How's everybody feel about SS?

[jnojr]

My mother (who is 65 & just started collecting SS) told me that, when she was in *her* 20s, everyone bemoaned how SS wouldn't be there. And yet her & my pa (who's also 65) are getting nice checks to supplement their pensions (they were public school teachers).

You'll notice that SS keeps getting "fixed" by increasing payroll taxes, taxing SS benefits, raising the retirement age, etc.

I am not depending on SS, but I hope (and expect) to get it. It's one thing for all of us to say that we assume we won't get it. It's another thing entirely for the gov to make that announcement & have to deal with the fallout (as other people have pointed out, I believe).

They won't "end" it... they'll "fix" it some more, as mentioned above.

But how high can you raise payroll taxes? How high can you raise the retirement age? We're approaching the end of potential "fixes".

For one thing, I think if that happened, suddenly there'd be a lot of articles about the gov dipping into it over the years. Lots of finger pointing. Maybe looking into whether or not previous lawmakers can somehow be held responsible. Lots of articles about previous lawmakers retiring after years of holding million dollar jobs 'consulting' that they were awarded after their lawmaking stints & their cars, homes, net worth, etc. There'll be a lot of anger & civil unrest. Maybe even a fair amount of threats & some deaths.

Nope. Nobody cares. The stories have gone around, and they quickly disappear. The vast majority of the American public simply isn't capable of rationally processing information... they live on what is fed to them. A new episode of American Idol will start, and nobody will worry about that boring political crap any more.

So I think that it could get bad, but that ultimately, it will be fixable. I also think that we should add on that final social program: gov-run (or at least gov consolidate) medicine.

Because the government has done so well at everything else they've done, right?

Take a look at Socialized medicine in the UK and Canada, then come back here and tell me that we should get into the same boat as them.

I think that the least I can do is pay it forward a little bit & help out those that weren't as genetically blessed as I am.

You're perfectly free to "pay forward" as much as you like. Problem is, you're pointing a gun at me and insisting that I must do the same thing. I can't afford to support the great masses. As it is, nearly half of my income is stolen from me by various taxes, and you're telling me that it isn't enough, that I should give more to assuage your conscience

 

[Celany]

Nope. Nobody cares. The stories have gone around, and they quickly disappear. The vast majority of the American public simply isn't capable of rationally processing information... they live on what is fed to them. A new episode of American Idol will start, and nobody will worry about that boring political crap any more.

I think that there will be a different in how people pay attention, once SS is taken away. I think that being denied money that people paid into their whole lives will spur them a lot more, because there will be a more tangible, more personal experience attached to it. stories are just stories. but when the story starts to effect millions of americans personally, I think they'll pay more attention.

this is, of course, my opinion. I think we're going to have to split the difference between what you think people will do & what I think people will do.

Because the government has done so well at everything else they've done, right?

Take a look at Socialized medicine in the UK and Canada, then come back here and tell me that we should get into the same boat as them.

I have. and I think they look better. depending on exactly where you are in the country, there may be longer wait times than here, but if you've been reading the news, then you've probably noticed that the wait times here are getting longer too. I'd rather have longer wait times (which we're edging towards anyways) & know that everyone had access to health care.

exactly what part of their 'boat' do you not like?

You're perfectly free to "pay forward" as much as you like. Problem is, you're pointing a gun at me and insisting that I must do the same thing. I can't afford to support the great masses. As it is, nearly half of my income is stolen from me by various taxes, and you're telling me that it isn't enough, that I should give more to assuage your conscience

oh my, I don't think I'm pointing a gun at you! I don't even own a gun. and it doesn't have anything to do with my conscience. at least, I don't think so.

let's take the example of say...austism. a couple give birth to a child that has autism. now, there are a number of social services out there, designed to help people who have autistic children. the are also community groups, message boards & the like. now, this couple, before they had their austic child, never considered giving money to support autistic causes, because they never had need. their families & friends were oblivious & never gave either. It was a 'mind my own business' kind of situation, I guess you could say.

