- 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: This plan would save social security *and* reduce elderly poverty. Your thoughts?
Posted on 2/26/26 at 4:28 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Posted on 2/26/26 at 4:28 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:That "understanding" is apparently a problem in DominicPino's case.
"Once you start to understand how Social Security actually works ..."
He doesn't understand how Social Security actually works ... and his 20%-29% contention insinuating 'unfairness' is ABSURD!
quote:
0
Posted on 2/26/26 at 4:34 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
I don’t feel sorry for financially illiterate people who instead of saving for retirement spent their money on stupid shite trying to appear ‘rich’ or trying to keep up with Jones’s. 6% poverty is extremely low.
Posted on 2/26/26 at 4:41 am to Gee Grenouille
quote:
Just give me back what me and my employers have put in. I’ll take it from here.
Why would you get what the employer put in?
Posted on 2/26/26 at 4:46 am to SNAP
quote:Because it was tied to your paycheck, and essentially came from your pocket.
Why would you get what the employer put in?
This post was edited on 2/26/26 at 4:47 am
Posted on 2/26/26 at 6:27 am to Lou Pai
The real solution is to pick an age, say 35, and allow those above 35 to continue with the SS benefits they have been promised based upon what they have paid thus far. Then stop collecting the SS from paychecks. The government bites the bullet and funds what has been promised thus far until eventually those people are deceased. Those at 35 until retirement age can then take their 6.5 / 12% and invest it accordingly.
It is wrong for those about ready to reach retirement to not receive back the money they have been promised and paid into the system, unless the government wants to return it to them in one lump sum so it can be invested for recompense.
It is wrong for those about ready to reach retirement to not receive back the money they have been promised and paid into the system, unless the government wants to return it to them in one lump sum so it can be invested for recompense.
Posted on 2/26/26 at 7:00 am to stuntman
quote:Let's hear your plan.
I'm all for totally phasing it out
Posted on 2/26/26 at 7:09 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
How about the 6.2% I am forced to pay and the 6.2% my employer pays into SS goes into my 401k instead……
Take the SS money away from the government and buy it back to the people.
Take the SS money away from the government and buy it back to the people.
Posted on 2/26/26 at 7:17 am to Gee Grenouille
quote:
I’ve paid the max into SS for at least the last 15 years, and will continue to do so for the next 15 years. Been working for 30 years, since I was 15. And now I have to share? Just give me back what me and my employers have put in. I’ll take it from here.
This is where I'm at. Rip the band aid off. We print money to support way more dubious reasons. Retired and near retired people need to continue to receive their benefit as agreed upon. The rest of us, print the money, pay us back, hell even enforce that it goes to a retirement fund. I don't care. Get the damn government out of the retirement planning. It's obviously being mismanaged, and I can mismanage my money better than the government can.
Posted on 2/26/26 at 7:20 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
They should give anyone of SS eligible age the option to opt out in exchange for a big standard deduction (like $125k per year) that’s inflation indexed for the rest of their life. I haven’t done the math but something like that would be appealing.
Otherwise your’re telling the same group “thanks for paying but you don’t get anything” - which is getting tiresome for the upper middle class that pays for everything but gets phased out of any breaks.
Otherwise your’re telling the same group “thanks for paying but you don’t get anything” - which is getting tiresome for the upper middle class that pays for everything but gets phased out of any breaks.
Posted on 2/26/26 at 7:25 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
The only way I would support this is if they transitioned SS withholding to a flat rate that everyone pays, not a percentage. But it must be codified that the rate can never exceed the current percentage.
Posted on 2/26/26 at 7:57 am to Diamondawg
My plan is politically unviable. 
if I could snap my fingers all social welfare programs from government would end today.
That said I think the only way it can really be done is first for the federal government to start running surpluses, and not through more taxation. By slashing government to the bone. Once that's done, then abolish the 16th amendment. Savings and purchasing power for people with skyrocket. Then all these social welfare programs, can be phased out by age bracket.
Even that plan is completely politically unviable. Entirely too many people in society are brainwashed into believing government isn't there just a secure rights, it's to fund their retirements, healthcare, food, housing, education...
It will take hyperinflation before people open their stupid eyes to see how much government is crushing their purchasing power, and imposing massive opportunity cost on them through every step of life.
if I could snap my fingers all social welfare programs from government would end today. That said I think the only way it can really be done is first for the federal government to start running surpluses, and not through more taxation. By slashing government to the bone. Once that's done, then abolish the 16th amendment. Savings and purchasing power for people with skyrocket. Then all these social welfare programs, can be phased out by age bracket.
Even that plan is completely politically unviable. Entirely too many people in society are brainwashed into believing government isn't there just a secure rights, it's to fund their retirements, healthcare, food, housing, education...
It will take hyperinflation before people open their stupid eyes to see how much government is crushing their purchasing power, and imposing massive opportunity cost on them through every step of life.
This post was edited on 2/26/26 at 12:22 pm
Posted on 2/26/26 at 7:57 am to meansonny
quote:
You aren't wrong. There is no obligation to pay the employee the comparable full cost of employment if "costs" happen to erode.
That was my point nothing more nothing less but in your quest to always prove how smart you are and to always be right you tried to make it about something else with your "technical" gotchas. It's your MO.
You will respond to this reply with more drivel because you think having the last word means you win the argument. Go ahead. Make yourself feel better.
This post was edited on 2/26/26 at 7:59 am
Posted on 2/26/26 at 8:00 am to stout
quote:
So you want SS to be even more socialist than it already is?
It kinda is in the name
Posted on 2/26/26 at 8:23 am to Diamondawg
quote:There are several possibilities.
I'm all for totally phasing it out
---
Let's hear your plan.
E.g., Obligatory 529-like plans where payroll contributions roll into an account inaccessible until age qualification. Then access would only be to stipulated monthly withdrawals based on holdings. The contents of the account could be limited to US Treasuries, or it could be an S&P ETF. Residuals would be passed on in inheritance as with any portfolio.
As I've said so many times, the reason the program was not structured that way from the outset, and will not be structured that way going forward, is because the sole beneficiary in the current design is Uncle Sam. The intent of SS was NEVER anything but a federal borrowing program disguised as a "retirement benefit."
Posted on 2/26/26 at 8:25 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:It's FDR's program!
FDR would be shocked at the current structure of the program
It is EXACTLY as he designed it.
Posted on 2/26/26 at 8:26 am to Hangit
quote:
FDR would be shocked
I think FDR would have “progressed” right along with today’s dimocrats: open borders, appendicktomies, DEI, and lax criminal punishment for “the marginalized.”
I feel the same way about MLK, too. In 21st century America, he’d be a massive grifter and apologist for his “little black boys and little black girls.”
This post was edited on 2/26/26 at 8:37 am
Posted on 2/26/26 at 8:29 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Everyone's SS check is based on what they pay in. So yes, a lifelong Starbucks barista is not going to be pulling a lot down.
Posted on 2/26/26 at 8:29 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Maybe if it includes an opt out. Let the high earners fund themselves. And let the low earners who think they'll need it fund each other.
Posted on 2/26/26 at 8:32 am to BHM
quote:
That's a government mismanagement issue, not a funding issue. Had the collected taxes from boomers been properly invested and managed, the system would not need money from millennials to fund it.
Who was running the government and voting for said mismanagement?
Posted on 2/26/26 at 8:34 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Contributing to SS isn't optional, contributing to a 401k, IRA, brokerage account etc is optional. You chose not to save anything outside of SS? Tough shite, you don't get to receive an equal amount to someone that contributed 4 times what you did. What is it with you people thinking the world has to be "fair"
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News