Liberal Forum

 Ponzi SchemeVs Social Security
Ponzi Scheme  

• Money from new investors is used to pay returns to earlier investors
• Eventually collapses when there aren’t enough new investors
• Not backed by actual investments

Social Security

• Taxes from current workers are used to pay benefits to current retirees
• Faces financial strain when there aren’t enough workers to support retirees
• Trust fund is invested in government bonds, but there are no private investments

Yes, it would appear to meet the criteria of a Ponzi scheme. The biggest difference is that when the government does it, it is legal. So, what is the solution? 
Well, some say to raise the retirement age, increase payroll taxes, lift the payroll tax cap, reduce benefits for higher earners, and index benefits more slowly. 

These solutions suck ^^^. 

My idea: 

1. Privatizing SS is an option. In fact, it may be the only viable option. It has a lot of problems that go along with it, but I think the benefits of privatization ultimately outweigh the current and future option. 

Or

2. Cap off who can take it out. I doubt Bill Gates needs a social security check. Yes, he paid into it, thus he has a right to it, but seriously? We already do a form of this anyway with welfare. We pay money into the state for welfare benefits. However, we can't collect on it unless we qualify for it. Why not the same idea for the ultra-rich?
 
 
 

Vegas » Yesterday, 3:52 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 3:52 pm

 Ponzi SchemeVs Social Security
Ponzi Scheme  

• Money from new investors is used to pay returns to earlier investors
• Eventually collapses when there aren’t enough new investors
• Not backed by actual investments

Social Security

• Taxes from current workers are used to pay benefits to current retirees
• Faces financial strain when there aren’t enough workers to support retirees
• Trust fund is invested in government bonds, but there are no private investments

Yes, it would appear to meet the criteria of a Ponzi scheme. The biggest difference is that when the government does it, it is legal. So, what is the solution? 
Well, some say to raise the retirement age, increase payroll taxes, left the payroll tax cap, reduce benefits for higher earners, and index benefits more slowly. 

These solutions suck ^^^. 

My idea: 

1. Privatizing SS is an option. In fact, it may be the only viable option. It has a lot of problems that go along with it, but I think the benefits of privatization ultimately outweigh the current and future option. 

Or

2. Cap off who can take it out. I doubt Bill Gates needs a social security check. Yes, he paid into it, thus he has a right to it, but seriously? We already do a form of this anyway with welfare. We pay money into the state for welfare benefits. However, we can't collect on it unless we qualify for it. Why not the same idea for the ultra-rich?

The way we look at SS  has to change with the times.
Back when it was introduced not as many people lived long enough to collect everything they put into the system
Yes there are many who don't really need to collect SS but how do you take that away from those who expect to collect...?
Payments to the wealthy  has to be phased out gradually over the course of at least a generation.
Payments to those who have contributed NOTHING need to be stopped too.
 

*GHETTOBLASTER » Yesterday, 4:19 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 4:19 pm

The way we look at SS  has to change with the times.
Back when it was introduced not as many people lived long enough to collect everything they put into the system
Yes there are many who don't really need to collect SS but how do you take that away from those who expect to collect...?
Payments to the wealthy  has to be phased out gradually over the course of at least a generation.
Payments to those who have contributed NOTHING need to be stopped too.

True. That's one thing about our government, it rarely rolls with the times. It's usually about 2 generations behind. 

Vegas » Yesterday, 3:52 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 3:52 pm

 Ponzi SchemeVs Social Security
Ponzi Scheme  

• Money from new investors is used to pay returns to earlier investors
• Eventually collapses when there aren’t enough new investors
• Not backed by actual investments

Social Security

• Taxes from current workers are used to pay benefits to current retirees
• Faces financial strain when there aren’t enough workers to support retirees
• Trust fund is invested in government bonds, but there are no private investments

Yes, it would appear to meet the criteria of a Ponzi scheme. The biggest difference is that when the government does it, it is legal. So, what is the solution? 
Well, some say to raise the retirement age, increase payroll taxes, left the payroll tax cap, reduce benefits for higher earners, and index benefits more slowly. 

These solutions suck ^^^. 

My idea: 

1. Privatizing SS is an option. In fact, it may be the only viable option. It has a lot of problems that go along with it, but I think the benefits of privatization ultimately outweigh the current and future option. 

Or

2. Cap off who can take it out. I doubt Bill Gates needs a social security check. Yes, he paid into it, thus he has a right to it, but seriously? We already do a form of this anyway with welfare. We pay money into the state for welfare benefits. However, we can't collect on it unless we qualify for it. Why not the same idea for the ultra-rich?