now that they have their autistic child, they use the autistic support services that are offered. they network, attent walk-a-thons, ask friends & family to support the cause. people get more involved. maybe their friends just give $5 to the walk-a-thons. maybe their siblings start to seriously give. & some people probably don't give at all. all in reaction to having a child come into their life with austism & learning a bit about it.

but before the child, no one was giving. that's the problem. people tend not to give until there is a problem that they come into contact with. when they come to ultilize these services that they've never given to, should we say 'no, sorry, you never gave before, this isn't for you. put in for 5 years & then you can partake.'?

now you, what if you came down with MS? or your child was born with down's syndrome? there are social services out there that you can utilize, to help your burden. would you utilize those options that were offered to you? would you be glad that they're there? If we didn't have any social services, we wouldn't have those options.

so, I guess what I'm saying is that, unless a person is willing to forego any kind of support whatsoever, in the form of a social service, they should be willing to pay taxes to support them. & I think we should go 'all the way' so to speak, take it one step further & offer universal health care. maybe you think it's worth it to take youself completely out of that: give no help, ask for no help.

myself, I have no idea what's going to happen when I walk home today. maybe I'll get hit by an out-of-control bus & end up with lots of broken bones, internal injuries, brain damange. I can't work, I lose my insurance, I burn through my life savings, I end up out on the street. or maybe my parents try to take care of me & burn through their live savings, attempting to do so.

on the flip side, maybe I'll be like my grandmas & live in relatively great health until my 90s & only make very light use out of social services. I personally would much rather know that they're there & pay into them, then not have them. because even if I'm lucky, maybe my best friend, or relative won't be so lucky. maybe they'll the one to be hit by a bus & screwed for life. I'd hate to watch that happen to a loved one.

so, now that I've babbled on, I don't really think this has anything to do with conscience. it's more of a golden rule kind of thing. I would hate to have my life taken away from me, through now fault of my own, & not have the govenerment protect me in any way. I would also hate to have that happen to other people. I don't think it's good for society as a whole.

 

[samclem]

[/color][/font]

I would hate to have my life taken away from me, through now fault of my own, & not have the govenerment protect me in any way.

Celany,
Your position is self-contradictory, to an extent. When we earn money, it is a result of trading our labor in exchange for that money. To a very real extent, we trade our lives for money. I think the folks in this ER community appreciate that more than most people--if someone reduces your nest egg, you'll have to work more years to rebuild it. When someone or some thing (a thief, the government, etc) takes that money without giving you a choice, they are, in a very real sense, taking part of your life. You are advocating that the government take more of our lives (money). You are asking to "have my life taken away from me," the very thing you claim to hate.

Government protection against the uncertainties of life--insurance that comes at a very high price in both money and liberty.

 

[Celany]

hi sam!

you know, one thing that I realized I didn't make clear is that I'm not actually pro-raising taxes, especially for someone that's already paying 50%, like jnojr. if it seemed that I even implied that, then that's my mistake for not being clear enough.

between all the pork projects & govenerment tax breaks/subsidies for big oil & certain sectors of farming (like corn), there's probably more than enough money to better care for everyone, if it stopped being diverted to make a few people rich. at the very least, there'd be a lot more than we have now.

I agree with your idea that the gov is essentially 'taking our life' by taking some of our money for taxes. I'm here in part because I want to have the option to retire early, if I chose to. but I think that, by giving the gov our money, we're getting things in return, right? safety is the big thing that comes to mind for me. we get the police. and public schooling.

