in that case why dont they pay it into their own investments? because they are too stupid to manage their own money? This is not the question. Your assertion was that social security is bankrupting the federal budget when, in fact, social security is not bankrupting the federal budget. Our politicians are. Social Security has always been paid for. Problem is, just like they have done to the post office, our politicians rob those trust funds in order to fund their own projects, wars and the endless list of other crap they dream up to get re-elected. that is an obscure theory. lemme guess, you are old. You are incorrect on both. First there is nothing obscure about math. Throughout your working career you make contributions to social security. If left alone, your contributions will gain interest and will one fund your social security pittance. today, the system appears broken because all of the contributions that have been made into social security have not been kept there. Instead, over the years the politicians have raided the fund repeatedly to fund other projects so that it now appears that we have to do something to "save" it. In fact, if we balanced our budget and allowed the social security contributions to go into the trust fund then there is no problem with social security. On the other note, I am 38 years old and no where close to being in need of social security. Further, I doubt that I will even need social security to retire. I just do not like the misinformation about social security. This program has been demonized when in fact it is one of the lone government programs that has been successful and instrumental in keeping the elderly out of poverty for a long time. Go back and read up on the Poor Houses that existed for the elderly before social security.
i am asking, so it is the question. why shouldnt people be allowed to keep their own money? paid for by who? taxpayers? the same people who get the money back? then why not let them keep it instead of giving it to politicians, who, as you claim, waste it on nonsense. right so why not just let the people keep that money. whats wrong with poor houses? sound fun. doesnt justify taking our money. if you want to pay old people, you can pay them. dont take my money. stop with your attitude of take take take.
Social security tax is a twelve percent tax on the first 106k every person earns. Anything with that rate could be successful. That's why I demonize it. And anyone who thinks politicians will ever leave an unused pot of money lying around is sorely mistaken.
Why does it have to be either/or? Someone is perfectly capable of not being a Republican and a Socialist at the same time. If you had to pin me down, I'd say that Jesus would be Independent. That might be a cop-out, but I think it's pretty consistent with his teachings. A large number of Democrats support Abortion Rights and while I can't see Jesus getting behind that, I don't see him getting behind Capital Punishment either. I do see Jesus being tolerant of the views of others by virtue of allowing freedom of choice in decisions that we make as individuals. Republicans are about acquiring wealth. It's not always the number one goal, but it's always important. Treating other the way you want to be treated and helping lesser individuals is far too often a secondary goal if it's a goal at all. Jesus wasn't about wealth at all. In fact, he was the exact opposite. If you believe the Bible to be true, he lived a life of service in poverty. I only make the remark because Evangelical Christians are arguably the largest (size-wise) block of voters in the Republican base. Not only do they support policies that make them less wealthy, they support policies that the person they supposedly worship would not support. I don't have an identity issue. I know who I am and what I believe. As far as the problem of solving politics, my belief is that politics is the problem and there is no solution.
But consider this Mobius, you and I could do a whole lot better with 12% of our earnings and, if you are like me, probably do. As I said in a previous post I will never need social security to retire so if they did away with it completely I would be just fine. That being said, less ambitious Americans who work their whole lives but never bother to save for retirement can still have a retirement income. These are people who are never going to make investments. this keeps folks out of the poor house in the later years. I would, however, support the idea of allowing people to opt out of social security altogether. All of this said, social securtiy is solvent and has been for a very long time as long as the money is left untouched. I have to agree with you that politicians will never stop raiding the fund unless it becomes law that the fund is off limits.
maybe less ambitious americans should just be allowed to go to rich people's house and take what they want
they will not have to if you just allow them to contribute to social security during their working career. by less ambitious i mean your average convenience store worker. it is doubtful that this person has an investment portfolio. however, they pay into social security out of each pay check and at the end there is something waiting for them.
