|
Notices |
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
11-02-2010, 09:02 PM | #1 (permalink) |
G'd up from the feet up.
|
Social Security Benefits: The myth more elusive than the female orgasm...
So this is a quote from my last SS statement...
The Social Security Board of Trustees now estimates that based on current law, in 2037, [I will be 56] the Trust Funds will be depleted. Because people are living longer and the birth rate is low, the ratio of workers to beneficiaries is falling. Therefore, the taxes that are paid by workers will not be enough to pay the full benefit amounts scheduled. [Good news though! Even though I've been paying into social security for the past 13 years and will pay into it for another 35+ years, I might be able to collect $0.76 on the dollar when I'm 65. Oh wait, what the shit is this??????:] SSI, or Supplemental Security Income, is a federal program that provides monthly cash payments to people in need. SSI is for people who are 65 or older, as well as for blind or disabled people of any age, including children. To qualify you also must have little or no income and few resources. This means that the value of the things you own must be less than $2,000 if you are single or less than $3,000 if you are married. The value of your home does not count. Usually, the value of your car does not count. And the value of certain other resources, such as a burial plot, may not count either. [Call me insensitive, but fuck SSI] |
Creeping around as I please nonchalantly like any other Supreme Emperor might.
|
|
11-02-2010, 09:23 PM | #6 (permalink) |
G'd up from the feet up.
|
Or, considering there's no fucking possible way that I'll ever be worth less than $3k, let me opt out entirely. I've paid more than my share, considering I'm never going to see a dime of it.
|
Creeping around as I please nonchalantly like any other Supreme Emperor might.
|
|
11-02-2010, 09:28 PM | #7 (permalink) |
Gangnam Style
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: DH's Massage Parlor
Posts: 6,383
Internets: 213510
|
I personally know someone who used (abused) SSI to pay for his gambling addictions. He was reported about a year ago and lost out. Why did he get it??? He was unemployed and is autistic. Did they follow up what he did with it for over a decade? No. It took people turning him in.
|
11-02-2010, 09:33 PM | #8 (permalink) | |
Poor Sport
|
Quote:
I do think some people genuinely should get it, just to be clear. | |
11-02-2010, 09:35 PM | #9 (permalink) |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 549
Internets: 5464
|
There are people who have paid into SS for 30+ years that aren't going to see a fucking dime of it when they retire in 10 to 15 years. Yet they will certainly be taxed for it during those next 10 to 15 years. I think that is very fucked up. Just another reason why I'm glad that I haven't entered the workforce yet.
|
11-03-2010, 04:43 AM | #10 (permalink) | |
MURICAN
|
Quote:
| |
The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them. |
||
11-03-2010, 05:35 AM | #12 (permalink) |
Don't call me Shirley
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: London
Posts: 3,271
Internets: 220249
|
Eh the truth is every penny our generation pays to social security is a penny we'll never see again. It makes a lot of sense to raise the eligibility age since people are living a lot longer than they used to, but that is very hairy politically... they're currently striking over that in france, where the retirement age is lower and life is cushier.
A lot of people suggest privatizing social security, but I'm pretty convinced that isn't a realistic solution at all. OK let's say SS had been privatized decades ago. Three years ago, a massive number of americans lose their money in the subrime crisis... if they hadn't lost it in the dotcom bubble, right? So where do they go, the government. And the gvmt isn't going to let them starve. So now instead of paying for everyone, tax payers are ONLY paying for people too stupid to invest their money properly. The big question to me is how does social security die? Will I be throwing money into a bottomless pit until I'm 35 or 55? |
11-03-2010, 01:04 PM | #13 (permalink) |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 549
Internets: 5464
|
SS was a fail idea purposed by a fail president. It was doomed from the start. A simple glance at a population distribution graph of nearly any developed country would have shown that SS was fucked many years ago.
I see the problem with privatizing SS in that dumbass people would "gamble" with their money and loose, but if you could limit the securities that people could buy to low-risk (or risk-free) and small, yet stable return for the long haul, wouldn't it be a better system than what we have now? Let's face it, it's a broke ass system that needs fixed. Anything would be better, even nothing at all. These god damn old people are bleeding us dry, not just with SS, but medicare, too. And the sad thing is, most of them are probably senile, like my grandparents. |
11-03-2010, 02:20 PM | #14 (permalink) |
Bokononist
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 2,595
Internets: 11801
|
FDR was a fail president?
Social Security wasn't meant to be long-term, it's not his fault that it's gone on so long and failed so miserably. He had the Great Depression to worry about. |
"Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand." |vonnegut
|
|
11-03-2010, 02:38 PM | #15 (permalink) |
Gangnam Style
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: DH's Massage Parlor
Posts: 6,383
Internets: 213510
|
It CERTAINLY is his fault it went on this long. Had he just enacted on the law being short-term, we'd have been fine. Social security was a short-term problem that needed to have an ending time and he fucked us with that and several other bills by not setting an ending point.
|
11-03-2010, 05:15 PM | #17 (permalink) | |
MURICAN
|
Quote:
SS was made at a time when life expectancy was MUCH lower. People weren't expected to have 30 year retirements like they are now. Our failure has been to keep the age people can receive SS low while the life expectancy has dramatically risen. Limiting the securities people can invest in doesn't solve the problem. That system would be dramatically inefficient in terms of transaction costs and diversification. If you want a social safetynet it's SIGNIFICANTLY better to have the assets pooled together where experts can extract the most value from them with the fewest transaction costs. There are also a tremendous number of investments that can only be done with scale - small mom and pop investments can't underwrite an insurance policy - just one example. | |
The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them. Last edited by DJ FC; 11-03-2010 at 05:20 PM. |
||
11-03-2010, 05:52 PM | #19 (permalink) |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 549
Internets: 5464
|
Perhaps it would have been difficult to detect a problem in the system back in 1935, when life expectancies and population distributions were much different than they are now. However, I'm almost certain that if you saw a population distribution graph as early as 40 or 50 years ago, you could see a significant problem looming in the future.
The rest of what you said makes a lot of sense, those are some good points. Obviously I didn't sit here and put much thought into the solution I was proposing. So what do you propose? Honestly, in my opinion, the best solution is to abolish the entire system. It doesn't work. Let people make their own decisions on how much they want to save for retirement. If they don't save enough, well tough shit. That might be a little harsh though. |
11-03-2010, 08:50 PM | #20 (permalink) | |
Jelqing for Jesus
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Charlotte's spare bedroom
Posts: 3,079
Internets: 194538
|
Quote:
So when a next Bernie madoff takes off with your cash, it's just too damn bad? It might just be hindsight but I'd rather have more oversight, if it brings stability. I think most people would have yanked their 401s out of funds if they knew it was tied to sub-prime mortgages. A start for social security, would be to quit using it as a slush fund. | |
|
||
12-01-2010, 02:28 PM | #23 (permalink) |
Almost there...
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,979
Internets: 161638
|
Damn. Check out these new proposed cuts:
BBC News - US deficit panel calls for steep cuts and tax hikes |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Social Security Numbers | THEINCREDIBLEdork | Jibberish | 5 | 09-02-2009 07:56 PM |