when I wrote about having my life 'taken away from me' above, I was referring more to the idea of say, a drunk or reckless driver taking away a lot of my life & then being unable to get the therapy or medication needed to restore part of it, due to our current health system. I suppose in a better world, if a reckless driver hit me & hurt me enough that I couldn't work, I would be able to sue him/her for enough money to provide me with health care for the rest of my life. of course, maybe it wasn't a reckless driver, but faulty breaks on the truck. so then, sue the truck maker...but they've got much better lawyers than I do. and maybe it was a combination of reckless driving & faulty breaks...how does that break down into who cares for me? or should it somehow be my own fault for being in the wrong place at the wrong time & I should be responsible for caring for myself?

am I making sense? I think that all of life is a trade off. we're going to give away bits of our life (money) to gain things. I think that, given the things that the gov already provides, making sure somehow that all americans have access to health care should be one of them. after all, we do already have medicare. it doesn't necessarily have to involve raising taxes. maybe it's just about doing a better job with the money that the gov already has.

 

[jnojr]

We're all paying close to 50% of our incomes. Federal income tax, state income tax, Medicare, Socialist inSecurity, sales tax, property tax, gasoline tax, an endless list of taxes and fees on every government-regulated service like water, electricity, phone, gas, etc. When you add it all up, it's staggering. And look what we get in return.

Government is incapable of "providing" for us. Every grand social program quickly becomes an enormous, impenetrable bureaucracy employing tens of thousands who produce nothing but reams of new regulations. The quickest way to destroy anything is to get the government involved.

The "safety" you mention could be bought for a tiny fraction of what is extracted from us now. Military and police protection is a tiny slice of the national budget, even after 9/11 and the huge increases in massive bureaucracies like the Department of Homeland Security, which does nothing to "make us safe", but only serves as another line item to justify taxation and an increase in government control of our lives.

You say you see nothing wrong with British or Canadian healthcare. That would be because you've never experienced them, and what you know about them is what's written by misty-eyed, pie-in-the-sky Utopian liberals who ignore the massive problems because of the promise of the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow (that they can never quite manage to reach). People under those systems routinely wait months or years for necessary care. It is extremely common for Canadians to come to the US and pay cash for procedures like cardiac bypass surgery, because they're on a waiting list at home, and are afraid they'll die before the State gets around to them.

Government has never "given" anything. It takes. And once it starts taking, it keeps taking and taking and taking. Every job they take on gets botched, badly. Look at all of the reports of trouble in the VA healthcare system... that's what we'll get with Hillary's "national health care".

But again... if you wish to give up your money to the governemnt, and have the government "provide" for you, you're perfectly free to do that. But, like I said, you have to force me to join you. How is that not slavery, to tell me that I must work and pass the fruits of my labors on to some other party without my consent? When the governemnt does it, it's "taxation". If I were to do the exact same thing, we have a different word we'd use... "robbery".

 

[haha]

But again... if you wish to give up your money to the governemnt, and have the government "provide" for you, you're perfectly free to do that. But, like I said, you have to force me to join you. How is that not slavery, to tell me that I must work and pass the fruits of my labors on to some other party without my consent? When the governemnt does it, it's "taxation". If I were to do the exact same thing, we have a different word we'd use... "robbery".

Isn't that an old definition of government? The entity that has a monopoly on the legal use of force?

Ha

 

[Celany]

You say you see nothing wrong with British or Canadian healthcare. ".

can ya point out exactly where I said that? hmm? no? could it be because...I didn't? I believe that their health care is BETTER than our healthcare. Not that it's problem-free. or perfect. but better. a better place to start from than ours.

That would be because you've never experienced them, and what you know about them is what's written by misty-eyed, pie-in-the-sky Utopian liberals who ignore the massive problems because of the promise of the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow

OMG, I knew it! I knew my brain was bugged so that somebody could see exactly where I get all my information & now I know that it was YOU who did it! /sarcasm

no, I've gotten my information from 2 sources:

1 - canadian & english friends. either people that I met when I was in college (in the US, these were canadians or englishpeople going to college in the US), or while my SO was in gradschool in montreal & I met a lot of his friends. and we discussed healthcare. and most of them were pretty happy with it. one thing that kept coming up was how happy they were to know that, no matter what, they did have access to health care. oh, and my SO used the healthcare system while HE was there, to take care of some awful impacted wisdom teeth (something that a lot of health care here won't even touch) & he had an excellent experience.