The maximum SS payout is about $5k per month. How many people getting $60k per year just absolutely wouldn't even notice that being stopped? Certainly Gates is one.
I'm just trying to figure out if your option #2 would work with the right payout scale (or something). A guy worth $10M could be getting a conservative 5% per year. So, that $500,000/year guy may still notice the $60K gone missing... 
Seems like finding the right income level would be difficult to sell (although I like the idea because it's going to be BROKE otherwise and nobody gets ****.) Devil's in the details. Who are you going to say "Go get ****" to?
 
 

Vegas » Yesterday, 3:52 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 3:52 pm

 Ponzi SchemeVs Social Security
Ponzi Scheme  

• Money from new investors is used to pay returns to earlier investors
• Eventually collapses when there aren’t enough new investors
• Not backed by actual investments

Social Security

• Taxes from current workers are used to pay benefits to current retirees
• Faces financial strain when there aren’t enough workers to support retirees
• Trust fund is invested in government bonds, but there are no private investments

Yes, it would appear to meet the criteria of a Ponzi scheme. The biggest difference is that when the government does it, it is legal. So, what is the solution? 
Well, some say to raise the retirement age, increase payroll taxes, left the payroll tax cap, reduce benefits for higher earners, and index benefits more slowly. 

These solutions suck ^^^. 

My idea: 

1. Privatizing SS is an option. In fact, it may be the only viable option. It has a lot of problems that go along with it, but I think the benefits of privatization ultimately outweigh the current and future option. 

Or

2. Cap off who can take it out. I doubt Bill Gates needs a social security check. Yes, he paid into it, thus he has a right to it, but seriously? We already do a form of this anyway with welfare. We pay money into the state for welfare benefits. However, we can't collect on it unless we qualify for it. Why not the same idea for the ultra-rich?

How about they put back the money they stole from SS instead of spending it on money laundering for the elites.
 

Cedar » Yesterday, 4:43 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 4:43 pm

How about they put back the money they stole from SS instead of spending it on money laundering for the elites.

Agreed....
 

Alls I know is

If I (as a bleeding heart liberal) was making over 50 million a year 

I would be thrilled with my lot in life

as I told Limbaugh “You make north of 50 million a year, you can get by without a tax cut”

The LAST thing that I would do is punch down on a little guy with no money and no power 

I would hope that any poor sot than wasn’t as fortunate as me would at least be comfortable in his old age

but that seems to be a stretch for many people 

I mean, for **** sakes

people were excited that people that **** up their lives, or had their lives **** up

wouldn’t be allowed to get their kid a **** candy bar on food stamps 

what the **** is that ?

bottom line

quit punching down on people with no money and no power 

and punch up at the **** that have all the money, and all the power 

We are a nation of idiots 
 

Vegas » Yesterday, 3:52 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 3:52 pm

 Ponzi SchemeVs Social Security
Ponzi Scheme  

• Money from new investors is used to pay returns to earlier investors
• Eventually collapses when there aren’t enough new investors
• Not backed by actual investments

Social Security

• Taxes from current workers are used to pay benefits to current retirees
• Faces financial strain when there aren’t enough workers to support retirees
• Trust fund is invested in government bonds, but there are no private investments

Yes, it would appear to meet the criteria of a Ponzi scheme. The biggest difference is that when the government does it, it is legal. So, what is the solution? 
Well, some say to raise the retirement age, increase payroll taxes, left the payroll tax cap, reduce benefits for higher earners, and index benefits more slowly. 

These solutions suck ^^^. 

My idea: 

1. Privatizing SS is an option. In fact, it may be the only viable option. It has a lot of problems that go along with it, but I think the benefits of privatization ultimately outweigh the current and future option. 

Or

2. Cap off who can take it out. I doubt Bill Gates needs a social security check. Yes, he paid into it, thus he has a right to it, but seriously? We already do a form of this anyway with welfare. We pay money into the state for welfare benefits. However, we can't collect on it unless we qualify for it. Why not the same idea for the ultra-rich?

How about offering a lump sum payout in lieu of monthly payments?

Vegas » Yesterday, 3:52 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 3:52 pm

 Ponzi SchemeVs Social Security
Ponzi Scheme  

• Money from new investors is used to pay returns to earlier investors
• Eventually collapses when there aren’t enough new investors
• Not backed by actual investments

Social Security

• Taxes from current workers are used to pay benefits to current retirees
• Faces financial strain when there aren’t enough workers to support retirees
• Trust fund is invested in government bonds, but there are no private investments

Yes, it would appear to meet the criteria of a Ponzi scheme. The biggest difference is that when the government does it, it is legal. So, what is the solution? 
Well, some say to raise the retirement age, increase payroll taxes, left the payroll tax cap, reduce benefits for higher earners, and index benefits more slowly. 

