain the fund faster.
I think the math is starting to to sink in how this will could affect social security long term.
Also, all the illegals who were using invalid or temporary work numbers that are leaving due to immigration changes by choice or by force are also probably leading to lower social security tax receipts. Not saying if this is a good thing or a bad thing. But it is one avenue to consider why receipts could be headed lower.
Also, if no tax on tips and overtime do not include some form of social security tax. That too would reduce social security tax income.
I think the math is starting to to sink in how this will could affect social security long term.
Also, all the illegals who were using invalid or temporary work numbers that are leaving due to immigration changes by choice or by force are also probably leading to lower social security tax receipts. Not saying if this is a good thing or a bad thing. But it is one avenue to consider why receipts could be headed lower.
Also, if no tax on tips and overtime do not include some form of social security tax. That too would reduce social security tax income.
This post was edited on 6/19/25 at 7:45 am
Posted on 6/19/25 at 7:49 am to Dixie2023
quote:
Maybe quit giving it to those who haven’t paid in? It wasn’t meant support everyone.
SSDI and Survivor Benefits are just another form of welfare. Baby Daddy with 3-4 kids gets gunned down in drug deal gone bad and those babies get a check until they are 18 even though "parents" were never married and BD didn't pay a dime into system.
Posted on 6/19/25 at 8:11 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
You clearly don't don't know what a Ponzi Scheme is
There is this thing called Google which will provide one with access to what amounts to the collective knowledge of mankind...its pretty useful.
Using it I found 17 million references to Ponzi Scheme and while I admittedly did not read all of them I did read the first five found and all of the have terms in common....fraud. It seems that in order for a scheme to be a Ponzi scheme it requires fraud. More on that in a moment.
All of them also use the terms investment and investor which indicates they involve investors and investment. Social security is not and never has been an investment. It is and always has been a tax. This in and of itself would indicate to a person with a modicum of ability to think abstractly that social security is not, by definition, a Ponzi Scheme.
The fraud involved in a Ponzi scheme stems from a couple of sources. One is an insinuation that the return on investment is going to be better than one would expect....usually far greater than anyone with any sense would expect. They also usually involve investing in a product, service or business that simply does not and never did exist....the exception is when it involves money management and then the fraud consists of the swindler pretending to control vast sums of money that does not exist. and is not controlled by them. The only way this can work is for this "investment" to be largely unknown to anyone other than the lucky investors and the con man selling it. Social security is transparent....no one is guaranteed any return at all, again anyone with the ability to reason will know that many who pay into the system will die before they are entitled to benefits from the system. Social security does not make excessive claims about returns, it is understood by all but the moronic among us that there may well be no return if we kill over before our age of eligibility.
There is also no mechanism in a Ponzi scheme to suggest that someone who has "invested" a penny will ever receive a benefit. This, again, is the basis of Social Security since its inception.....many recipients will have paid nothing into the system yet will be entitled to a benefit should they become elderly, disabled or orphaned. So there is that.
The area where people confuse the two, and its usually done with willful ignorance but often times its simple ignorance, is the way both pay "benefits". Both rely on more people handing over money which is transferred to recipients of benefits. The difference is that in Ponzi scheme the recipient is lead to believe, as are prospective investors, that this benefit is derived from returns on investment, when in fact it derives from the pockets of others not yet receiving a benefit. While the latter half of this is true in the case of social security as well it has never once been sold or promoted as anything else...it has been understood, since inception, that the benefits paid out are derived directly from the taxes collected. No one is promoting social security benefits are derived from returns on investment.
There is also the caveat that social security taxes are indeed, by law and transparently, invested. There is no darkness or subterfuge present. The agencies which the money is invested in through loans from the fund are well known, they actually exist and one can, if so inclined, find out exactly how much of the agencies operating funds are derived from social security taxes. Its all a matter of public record. The money from "investors" in a Ponzi scheme may or may not actually be invested....it depends on the level of sophistication but many times the only investment is into the pocket of the person selling the investment. If it is a really sophisticated Ponzi scheme there will be a shallow paper trail of investment to actual investments....but if one digs deeper they will find that trail soon disappears. Again, not so with social security, which invests in federal agencies that actually exist and are transparent.
Finally fraud generally requires deceit, trickery, underhanded dealing....something where someone insinuates one can expect something in exchange for something of theirs which has some value. The terms are vague and the victim is allowed to make their own assumptions, often based on their own greed....hard to be conned if you do not think you are getting something for nothing. Social security has never committed fraud....the principals are well established and well known. There are no outlandish promises of returns, in fact there is not even the insinuation there will be a return unless one reaches a certain age, is widowed, orphaned or disabled. The recipient of benefits, again from inception, has no requirement to directly pay anything into the system in order to be entitled to a benefit from the system. That alone is proof it is not a Ponzi scheme nor fraudulent.
It sounds smart to dumb people and the willfully ignorant to call Social Security a Ponzi scheme. It also indicates the person doing is dumb or willfully ignorant. Had to say which is worse but most dumb people can't help it....
Posted on 6/19/25 at 8:20 am to dalefla
quote:
Survivor Benefits are just another form of welfare.
What? SS is just forced retirement savings. Why would a survivor not be entitled to that money like they would any other savings vessel. Should that money just be kept by the government?
Posted on 6/19/25 at 8:20 am to TigerintheNO
quote:
Go work for a state that opted out. They don't pay into Social Security.
government employees not covered by Social Security in selected states
State % Noncovered
Illinois 42%
Except, the IL state pension plan is way underfunded. But they made it part of the constitution that benefits must be paid. They figure they can just raise taxes. Until everyone with money leaves. Then they hope the feds bail them out.
My wife worked for an IL school district - that retirement fund is run by members, kinda like a Credit Union. She still paid into SS, it wasn't a replacement. They managed to keep it out of politician's hands, and it is well funded. Imagine that!
quote:
Unfunded Liabilities: Illinois's state pension systems have a significant unfunded liability, with estimates ranging from $143.7 billion to $211 billion. This represents the difference between what the state owes to pensioners and what it has currently invested in those funds.
Funded Ratio: The state's pension systems are currently underfunded, with a funded ratio around 51.6%. A healthy funded ratio is typically considered to be above 80%.
Funding Contributions: Illinois's budget contributions have consistently been below what is needed to cover pension obligations, contributing to the growing debt. The state plans to contribute $11.7 billion in FY2026, but the five state-run retirement systems need $16.8 billion, leaving a gap of $5.1 billion.
This post was edited on 6/19/25 at 8:23 am
Posted on 6/19/25 at 8:21 am to rob0710
President AOC will reappropriate funds to those that don’t work when she wins election
Posted on 6/19/25 at 8:22 am to Tarps99
quote:
She couldn’t collect both benefits in the past. They updated the laws to remove that previous penalty on benefits.
And it was absolutely the right thing to do. Penalizing a survivor for working was absolute BS. More theft from our dear government overlords.
Page 7 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News