2) english coworkers. I have several of them & I've asked them about english healthcare & they all like it much better than US healthcare. One of them takes care of all of her healthcare needs when she goes on holiday back home, because it's so much easier than here, not needing to worry about referrals & copays & the like.

I wonder what would happen if they only steps the gov took towards health insurance was to make a mandate that we need to develop software that ALL healthcare companies use, to make gathering/keeping information easier. giving the billions of dollars spent on managing information, I bet that right there would make quite a difference. Of course, we'd have to demand that a large amount of those saving would be used to improve service, & not profits.

As for what we get from our gov, for all the money we give them, I agree with you. we need serious reform on a lot of levels. we need to curb spending & use our money wisely. but other than bitching & ranting, & trying to be insulting (see above liberal comment), so you have any meaningful suggestions to make? 'cause so far as I can see, all you do is bitch about the problem without offering a solution, which, IMO, is pretty useless.

 

[teachme]

So I think I should at least be able to use the 400/month the way I see fit. At least give me the option....

If you truly feel that way this may be your answer. The only reason I haven't filled it out is because it makes you sign off on the following:

I am conscientiously opposed to accepting benefits of any private or public insurance that makes payments in the event of death, disability, old age, or retirement; or makes payments for the cost of medical care; or provides services for medical care.

Personally I just don't believe in getting bad insurance which is what I believe SS and Medicare are.

IRS Form 4029 - Application for Exemption From Social Security and Medicare Taxes and Waiver of Benefits

The history of the 4029 is an interesting read.

 

[chinaco]

SS makes sense to me. Or something very close to it.

It is just that the government has not been a good steward of the money. If they had not spent the excess payments in the past and invested it like a pension fund... It would have been there.

One thing to keep in mind. We will always.... ALWAYS, have a certain population (not insignificant) that will not prepare for retirement. In those cases, the government will supply some minimal pension in old age. Might as well have a program that covers that and forces people to pay into the program... Tax payers will pay for it anyway. Think about it! Those are the very people that often are marginal and living paycheck to paycheck. And there are a lot of them.

 

[Eyerishgold]

I've accepted that I'm giving the gov't money that I'll never get back. I'm not planning on receiving anything when I retire. I would be nice to have a self directed ss "account" so I decide where my money gets invested, but I won't hold my breath.

 

[jnojr]

SS makes sense to me. Or something very close to it.

How about something like, "Saving and investing for retirement"? That seems to work pretty well.

It is just that the government has not been a good steward of the money. If they had not spent the excess payments in the past and invested it like a pension fund... It would have been there.

That isn't the case at all. The Socialist inSecurity "trust fund" is, technically, fine... it does not consist of "IOUs", but Treasury instruments that are 100% safe and redeemable at any time. The Treasury cannot refuse to redeem them... the resulting loss of confidence in the US dollar would destroy our economy overnight.

The problem is, Socialist inSecurity is a Ponzi scheme... it depends on current workers to pay money to current retirees, rather than their money being earmerked for themselves. And we have a hugely growing number of retirees while we have a shrinking workforce.

There's also the slight problem that the government does not produce wealth... they take it and spend it, but never create a dime of profit. So, all of the SS trust fund dollars that were used to buy the Treasury instruments have been spent. So, where do the replacement dollars come from? Taxes, or the printing press. There is no other answer. Both sources are detrimental to our economy.

One thing to keep in mind. We will always.... ALWAYS, have a certain population (not insignificant) that will not prepare for retirement. In those cases, the government will supply some minimal pension in old age. Might as well have a program that covers that and forces people to pay into the program... Tax payers will pay for it anyway. Think about it! Those are the very people that often are marginal and living paycheck to paycheck. And there are a lot of them.

