While most elite-funded and elite-supported Republicans want to increase immigration and decrease Social Security, a significant number of voters (across both parties) want precisely the opposite — to increase Social Security and decrease immigration. So when Trump speaks out both against immigration and against fellow Republicans who want to cut Social Security, he's speaking out for a lot people.

You could win an election on these two principals.

Good Read here.

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/18/9172653/tru...mmigration

Nobody WANTS to decrease Social Security. The problem is that Social Security is going to decrease itself because it's on an unsustainable economic path. So how do you change that?

Rampant SS fraud is the main issue with that clusterF.

I simply want an option to privatize my own "social security."

We have to go to a National Sales Tax. They've been taking from the SS Trust fund forever. Time to start paying back the IOU's.

How about raising the age to 68 to start?

(08-19-2015 02:28 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  How about raising the age to 68 to start?

Then 70, then 72. etc? That's a cop out.

(08-19-2015 02:30 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 02:28 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  How about raising the age to 68 to start?

Then 70, then 72. etc? That's a cop out.

Not when people are living into their mid 80's.

(08-19-2015 02:33 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 02:30 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 02:28 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  How about raising the age to 68 to start?

Then 70, then 72. etc? That's a cop out.

Not when people are living into their mid 80's.

The thing is though 70, 75, or 80 today still =/= 65 in the past.

People would retire, still be relatively mobile and outwardly healthy, then they'd get taken out at a relatively young age by a heart attack, stroke, or a sickness that we can more easily control today.

If you push retirement age to 70 or 75, many people are going to have major health complications that really prevent them from enjoying retirement.

While the average lifespan has gone up, it is largely because we've been able to treat many of the things that once dragged down the average life expectancy by killing people relatively young. A 75 year old is still a 75 year old though with many of the same mental and physical impairments that existed years ago.

(08-19-2015 02:19 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  Rampant SS fraud is the main issue with that clusterF.

I simply want an option to privatize my own "social security."

Once you allow people to pull out of the system, it falls apart and nobody gets it. Then you just shift senior citizens over to welfare instead of a system they paid into.

Given the choice, most people would like to have those extra dollars back on their paycheck. Given that freedom, most people would waste that money and not save it for retirement.

Here's the way I would go about it:

1) remove the salary cap;
2) increase the eligibility age one month per year for 48 years to get to 70; you could still start at 62 for reduced benefits, although actuarial calculations will mean a bigger penalty as the standard age increases;
3) transfer federal business enterprises such as postal service, interstate highways (convert to national toll road system), TVA and western water/power agencies, airports and air traffic control, others, to social security in payment for debt owed by general government; set up such enterprises to earn a rate of return of 5%;
4) set up a private component like Sweden, let it invest the first $100,000/person in the infrastructure enterprises above, the second $100,000/person in conservative index funds, and allow some self-directed investments above;
5) as the privatized component grows, cap the upper limits of what SS will pay out, until you end up with basically a single payment augmented by the income from the privatized portion.

1, 2, 3, and 5 all make the system solvent. 4 gives every American an equity ownership interest in the future of the country.

(08-19-2015 02:46 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 02:33 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 02:30 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 02:28 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  How about raising the age to 68 to start?

Then 70, then 72. etc? That's a cop out.

Not when people are living into their mid 80's.

The thing is though 70, 75, or 80 today still =/= 65 in the past.

People would retire, still be relatively mobile and outwardly healthy, then they'd get taken out at a relatively young age by a heart attack, stroke, or a sickness that we can more easily control today.

If you push retirement age to 70 or 75, many people are going to have major health complications that really prevent them from enjoying retirement.

While the average lifespan has gone up, it is largely because we've been able to treat many of the things that once dragged down the average life expectancy by killing people relatively young. A 75 year old is still a 75 year old though with many of the same mental and physical impairments that existed years ago.

A lot of the seniors back then never enjoyed their retirement. My grandfather died at 65. My mom died at 65.

