Here we go. Early Retirements Straining Social Security Already. (1 Viewer)

[Sabine]

I think the name for that is "Reconquista".

I still see the best option as re-ordering prioroties, spending less in some areas, giving up certain things and re-allocating to things that mattter.

If we do that, I don't have to learn Spanish.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

No. Enough of the smoke and mirrors.

Cut spending, cur borrowing, cut down to size and live within in means. Adjust priorities. Accept reality. Deal with fundamentals instead of tricks to try to maintain the unsustainable status quo.

It's really, really, really, really simple.

The troubles result from refusal to do above and at some point it is very hard to have sympathy for anyone.

Right but S.S. should not be based around taxes derived from means other than those assessed to S.S. so unless you want to change the system or re-allocate resources from taxes to other areas, raising the cap is the way to go. Im cool with your way(if it was the only way) but its not like my way doesnt work and doesnt work much more realistically and in a more politically feasible manner and much more fairly.


Theres no tricks in my solution, its pretty straight forward. As it stands after 106,000 dollars you dont pay into the pool. You raise that cap, as should have been happening to go along with natural inflation, and you eliminate the shortfall.

Neg all you want, but im looking at what adds up with the math.

Although I am extremely curious how thats smoke and mirrors. My way is pretty damn simple, yours is pretty complicated, given the fact that neither republicans nor democrats relish in lowering spending.

 

[Crzycjunx76]

Right but S.S. should not be based around taxes derived from means other than those assessed to S.S. so unless you want to change the system or re-allocate resources from taxes to other areas, raising the cap is the way to go. Im cool with your way(if it was the only way) but its not like my way doesnt work and doesnt work much more realistically and in a more politically feasible manner and much more fairly.


Theres no tricks in my solution, its pretty straight forward. As it stands after 106,000 dollars you dont pay into the pool. You raise that cap, as should have been happening to go along with natural inflation, and you eliminate the shortfall.

Neg all you want, but im looking at what adds up with the math.

Although I am extremely curious how thats smoke and mirrors. My way is pretty damn simple, yours is pretty complicated, given the fact that neither republicans nor democrats relish in lowering spending.

We may have to raise the cap to pay the baby boomers for what they have paid in... but since this is just supposed to be a forced savings program like Black said earlier and you are supposed to get out of it more or less what you put into it how do you increase the yield for those who would be paying now so that they get what they should when it is time for them to retire...
The idea was people did not use enough foresight to save for their futures (which should be a bare minimum of 10% take home pay)or for hard times so they should give some to the government so that they can keep us from spending all of our money. Unfortunately we have discovered that giving the government your money in trust is like leaving a bunch of toddlers alone in a room with a cake and expecting them not to touch it.

Why oh why when a logical answer to so many questions involves cutting spending and practicing fiscal responsibility do we continue to completely lack a viable party that will do more than talk about it?