Social Security is one of the largest expenditures of the United States government. By the year 2040 the U.S. debt due to social security will be twice as much as what the deficit currently is. As a result the practically everyone currently under 30 will be unable to claim social security and will have to work till the age of about 70. Does that seem right to you?
Originally posted by Drew LThen what about all of those people who were screwed out of their retirement by their companies' mismanagement or outright theft? I also like the idea that my parents have a place to live that isn't my house, and they can be self-sufficient as long as possible.
Social Security should have ended long ago. It worked throughout the depression as it was intended but it should have been ceased at the end of WWII.
Originally posted by ArachnarchistNo, it sounds like nonsense to me when the U.S. government is waging a war that costs a two hundred thousand dollars a minute. And would you kindly explain how you isolate the debt run up due to Social Security as opposed to being due to everything else that appears in a deficit-spending budget?
Social Security is one of the largest expenditures of the United States government. By the year 2040 the U.S. debt due to social security will be twice as much as what the deficit currently is. As a result the practically everyone currently under 30 will be unable to claim social security and will have to work till the age of about 70. Does that seem right to you?
I would also like to know what the basis is for your projected figure at 2040, and why you think doing anything today, short of scrapping Social Security entirely, which given your crocodile tears about people working until the age of 70 is an unlikely solution to champion, would change anything about Social Security spending significantly in thirty-three years.
Originally posted by ArachnarchistSocial Security is a massive wealth transfer scheme whereby the young subsidize the old. Consequently, by taking money from today's workers to finance today's retirees, the young worker will have to put off things like getting a new car, getting married and getting a house. In answer to your question, Social Security is grossly unfair. A more equitable situation would be to follow President Bush's plan to privatize the accounts and finance retirement across the lifetime of the individual by forcing him to deposit 10% of every earned dollar into a private account.
Social Security is one of the largest expenditures of the United States government. By the year 2040 the U.S. debt due to social security will be twice as much as what the deficit currently is. As a result the practically everyone currently under 30 will be unable to claim social security and will have to work till the age of about 70. Does that seem right to you?
1 edit
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterSocial security in the UK has resulted in millions of workshy natives living on 'benefits' paid for by the workforce, making it necessary to import immigrants from Eastern Europe to fill the vacant jobs which are spurned by the the 'benefits' brigade.
Social Security is a massive wealth transfer scheme whereby the young subsidize the old. Consequently, by taking money from today's workers to finance today's retirees, the young worker will have to put off things like getting a new car, getting married and getting a house. In answer to your question, Social Security is grossly unfair. A more equ f the individual by forcing him to deposit 10% of every earned dollar into a private account.
The latter of course provide a client voting bloc for the Labour Party which created it and supports it.
Originally posted by kirksey957I've been working since I was fifteen and only my last job had a retirement plan. In no job did I make enough that I could put away money to a degree that would interest an independent IRA company. I'm hoping things will be much different with my current job, as soon as I can get benefits.
If young people start working early and get into 401K's , there should be no issue whether or not you'll have social security.
Originally posted by CartanIt's also spawned thousands of people who spout a load of ignorant rubbish about social security, like the above.
Social security in the UK has resulted in millions of workshy natives living on 'benefits' paid for by the workforce, making it necessary to import immigrants from Eastern Europe to fill the vacant jobs which are spurned by the the 'benefits' brigade.
The latter of course provide a client voting bloc for the Labour Party which created it and supports it.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterOr, you could have the state run it and call it "taxation". Just as equitable.
A more equitable situation would be to follow President Bush's plan to privatize the accounts and finance retirement across the lifetime of the individual by forcing him to deposit 10% of every earned dollar into a private account.
Originally posted by Sam The ShamThe elderly in the United States are the wealthiest, most powerful demographic in the country. They've voted themselves so many benefits that when the bill finally comes due, they will forever be known as "the most selfish generation."
If Social Security didn't exist, people would be crying about it and criticizing the US for being so thoughtless towards it's elderly citizens.