These solutions suck ^^^. 

My idea: 

1. Privatizing SS is an option. In fact, it may be the only viable option. It has a lot of problems that go along with it, but I think the benefits of privatization ultimately outweigh the current and future option. 

Or

2. Cap off who can take it out. I doubt Bill Gates needs a social security check. Yes, he paid into it, thus he has a right to it, but seriously? We already do a form of this anyway with welfare. We pay money into the state for welfare benefits. However, we can't collect on it unless we qualify for it. Why not the same idea for the ultra-rich?
 
 

Watched how social security works for 55 years, seen how IRA's were stripped of their foundation by destruction of insurance companies being the underwriters, 401k's re-investment into company employing workers got robbed by hostile take overs in stocks, bitcoin is just another along with crypto currency.

Every reality has its pitfalls when minds direct brains how to live outside the natural adapt or become extinct environment every ancestor is born into after conception to replace previous generation gaps lived so far.

No more great great grandchildren, no more ancestors when previous generations die off one at a time same as conceived into population so far. It is a universal constant that doesn't change while genetics never duplicates a previous generation by simple compounding chromosomes per ancestral lineage up to 5 generation gaps living daily here.

Has Flumpous or Grifty Musk once mentioned the trillions$

missing at the war dept.....? HIGH-LARIOUS!

DeezerShoove » Yesterday, 4:32 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 4:32 pm

The maximum SS payout is about $5k per month. How many people getting $60k per year just absolutely wouldn't even notice that being stopped? Certainly Gates is one.
I'm just trying to figure out if your option #2 would work with the right payout scale (or something). A guy worth $10M could be getting a conservative 5% per year. So, that $500,000/year guy may still notice the $60K gone missing... 
Seems like finding the right income level would be difficult to sell (although I like the idea because it's going to be BROKE otherwise and nobody gets ****.) Devil's in the details. Who are you going to say "Go get ****" to?

You ever posted such a long emotional post 
about the trillions missing at the war dept?

Fun times.
 

Mrkelly » Yesterday, 6:01 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 6:01 pm

Alls I know is

If I (as a bleeding heart liberal) was making over 50 million a year 

I would be thrilled with my lot in life

as I told Limbaugh “You make north of 50 million a year, you can get by without a tax cut”

The LAST thing that I would do is punch down on a little guy with no money and no power 

I would hope that any poor sot than wasn’t as fortunate as me would at least be comfortable in his old age

but that seems to be a stretch for many people 

I mean, for **** sakes

people were excited that people that **** up their lives, or had their lives **** up

wouldn’t be allowed to get their kid a **** candy bar on food stamps 

what the **** is that ?

bottom line

quit punching down on people with no money and no power 

and punch up at the **** that have all the money, and all the power 

We are a nation of idiots

mr queerly, you are a lying bitch ****! **** you dead!

Lol, this dick sucking *** has no idea what a constitutional republic is. He's too busy choking on his mommies horse cock! 
 

Vegas » Yesterday, 3:52 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 3:52 pm

 Ponzi SchemeVs Social Security
Ponzi Scheme  

• Money from new investors is used to pay returns to earlier investors
• Eventually collapses when there aren’t enough new investors
• Not backed by actual investments

Social Security

• Taxes from current workers are used to pay benefits to current retirees
• Faces financial strain when there aren’t enough workers to support retirees
• Trust fund is invested in government bonds, but there are no private investments

Yes, it would appear to meet the criteria of a Ponzi scheme. The biggest difference is that when the government does it, it is legal. So, what is the solution? 
Well, some say to raise the retirement age, increase payroll taxes, lift the payroll tax cap, reduce benefits for higher earners, and index benefits more slowly. 

These solutions suck ^^^. 

My idea: 

1. Privatizing SS is an option. In fact, it may be the only viable option. It has a lot of problems that go along with it, but I think the benefits of privatization ultimately outweigh the current and future option. 

Or

2. Cap off who can take it out. I doubt Bill Gates needs a social security check. Yes, he paid into it, thus he has a right to it, but seriously? We already do a form of this anyway with welfare. We pay money into the state for welfare benefits. However, we can't collect on it unless we qualify for it. Why not the same idea for the ultra-rich?

Privatizing is a very bad idea. 
 
It will be stolen. 

