Our live's are about to change.

[CarlCyrus]

I knew what you meant. It was the SSI acronym that tripped everyone up.

As to your friend's whining about no COLA for two years...I suspect there was no complaint about the "accidental" 5.8% increase three years ago as well as not noticing that the cost of living as COLA defined has been flat or decreased for the past two years. Also, as required by law the base Medicare premiums couldn't increase despite the rise in healthcare costs. Don't suppose he noticed that, either.

Better go check "shadowstats" website. True inflation is running 8%-10% and the Government gives you no COLA because they calculate the CPI different. They take out energy and food (which we all must buy) to calculate their rate of inflation.

I told you before, the Socialists will guarantee to you that you will receive SS, they just don't guarantee what it will buy in the future.

My favorite bumper sticker right now is: "Socialism works until you run out of other people's money."

Margaret Thatcher, in a television interview for Thames TV This Week on February 5, 1976. Prime Minister Thatcher said, "...and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."

It has been popularly paraphrased in various forms:

* "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money [to spend]."
* "The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
* "Eventually, socialists run out of other peoples' money [to spend]."

Carl

[CarlCyrus]

Well ... it depends upon your definition of "welfare".

Most Social Security recipients get back far more in payments than they sent in in taxes. So by that definition you could call it welfare.

Ah, some say, but the money was invested, and we're just getting the interest. Sadly, no it wasn't. It is a direct payout program.

Making it worse, there isn't even really a Social Security Trust Fund. The Feds "stole" it all to fund the general budget. All SS really consists of is one big IOU.

And last, but certainly not least, the way it is structured is exactly like one big Ponzi scheme. It is mathematically guaranteed to fail. The Feds can and/or have pushed off the failure date several times, by: raising taxes, bringing in new workers previously exempt, raising the retirement age, etc. But doomed it is.

If IBM, or Ford, or any company ran their pension schemes the way the Federal Government runs Social Security, the CFO would be thrown into jail. It would be illegal. And rightly so.

You can't call it a Ponzi scheme...It is really inter-generational theft. You are stealing from your children and grandchildren.

Carl

[Tilos]

Carl:
I'm having a hard time believing you really drank that "inter-generational theft" media/liberal Koolaid and bought into blame game.

The gov'mt takes it to zero every year...the gov YOU elected.
If they were not so busy stealing the money and had raised the retirement age as life expectancy went up and left the $ there we would not be discussing this today.
When SS started, retirement was 65 and the average life expectancy for an American male was 67 .
It's not grandpa's fault the money's gone.
Tilos

[Rainman48314]

Carl:
I'm having a hard time believing you really drank that "inter-generational theft" media/liberal Koolaid and bought into blame game.

The gov'mt takes it to zero every year...the gov YOU elected.
If they were not so busy stealing the money and had raised the retirement age as life expectancy went up and left the $ there we would not be discussing this today.
When SS started, retirement was 65 and the average life expectancy for an American male was 67 .
It's not grandpa's fault the money's gone.
Tilos

In 1936, because of the 25% unemployment rate, the primary goal of Social Security was to get older workers out of the work force so those jobs would go to younger men. It didn't even cover women or farm workers at first. The retirement date was set at 65, which was considered actuarially sound, since, at the time, the average life expectancy in America was 61. By making the retirement date four years later than the average life expectancy, it was thought the proposed social security tax of ½ of 1% each for employer and employee was adequate. Since the first retirees would put no funds, or practically no funds into the treasury, it was assumed that the retirees would be paid with deficit financing and the contributions of their children's generation.

It was set up that way because the goal was actually twofold in 1936 — (1) to get older workers out of the job market so younger workers could take their jobs and (2) to help the retirees children who would have the burden of raising their children while helping to care for their parents.

It worked fairly well in the early days of Social Security since about half the people did not live long enough to collect any money. The life expectancy increased to its present 74.63 years for males and 80.36 years for women, while people are allowed to retire and collect Social Security as young as 62 years.

If Social Security used the same actuarial charts used in 2005 that were used in 1936 when the retirement date was pegged to the life-expectancy rate, the ages of becoming eligible for Social Security for men would be approximately age 79 and for women it would be age 85

[Tilos]

OK then.
I was close, going from memory with the numbers and you just echo'd my point with a lot more info.

(evil)rich/poor = class warfare
A poor man NEVER gave me a job...anyone?

SS/greedy gramps = generational warfare.

Tilos

[Rainman48314]

OK then.
I was close, going from memory with the numbers and you just echo'd my point with a lot more info.

(evil)rich/poor = class warfare
A poor man NEVER gave me a job...anyone?

SS/greedy gramps = generational warfare.

Tilos

Your point was a good one. I can't imagine waiting for a SS benefit until I hit 79 (if I ever do).

[ltxi]

On the other hand, the SS tax rate ain't exactly 0.5% anymore now is it?