Maybe instead of raising the retirement age, we could lower the life expectancy instead. Tax incentives for obesity, allow food stamps to be used for cigarettes, legalize all drugs, but make hypodermic needles very expensive, free gay prostitution.

(08-19-2015 02:46 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 02:33 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 02:30 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 02:28 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  How about raising the age to 68 to start?

Then 70, then 72. etc? That's a cop out.

Not when people are living into their mid 80's.

The thing is though 70, 75, or 80 today still =/= 65 in the past.

People would retire, still be relatively mobile and outwardly healthy, then they'd get taken out at a relatively young age by a heart attack, stroke, or a sickness that we can more easily control today.

If you push retirement age to 70 or 75, many people are going to have major health complications that really prevent them from enjoying retirement.

While the average lifespan has gone up, it is largely because we've been able to treat many of the things that once dragged down the average life expectancy by killing people relatively young. A 75 year old is still a 75 year old though with many of the same mental and physical impairments that existed years ago.

IMO, tinkering with the retirement age just ignores the real underlying issues, etc. That's all I was getting at. You're synopsis above makes sense.

(08-19-2015 03:21 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  Maybe instead of raising the retirement age, we could lower the life expectancy instead. Tax incentives for obesity, allow food stamps to be used for cigarettes, legalize all drugs, but make hypodermic needles very expensive, free gay prostitution.

Maybe instead of cuts to social security, which taxpayers paid into, we could make the cuts in the entitlement programs which the taxpayers also paid into but get absolutely no benefit from.

(08-19-2015 03:21 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  Maybe instead of raising the retirement age, we could lower the life expectancy instead. Tax incentives for obesity, allow food stamps to be used for cigarettes, legalize all drugs, but make hypodermic needles very expensive, free gay prostitution.

I guess as long as we're brainstorming lol.

My BIL gets SS because he is bi-polar. C'mon, many people have that malady but still work. He's just lazy and really useless. I think he's worked for max 2 years in some 50 years. It's stupid.

(08-19-2015 04:08 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  My BIL gets SS because he is bi-polar. C'mon, many people have that malady but still work. He's just lazy and really useless. I think he's worked for max 2 years in some 50 years. It's stupid.

I have a cousin that is fat as ****. Her husband is a fat lazy **** too. They both get disability.

Recently got to see her complain about lazy people on welfare. In the same paragraph she was complaining that after her husband started getting his disability, they no longer qualified for food stamps because they "made" too much money.

*****, you didn't make any money. It was given to you.

I'll bet that if they didn't get disability for a malady that they brought on themselves they'd lose weight pretty fast.

(08-19-2015 02:19 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  Rampant SS fraud is the main issue with that clusterF.

I simply want an option to privatize my own "social security."

Minor in the scheme of things. The problem is demographics. It was designed for an average age of death of 65.

(08-19-2015 02:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here's the way I would go about it:

1) remove the salary cap;
2) increase the eligibility age one month per year for 48 years to get to 70; you could still start at 62 for reduced benefits, although actuarial calculations will mean a bigger penalty as the standard age increases;
3) transfer federal business enterprises such as postal service, interstate highways (convert to national toll road system), TVA and western water/power agencies, airports and air traffic control, others, to social security in payment for debt owed by general government; set up such enterprises to earn a rate of return of 5%;
4) set up a private component like Sweden, let it invest the first $100,000/person in the infrastructure enterprises above, the second $100,000/person in conservative index funds, and allow some self-directed investments above;
5) as the privatized component grows, cap the upper limits of what SS will pay out, until you end up with basically a single payment augmented by the income from the privatized portion.

1, 2, 3, and 5 all make the system solvent. 4 gives every American an equity ownership interest in the future of the country.

#1
#2
#4 (not the infrastructure part, but the conservative index fund)
And then get rid of the peg to average wages and index to a price index. Right now there is a long term built-in increase in excess of inflation in a system that can't meet its obligations.