A) Government bailouts for people who do not prepare for their own retirements only create new generations who are utterly dependant upon government handouts, which require an ever-increasing chunk of our GDP to care for. Look at New Orleans and Katrina... years later, these people are still standing in lines holding their hands out. Society is much better off to cut them all off, let the current generation face the pain, and prevent future legions of professional aid recipients from getting started. But that would decimate the rolls of Democratic voters, and so isn't acceptable.

B) The same solution could be arrived at by requiring that every worker must contribute, say, 10% of his or her gross earnings to a retirement program. But that doesn't entail any wealth redistribution and doesn't allow politicians to buy votes. It doesn't allow the government to take control of the wealth of its' citizens and use for whatever purpose it deems proper. That would still leave people responsible for, and in control of, their own future.

This country used to be the greatest on Earth, period. As the amount of Socialism has increased, the US has declined. We're an enormous debtor nation now, running astronomical current account defecits. We have, literally, millions of people who, if cut off from Big Brother, would perish within a couple of months. We're eagerly importing poverty from the Third World, and subsidizing that poverty upon the backs of the few productive workers left. Our middle class is rapidly disappearing as the mounting cost of taxes, regulations, etc. crushes us. If we don't act quickly, the US is going to become a footnote in history. And our enormous government has seen to it that we will never act "quickly".

 

[FIRE'd@51]

It is just that the government has not been a good steward of the money. If they had not spent the excess payments in the past and invested it like a pension fund...

The real problem is that the Trust fund has been invested in Gov't securities earning a real rate of something like 2% per year. If even a small portion of the Trust fund were invested in equities, say 20-25%, the ROR could be raised enough to make the long-term deficit go away. The problem is that the Gov't can borrow from the Trust fund without having to report it as deficit spending. Even when Clinton "balanced" the budget in the late 90's, it wasn't really balanced if you took into account the borrowings from the SS Trust fund. IMO, what should be done is (1) Congress should pass a law allowing a portion of the Trust fund to be invested in something other than Gov't securities and (2) the Gov't should borrow from the public (which would raise the reported deficit) and repay the Trust fund enough $, so that the Trust fund could invest those $ in an S&P 500 index fund - we don't need private accounts to do this. This will raise the long-term ROR to the Trust fund so that more $ will be there to offset the shrinking work force. The reported deficit will be bigger, but the real deficit will actually be the same. Since the reported deficit will be bigger, there will be more public pressure on Congress to reduce the deficit.

 

[chinaco]

How about something like, "Saving and investing for retirement"? That seems to work pretty well...

Whew. I hope you feel better after all of that. Then again, maybe you had better check yourself for a hernia.

Oh, and thanks for explaining it all to me. I feel like I really understand the issues now.

Nevertheless... I do not see SS as a bailout. People (and their employer) pay into it and the people receive a minimal pension.

You can refuse to take your bailout [-]SS[/-]. Make a statement, you can be a conscientious objector.

 

[RE-Fin-54321]

The real problem is that the Trust fund has been invested in Gov't securities earning a real rate of something like 2% per year. If even a small portion of the Trust fund were invested in equities, say 20-25%, the ROR could be raised enough to make the long-term deficit go away.

FIRE'd, while I don't disagree with this thinking, I am wondering if the government investing in public markets raises conflicts of interests with policy makers? Are there regulations in place that have restricted the government from being more aggressive with the SS fund or was it simply the conservative decision? I guess investing only in indexes reduces many of the potential conflicts, but it just seems questionable on some level... I don't know - I guess I am kind of just thinking out loud here - I'd be interested to hear others thoughts...

 

[FIRE'd@51]

Are there regulations in place that have restricted the government from being more aggressive with the SS fund or was it simply the conservative decision?

Current law only allows the Trust fund assets to be invested in US Government securities, so it would take Congressional action to allow investment in equities.