Mrkelly » Yesterday, 6:01 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 6:01 pm

Alls I know is

If I (as a bleeding heart liberal) was making over 50 million a year 

I would be thrilled with my lot in life

as I told Limbaugh “You make north of 50 million a year, you can get by without a tax cut”

The LAST thing that I would do is punch down on a little guy with no money and no power 

I would hope that any poor sot than wasn’t as fortunate as me would at least be comfortable in his old age

but that seems to be a stretch for many people 

I mean, for **** sakes

people were excited that people that **** up their lives, or had their lives **** up

wouldn’t be allowed to get their kid a **** candy bar on food stamps 

what the **** is that ?

bottom line

quit punching down on people with no money and no power 

and punch up at the **** that have all the money, and all the power 

We are a nation of idiots

****,,,,a beautiful honest post sir.
There is a WILCO song that says..."its hard in the poor place tonite".

The lack of compassion and honor in these people is despicable.
Jesus spoke over and over about caring for the poor and the work-a-day people.

WTF?


 

Mrkelly » Yesterday, 6:01 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 6:01 pm

Alls I know is

If I (as a bleeding heart liberal) was making over 50 million a year 

I would be thrilled with my lot in life

as I told Limbaugh “You make north of 50 million a year, you can get by without a tax cut”

The LAST thing that I would do is punch down on a little guy with no money and no power 

I would hope that any poor sot than wasn’t as fortunate as me would at least be comfortable in his old age

but that seems to be a stretch for many people 

I mean, for **** sakes

people were excited that people that **** up their lives, or had their lives **** up

wouldn’t be allowed to get their kid a **** candy bar on food stamps 

what the **** is that ?

bottom line

quit punching down on people with no money and no power 

and punch up at the **** that have all the money, and all the power 

We are a nation of idiots

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I was right there with ya until the candy bar argument. You need a history lesson. 

When food stamps came on, they were sold to the public as being for staples. They were to address HUNGER. You asked rhetorically about "a guy buying his kid a candy bar," throwing shades of Norman Rockwell into your argument. I mean, what kinda guy wants to slap the candy bar out of a dad's hand, and see the light leave a little boy's dejected and forlorn face? What's next - kick the kid's dog? And that's ANOTHER thing. Why can't ya buy pet food with SNAP? What kind of monster would want to force a child to watch ole Fido starve to death? We gotta fix this!

So, here's the history lesson. The reason that nice dad can buy his kid a candy bar is that Hershey Company and Mars Company spent millions on bribes to make it so. And then coke came on board, and now the fast food joints are horning in - ALL looking to get a straw into the treasury, so they can suck. 

If this imaginary dad wants to get a candy bar for his imaginary kid, he can show some **** initiative and shoplift the **** thing. Or get a side hustle - something to augment his free housing, free medical, welfare payments and food stamps (along with some WIC every time he knocks up Little Candy Bar Timmy's mom). Maybe then he can have the dignity that comes with causing cavities, diabetes, and obesity.

Food stamps should be for food. Real food. You tell me I have a duty as a citizen to not let my neighbors starve? Okay - not gonna argue. In fact, gonna agree. But when you turn around and morph it into, "And ya gotta buy the kids candy bars, or you're a **** scrooge and a hater," now you're riding mighty high with a mighty low argument. That's some **** ****. Poverty isn't SUPPOSED to be easy. And the ONE **** THING that the poor have always had going for them is that they ate right. They could not afford the food that kills the better off. And you want to take that one thing away from them, in the name of compassion and liberalism. Well, sir, I object. My soks object. That's a **** army, sir.


 

RebelGator » Yesterday, 6:04 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 6:04 pm

How about offering a lump sum payout in lieu of monthly payments?

And then they squander it, and their poverty becomes a new currency - because we just aren't going to watch them starve. 
 

Sumela » Yesterday, 8:17 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 8:17 pm

****,,,,a beautiful honest post sir.
There is a WILCO song that says..."its hard in the poor place tonite".

The lack of compassion and honor in these people is despicable.
Jesus spoke over and over about caring for the poor and the work-a-day people.

WTF?

I care for the poor. Just yesterday I tossed ten bucks worth of quarters to a homeless guy. 

Tossed him the entire roll of quarters. Overhand. Really hard. Right at his head. While I was hollering, No, God bless YOU, ya ****!   
 

Sumela » Yesterday, 8:12 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 8:12 pm

You ever posted such a long emotional post 
about the trillions missing at the war dept?

Fun times.

No questions, dicksucker.   

DeezerShoove » Yesterday, 8:43 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 8:43 pm

No questions, dicksucker. 

         

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/be/10/d3 ... fb8c8a.gif

RebelGator » Yesterday, 6:04 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 6:04 pm

How about offering a lump sum payout in lieu of monthly payments?

how about a reduction of federal taxes if they don't get the check they don't need.

addressing the mega rich