Buzzly needs a new signature line...

[schizuki]

Originally Posted by The Spaceman

Since by far the largest portion of Federal "entitlement" spending is paying people back what they put in to the system, I guess that means old people who worked their entire lives and paid into Social Security and Medicare are "layabouts," right?

Not layabouts, but they're lifting from their grandkids' piggybanks:

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 much bigger disparity in taxes versus benefits occurs for couples. In the case of a household with only one wage earner, the taxes paid out were $345,000, but the benefits received by both parties will be $778,000. For two-earner couples where one earned the average wage and the other earned a low wage ($19,400), tax payout was $500,000, but benefits will be $800,000.

[The Spaceman]

Originally Posted by schizuki

Not layabouts, but they're lifting from their grandkids' piggybanks:

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 much bigger disparity in taxes versus benefits occurs for couples. In the case of a household with only one wage earner, the taxes paid out were $345,000, but the benefits received by both parties will be $778,000. For two-earner couples where one earned the average wage and the other earned a low wage ($19,400), tax payout was $500,000, but benefits will be $800,000.

Horsepucky. You could cover that delta with compound interest in a bank savings account at 3%.

I doubt they adjusted for inflation either; which isn't that great at the moment but damn sure was in the 60's and 70's when most recipients were in their peak earning years. Not to mention the fact that recipients are paying right back into the system with income tax on their benefits!

Social Security is solvent for the next 60 years; Medicare for "only" the next 35. Both can be made solvent indefinitely with minor tweaks.

[seruzawa]

Retirees are layabouts. I know. I'm one. It's a system we all agree on. We're willing to produce extra wealth so that when our time comes we can live off others' production. We use pieces of paper to represent wealth. It's a fiction. but it seems to work if it isn't carried out to extremes.... like, oh, derivatives.

[The_AirHawk]

Originally Posted by The Spaceman

Horsepucky. You could cover that delta with compound interest in a bank savings account at 3%.

I doubt they adjusted for inflation either; which isn't that great at the moment but damn sure was in the 60's and 70's when most recipients were in their peak earning years. Not to mention the fact that recipients are paying right back into the system with income tax on their benefits!

Social Security is solvent for the next 60 years; Medicare for "only" the next 35. Both can be made solvent indefinitely with minor tweaks.

What the hell bank are YOU putting your savings in? There hasn't been a savings account in the whole frickin' COUNTRY that's paid 3% interest since something like 1997.....

And I have this little "problem" of the idea of taking/stealing money from someone, then giving it someone else, THEN taking/stealing it from the person you gave it to to give it to someone ELSE...... Goddam Feral Government "Efficiency". **** that. **** that in its ugly ****ing Face.

GAO said last year that Social Security was "Upside Down" (Medicare's been that way for THREE years), so I have no idea WTF you're talking about it being "solvent" for the next 60 years.

Perhaps you mean that's when the "expense of doing business" gets so high, it will cost 100% of the money they take/steal from your paycheck merely to pay for the Administration of the program, with nothing left for those pesky "payouts", yes?

[The Spaceman]

Originally Posted by seruzawa

Retirees are layabouts. I know. I'm one. It's a system we all agree on. We're willing to produce extra wealth so that when our time comes we can live off others' production. We use pieces of paper to represent wealth. It's a fiction. but it seems to work if it isn't carried out to extremes.... like, oh, derivatives.

Well I'll be damned. There's not a single thing in your post I can disagree with.

How long have you been a layabout? What do you do all day? Would you rather be working or do you like retirement?

[The Spaceman]

Originally Posted by The_AirHawk

What the hell bank are YOU putting your savings in? There hasn't been a savings account in the whole frickin' COUNTRY that's paid 3% interest since something like 1997.....

And I have this little "problem" of the idea of taking/stealing money from someone, then giving it someone else, THEN taking/stealing it from the person you gave it to to give it to someone ELSE...... Goddam Feral Government "Efficiency". **** that. **** that in its ugly ****ing Face.

GAO said last year that Social Security was "Upside Down" (Medicare's been that way for THREE years), so I have no idea WTF you're talking about it being "solvent" for the next 60 years.

Perhaps you mean that's when the "expense of doing business" gets so high, it will cost 100% of the money they take/steal from your paycheck merely to pay for the Administration of the program, with nothing left for those pesky "payouts", yes?

1. The 3% savings account was an example. The point is that to say people are taking out more than they put in with SS is wrong; anybody could earn enough interest to cover the delta in the example given.

2. CBO Affirms Social Security Trust Fund Solvent Through 2038 [Update] | ThinkProgress Ok, I was off on the actual number of years, but the point remains: Social Security is solvent for decades to come, and could easily be kept solvent indefinitely if we didn't have a dysfunctional government.

3. The overhead cost of Social Security is LESS THAN 1%.

With all the above FACTS about Social Security, why the big push to "privatize" it? Well, gee, where would those trillions of dollars go if they weren't being managed by the US government? Private banks, investment funds, stock funds, etc. The same fine people who brought you the financial collapse of 08.

Remember the early 2000's when everybody was making big bucks in the stock market, and the Republicans were doing their damnedest do force privatization? Imagine what would have happened if they'd won. Old people in the streets instead of their homes. Orphans living in institutions or worse. Families already squeezed by the 08 collapse trying to take care of their older parents and grandparents.

We form societies and look out for each other because in the long run it's in our individual best interest. Cave men figured it out. Why can't Republicans?