You raise some good issues. I think an index fund (perhaps run internally) could avoid/minimize potential conflicts.

Probably the biggest issue, IMO, is having the Trust fund (and therefore the federal government) hold voting stock in private companies, but I think this issue can be gotten around (maybe by simply not allowing the Trust fund to vote the stock). This is probably why the Bush Administration chose to go the route of private accounts. I don't like private accounts because of the inability to have a defined-benefit payout, due to the fact that a particular individual may want/need to start drawing benefits at the time of a bear market. Since so many of our companies are converting from defined-benefit pension plans to defined-contribution plans (e.g. 401K's), I think it would beneficial to keep SS as a defined-benefit plan, a kind of "safety net". A pension fund can diversify away this problem over time, because of it's very long-term horizon.

To me, the appeal of having an equity component in the Trust fund assets is to raise the long-term rate of return on those assets, which IMO, is the least painful way to deal with the SS problem.

 

[chinaco]

When I see people writing that the SS trust fund is invested in Treasuries, I wonder if they really understand what that means?

The money is gone... The money we and our employers paid in over years spent on other government programs for years. Those treasuries will have to be paid through additional taxes that we will have to pay (and probably are paying now). Or the government will just print money which has a worse effect.


Here is a summary on Wikipedia

Social Security Trust Fund - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[FIRE'd@51]

When I see people writing that the SS trust fund is invested in Treasuries, I wonder if they really understand what that means?

The money is gone... The money we and our employers paid in over years spent on other government programs for years. Those treasuries will have to be paid through additional taxes that we will have to pay (and probably are paying now). Or the government will just print money which has a worse effect.

I think most people understand what it means.

The money isn't gone. Do you want the Trust fund assets to be held in cash at a 0% rate of return? That would make the problem even worse. While the securities are not tradeable in the secondary market they still represent the same claims as Treasury securities that do. If the government were to default on these, what do you think it would do to other government securities? Would it be better if the Trust fund purchased Treasury securities at auction? Probably. But the actual deficit would still be the same - only the reported deficit would go up. It would be more out in the open. The government would still have to raise taxes (or print money) to redeem those securities, if they didn't roll over the debt. As I look at it, it's kind of a "smoke and mirrors" game over what constitutes a "balanced" budget.

 

[armor99]

It is absurd to allow folks to "opt out"....what happens if you fail financially?.

And the above statement really cuts to the very heart of the matter. Like it or not.... "Life is not safe". Every decision that you make in life can have negative consequences. You can indeed "fail" in america. Sometimes through no fault of your own. Life is not always fair, or just, or right. No matter how much we might want to, it just is not possible to legislate a "safe" life. Why should we stop there about opting out of SS? Why allow people to be come miners in this country, or policeman? Why are places like Las Vegas tolerated, you could loose money there. Over 50% of all businesses fail in the first year of operation, should we not allow those either? I know and fully understand that there are many things in my life that I may "risk" a bit, and I may loose.... sometimes greatly. But the very idea that the govt should take away my right to choose, because I may fail, makes no sense to me. There is one, and only one form of government where it is impossible for anyone to financially fail... and that system is communism. I doubt anyone here would like that particular form of government. Just something to think about....

 

[chinaco]

I think most people understand what it means.

The money isn't gone. Do you want the Trust fund assets to be held in cash at a 0% rate of return? That would make the problem even worse. While the securities are not tradeable in the secondary market they still represent the same claims as Treasury securities that do. If the government were to default on these, what do you think it would do to other government securities? Would it be better if the Trust fund purchased Treasury securities at auction? Probably. But the actual deficit would still be the same - only the reported deficit would go up. It would be more out in the open. The government would still have to raise taxes (or print money) to redeem those securities, if they didn't roll over the debt. As I look at it, it's kind of a "smoke and mirrors" game over what constitutes a "balanced" budget.

 

[jnojr]

I think most people understand what it means.

