- advertisements -
I hate to tell you this Mr. Quinn, but we don't need to worry about future generations, even the present ones are going to witness the end of SS before their days are out and probably much sooner. I see a zero change that my kids will ever get SS and about a 10% chance that I will.
As the economy continues to decline, tax revenues will too. We will see the deficit going from $1.5 to $2.0, $2.5 . . . and then BANG, like Greece, the US gets cut off as the world pukes at the mere mention of a T-bill/bond, which by the way is all that is left of the so-called trust fund.
If SS lasts another five years it will be a miracle.
Not that I do not agree with you. But if that is the case then why should they pay any taxes at all?
They shouldn't.... If life were fair. Obama would come out tomorrow and declare that Social Security is a bust and bankrupt and that the government will pay back to each and every person how much they have put into the system (minus anything they have taken out) over the next 10 years, and then that's it the system will be done after that....
It's not that they shouldn't. It's that they won't. I also agree. This talk of future generations paying the price misses the reality which is that we will pay the price. The bill is due now.
but SS wont even be around in 2013
Politics is about having your cake, and eating it too. Spend today and let someone else pay for it. Not to admonish anyone here, but even little kids know how to be politicians.
And politicians know how to be little kids, unfortunately.
Dont be too sure on that... Even RP will get rid of SS if elected.. Obama wants whatever money is left in there for bowling night.... so no, nothing left in there <tipping over the coffee can>
You mean spending future taxes not yet collected. Politicians are proficient at it and the abortionist made sure the pyramid would get smaller. The unintended consquences of eugenics has caught up.
OK sheep. See if you can get a chant going: Ponzi ! Ponzi ! Ponzi ! Ponzi ! Ponzi ! Ponzi ! Ponzi ! Ponzi !!!!!!!!!!!
or will that check have any value, after inflation and taxes....
agreed abolish SS now.. Give back what everyone has put in today, and demolitish it like number 7!
Most of the Boomers wouldn't be able to retire if they declared SS bankrupt. You should check out the polls that were taken on the average amount they saved for retirement. I'm fairly young and have more saved than the median.
Many of the boomers I know have not only saved nothing but are so far in the hole that I have no idea what they will do when they are older.
That fiat savings will net you a few loaves of bread when Benny and Barry are finished devaluaing the dollar.
Not if you invest it properly. They do have IRA accounts where you can invest in gold coins. Sure the fees are ridiculous, but it's better than investing in stocks.
It seems to me, investing in Gold coins through an IRA, defeats the purpose of investing in gold at all.
Not disagreeing with your statement about PM's over stocks.
I agree. I took 1/2 my 401k out some time ago out and bought physical PMs, now up almost 300%. 30% penalty is a small price to pay to be free of financial assclowns.
Yeah but its all in worthless dollars...just sayin..
The Fed can always print into infinity. All payments will be honored, but the income streams will buy much less. Welcome to third world reality.
Exactly. Rick Perry (a giant tool) is correct that SS is a ponzi scheme, but he forgot the detail that the operator of the Ponzi in this case has the ability 1) to force future collections to pay for future distributions, and 2) to print to meet future distributions if for any reasons collections become insufficient. Bernie Madoff would not be in prison if he had either ability.
Also unlike in ponzi schemes the bottom of the pyramid doesn't keep growing indefinitely either ... the population is ageing, but there is a limit to the ratio of people on social security to the working population. Also government has the ability to reduce social security pay outs if necessary.
It's just like a Ponzi scheme except for the fact that it's not ... it's just a government wellfare program.
I'm not even qualified for SS (not enough quarters working for the "right people"). So good riddance. Not my problem, I am happy that I have saved.
I have already told my kid to not expect anything from .gov. Except to be taxed. Nothing else.
We burned through $500 billion in a little over a month and a week...5 and 6 trillion dollar deficits are right around the corner...
yea! Its working, its working ....
I was thinking the same thing the whole time I was reading his article. He calls Social Security a Ponzi Scheme, but when the government doesn't fund the Ponzi Scheme he gets annoyed. I am a fan of any tax cut that lets me keep 2% more of my money, while weakening SS and allowing it to finally collapse. Perhaps we should fully fund SS and raise the retirement age to 70 for my generation to save our parents' generation's retirement (how much did they save in private accounts?). From the generation that speaks more and more about individual responsibility, they certainly don't save any money for their own retirement.
The only thing I agreed with was tearing apart the Porkulus Package that flushed $800B down the toilet. I didn't bother to watch the speech, because I knew it would be a series of empty promises from a BS artist. I like how the author points out that if unemployment benefits weren't extended, the unemployment rate would be an entire 1% lower. What would happen to the other people on Unemployment who couldn't get jobs after the benefits are cut after the 1% accepts those opening at McDonald's? Would we bring back Hoovervilles to an even larger extent? A better solution would be to scrutinize who receives unemployment insurance more effectively. If someone is offered a job they applied for then don't accept it, because they their UEI was extended and they would receive more "compensation" from UEI then cut those people off. Make whoever can work, work. This may prove tricky and would involve bureaucrats to think more (which is not their strong point), but in the end it is a more effective solution, IMHO.
