GOP introduces plan to massively cut Social Security

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by forcesteeler, Dec 10, 2016.

  1. forcesteeler macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    #1
    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/gop-introduces-plan-to-massively-cut-social-security-222200857.html


    The Democrats Want to Raise Taxes on the Billionares to Fill The Gap. The GOP wants to slash benefits and increase the retirement age from 65 to 69.

    Paul Ryan Dream was to Privatize Social Security and give it to the wall street bankers, Which is not a bad idea because when you put Social Security in the Stock Market, You can make more money and a better return on your money.

    But again in 2008 taught us is that alot of these wall street hedge fund traders are greedy and will use loopholes to bet with our money.
     
  2. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #2
    You would effectively have to over-fund that for it to work. Even on low risk investment products, an investment portfolio does not generate the same amount each year and may encounter losses. You can't definitively say you would see better returns, especially when higher risk investment products would be a very bad choice for a fund with fairly fixed liabilities. That aside, the bill won't pass in the form described in the article. This contains a somewhat biased press release and a link to the actual bill, because yahoo news sources are terrible.
     
  3. Zenithal Suspended

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
  4. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #4
    I'd be curious how that would work. I'm 56 and have been contributing to SS for nearly 40 years. So if it was privatized, would the government hand me a check of all my contributions plus interest?

    Honestly, if they did, I'd be fine with that.

    Gimme that money and let me do with it what I may.
     
  5. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #5
    In terms of lower risk ones, yeah they came to mind. My point is that expected earnings would need to exceed liabilities by a considerable amount, because short term variance tends to be much higher while social security payouts are mostly fixed.
     
  6. Zenithal Suspended

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #6
    You put too much faith in the government to do that.
     
  7. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #7
    Then they would be stealing my money.

    Time to get out the pitchforks and torches.
     
  8. thats all folks macrumors 6502a

    thats all folks

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2013
    Location:
    Austin (supposedly in Texas)
    #8
    Wall Street really worked out well for folks in 2000 and 2008 (and 1929 and...). lets give them billions more every year to play with...

    if Paul Ryan wants to play games, leave me out of it and give me back everything put-in in my name.
     
  9. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #9
    Sounds insane - other than raising the retirement age which is a good idea.
     
  10. noisycats macrumors 6502a

    noisycats

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2010
    Location:
    The 'ham. Alabama.
    #10
    I'm with him. Give me back my contributions tied to a nice and fair SP500 index and I'll call it even.
     
  11. shinji, Dec 11, 2016
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2016

    shinji macrumors 65816

    shinji

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    #11
    The government can't just pay everyone a lump sum because social security is pay-as-you-go, meaning the benefits today's retirees get come from taxes paid by today's workers. It is not like a pension, where the money workers pay into it goes into a huge fund and years later benefits are paid out from the fund's accumulated principal and investment returns.

    If it were privatized, that would mean today's workers would be able to invest a portion of what they'd otherwise owe in FICA tax in a private account. It would also mean an extremely expensive transition cost because today's retirees still have to be paid for, and it's also obviously subject to an enormous amount of risk that many Americans are unlikely to fully appreciate.
     
  12. Rogifan macrumors P6

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #12
    Any non-baby boomer expecting social security to provide their retirement is an idiot. Never going to happen.
     
  13. DearthnVader macrumors 6502

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #13
    Spoken like someone who didn't spend half their life breaking their back in the tobacco fields and factories. For some of us, we'll be lucky to make 65, yet others want us to wait until we are 69 to draw on what we've been paying into since we were just a wee lad, but then that's what their counting on, that we'll die before we can collect a thin dime.

    If Republicans want to touch the third rail of American politics, they'll be swept right out of office in 2018.
     
  14. R.Perez macrumors 6502

    R.Perez

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    #14
    Yeah, no it isn't. The poor folks that actually need social security benefits have a lower life expectancy. What do you think the life expectancy is for all those coal voters DJT pretends to care about?
     
  15. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #15
    Means test social security, it's pretty simple. Why is someone sitting on 3 million in assets getting a check every month paid for by the younger generation who can't afford a tuna sandwich?
     
  16. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #16
    Raising the cutoff is a much better start.
     
  17. Bug-Creator, Dec 11, 2016
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2016

    Bug-Creator macrumors 6502

    Bug-Creator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Location:
    Germany
    #17
    Cos that millionaire had paid a large sum into that system with the promise to get some out when he is older.

    Cutting benefits based personal assets is nothing else than rewarding the lazy on the backs of the busy.
    Seeems Zombie Arcon has finally identified himself as the resident communist round here :eek:
     
  18. R.Perez macrumors 6502

    R.Perez

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    #18
    Gotta love the old poor folks are lazy argument. No matter how many times it gets debunked it keeps coming back.
     
  19. Bug-Creator macrumors 6502

    Bug-Creator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Location:
    Germany
    #19
    @R.Perez

    Not the lazy old folks, but the lazy folks that didn't create private assets who would still get benefits if rules where changed as suggested by Zombie Arcon...
     
  20. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #20
    Yeh and many millennials were promised good jobs if they went to college as well, tough ****.

    How you can call someone a communist for suggesting that we don't take money from the current poor to give to the current rich is kind of rich in itself. The older generation will soak up more in government funds through Medicare clinging to life than they ever put into any government program.
    --- Post Merged, Dec 11, 2016 ---
    If they have enough private assets to live off of then why do they need to be subsidized by the current generation of working poor?
     
  21. Bug-Creator macrumors 6502

    Bug-Creator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Location:
    Germany
    #21
    Communist == giving everyone what he needs and taking what he doesn't
    Pretty much what you suggested

    Capitalist == I got mine, and it stays mine, cos it is mine

    And yes devalualting entitelments based on money paid into the system is taking away property just as much as any other "take from the rich" scheme.
     
  22. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #22
    Alright so when you need a $200,000 dollar op through Medicare and can't cover it with what you've put into the system you are going to mortgage your house and move out into the street/re-enter the workforce right? Wouldn't want to take what someone else earned and distribute it to you. Communism.

    Also it's well known that most people take more out of SS than they actually put in anyways. Communism!
     
  23. chabig macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    #23
    Raising taxes on billionaires is just class warfare talk. The government could confiscate 100% of every billionaire's wealth, and it wouldn't make a difference. In 2017, the US government is projected to spend about $7 trillion. That's $19 billion every...single...day. So take Mark Zuckerberg's wealth--pays for 3 days.
     
  24. DearthnVader macrumors 6502

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #24
    But, but, tax 'em where they aint works so well. People that make over $118,500 shouldn't be taxed anymore, when we can just deny benefits to people based on age, an age we don't think they'll ever reach.
     
  25. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #25
    It's a perfect plan.

    Delay payments so enough people will die before they can collect their benefits.

    Genius!
     

Share This Page