The money isn't gone. Do you want the Trust fund assets to be held in cash at a 0% rate of return? That would make the problem even worse. While the securities are not tradeable in the secondary market they still represent the same claims as Treasury securities that do. If the government were to default on these, what do you think it would do to other government securities? Would it be better if the Trust fund purchased Treasury securities at auction? Probably. But the actual deficit would still be the same - only the reported deficit would go up. It would be more out in the open. The government would still have to raise taxes (or print money) to redeem those securities, if they didn't roll over the debt. As I look at it, it's kind of a "smoke and mirrors" game over what constitutes a "balanced" budget.

The money is "gone" in the sense that it's been spent. Sure, it's been replaced with these Treasury instruments that are (and must be) payable on demand.

But where does the money to redeem them come from? The government does not generate wealth. It does not turn a profit. There are two methods by which to raise cash to redeem those instruments... raise taxes, or fire up the printing presses.

SS could be very workable if we actually had a balanced budget. But we don't... we have billions upon billions of dollars of short-term debt, and trillions of long-term debt. The $2 trillion in SS obligations, as astronomical a sum as that is, is just a teaspoon-full compared to a bucket. Medicare is a much huger future obligation.

Where is all of that money supposed to come from?

 

[haha]

Where is all of that money supposed to come from?

Same place that all the money to fight wars, pay crop support payments, AFDC, federal highway programs, the FDA, CDC, etc, etc comes from. From taxes levied on anybody they can levy them on.

To me, Social Security and Medicare are a better use of these funds than some of the above, and better than some uses of funds that I didn't think of.

You likely do not enjoy stepping over homeless people on the street. You can tell yourself that they were feckless, or crazy, or whatever, but how about stepping over Grandpa and Grandma? Do we have parents or grandparents? Are we prepared to take care of them, pay their medical bills? These programs are not wasteful even though they are large.

It’s easy to throw around slogans, not so clear if you think about what is being obscured by the slogans.

Ha

 

[armor99]

You likely do not enjoy stepping over homeless people on the street. You can tell yourself that they were feckless, or crazy, or whatever, but how about stepping over Grandpa and Grandma? Do we have parents or grandparents? Are we prepared to take care of them, pay their medical bills? These programs are not wasteful even though they are large.

It’s easy to throw around slogans, not so clear if you think about what is being obscured by the slogans.

Ha

I think I would have to disagree with you a bit HaHa. Charity to those less fortunate than yourself is just fine. Lots of folks do it because they beleive it to be morally or personally rewarding. Those who wish to do that are within their right to do so. However, forced charity, via the govt or anyone else is called extortion. If you are prepared to take care of people that need it, then I wish you well, and I applaude your efforts. However I would also ask you to consider the following. While the goal of taking care of "everyone" may sound like a good idea, you need to weigh it against the cost of doing so. If you finally eliminate poverty in the US, by bankrupting the govt and all of it's citizens, then I would say it was not a fair trade. I would even go so far as to say that for a prosperous free society to exist, there must always be a certain percentage who will be poor, some even homeless. The best the laws can really do is be the most fair, to the most people, most of the time. We must acknowledge that there will always be a small percentage that will not be as fortunate. But because of the laws we currently have, there are lots of things that we can do in our lives to help shift that uncertainty in out favor a bit. I intend to shift everthing in my favor that I possible can because I do NOT want to wind up on the street later in life... just my thoughts...

 

[Texas Proud]

It is interesting that I got my SS stmt on Monday....

Reading through it, they said that without any change in law they would only be able to fund (IIRC) 75% starting in about 2040...

So, a few small changes now and the problem would appear to go away..

 

[MasterBlaster]

Reading through it, they said that without any change in law they would only be able to fund (IIRC) 75% starting in about 2040...

So, a few small changes now and the problem would appear to go away..

That's only true if you believe in the trust fund fairy tale.

 

[wildcat]

Man, with some of the strong opinions on the forum, I hope you all are never on the outside looking in.