I didn't really care for this article. I don't think a lot of thought was put into it.
I agree with the first part of your comment complete however when 978,000 people apply for 50,000 job openings at McDonalds ... a thinking person might question the second part. I have a co-worker who works his butt off after a couple of stints in Iraq and has 4 sons all over the age of 18 up to age 29, all living at home because .... the jobs are simply not there to enable them to move out. I know him well enough to know, he wouldn't stand for them hanging at home if it wasn't the case.
It won't matter, the world will be at war by then.
You want to limit this discussion to Social Security?
Keep dreaming the fuck on, BAC and uspo may blow up but thy will TARP soc sec. Don't be stupid. Under 50? Better start saving and you'll be paying more and get money at 70-75 if you live that long
Right on, Noah. SS payments are just going to be made out of the general fund as always--and financed via borrowing. There's no money for future generations. There's no money for CURRENT generations. 1/3 of current spending is borrowed. What the fuck difference does it make that we lower payroll taxes when we're already tapped out? It's a really stupid, specious argument.
SS will last right up to the day the US dollar collapses. Now that the Euro's collapsing at a much faster rate, the pressure's off the dollar. That''ll buy you another 3-4 years. Just long enough for Obama to save his reputation.
He probably figures it worked for Hoover, why not him?
Plus if it fails, he gets to laugh so very hard when everything collapses completely on the Republican's watch.
“A male average earner who retired at age 65 in 2010 paid out $345,000 in total Social Security and Medicare taxes, but will receive $417,000 in total lifetime benefits ($464,000 for a woman)."
A male earner that retired at 65 in 2010 started contributing to SS in 1965 (maybe earlier). Let's just make it real easy here......how much, in today's dollars, would $345k from say 1985 (half way between 1965 and 2005)be worth? I would venture to say.....a great deal more than 417k. Plus, if that individual had just put that money into any investment in 1985 returning say a paltry 3.5% then that $345k would be worth 690k today....so, I am not sure that the average Joe is getting all that great of a deal.
Right - police state & foreign interventionism are bankrupt, not SS. Hard to call a program bankrupt that has received trillions more than paid out, and that's before adjusting to real terms.
What a great American visionary leader he has proven to be.
what do you expect from a country that twice elected the Bush, twice elected Clinton
As bad as Bush proved to be, what choices did the voters have? Gore and Kerry? Gimme a break. Even with the advantage of hindsight, I'd choose Bush over those two useless assholes.
Law 31 Control the options: get others to play with the cards you deal.
That's helpful...especially all these years later. How are the "Laws" working out for you? Is everybody playing with the cards you dealt? Didn't think so...
You appear to have missed the point of my post. That is unfortunate. Try to think outside of your personal life and on a macro level.
You appear to be a pompous self serving fool. Try to think inside the context of this thread/article and on the specific question of electing the best candidate AVAILABLE. (Or you can elaborate on the point of your post, on second thought, don't.)
You just made me lol. Thanks for that.
Religion - Couldn't have said it better. Well done. Seems the fool is rather self absorbed and didn't understand your plainly spoken rebuttal.
You are the one who does not understand.
I agree though, clearly you cannot say anything better.
Disapointing, and LOL indeed.
Sigh, since you don't seem to be picking up the very relevant info that he posted, let me explain it in a little more relevant way. You are saying that you did the best with what you had to work with. In this instant, I tend to agree. However, this is a straw man arguement as you can vote for anyone that your little heart desires. What was suggested is that you should have realized that your choices were being restricted in such a way that you would be harmed by accepting either of the choices presented. You should have then worked to change this fact.
You are responsible for your own well being, as no one will go out of their way to improve your life at their detriment. If you are going to put someone in power over you, you had better make sure that they benefit from the same things that you do.
That went COMPLETELY over your head, didn't it?
No one but globalist scum get nominated
You can't stimulate people who don't wanna work. USA = sloth nation with an entitlement attitude. I'll save my tears for the poor b**tards in the far east pulling 18 hours shifts for a $1.
Tough guy FunkyMonkeyBoy makes a great point here.
Hope you can save a bit of the vitriol for the fat cat leaches that "really" got us into this mess!
Yeah, it's those lazy bums on welfare... such easy targets for smug, intellectually challenged know it all's...
Takes acquiescence. Evil triumphs while good men do nothing, and american sheeple have proven definitively in recently years that they are masters of doing a whole lot of nothing.
Tips: tips [ at ] zerohedge.com
General: info [ at ] zerohedge.com
Legal: legal [ at ] zerohedge.com
Advertising: ads [ at ] zerohedge.com
Abuse/Complaints: abuse [ at ] zerohedge.com
Advertise With Us
Make sure to read our "How To [Read/Tip Off] Zero Hedge Without Attracting The Interest Of [Human Resources/The Treasury/Black Helicopters]" Guide
How to report offensive comments
Notice on Racial Discrimination.