Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The best remedy for social security

Posted 2 years ago on Nov. 21, 2011, 4:44 p.m. EST by stevemiller (1062)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Retirement age (the remedy for social security)

The economists who are wrong about everything are all saying the payment for social security needs to be raised to 67. These people have sat on their dumb asses all their lives. While I am now 69, sitting on my ass writing brilliant reports of what the geniuses who know everything are doing to make all our lives worse, I have worked as a caddy, delivered booze, a cook, a longshoreman, a seamen, and the hardest job of all stacking wood in a pallet factory.

When I was 64 I couldn't caddy any more, it was too hard so I drove vehicles for a Chevy dealer. My father who was the most powerful man I have ever known (physically) worked as an engineer on a ship until he was 70 years old.

Uncap the payments from the $106,000 ceiling. Make rich people who benefit from the rest of our spending pay until social security is fully funded. When that day occurs, then we'll review the cap again.

33 Comments

33 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

Lower the retirement age to create room for young people to enter the workforce.

Set a livable standard for social security benefits to eliminate poverty. This will also increase consumer spending and boost the economy.

Means-test beneficiaries and eliminate social security benefits for those who do not need them.

Remove the cap on FICA to restore progressive taxation.

[-] 3 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

Since Social Security is a Trust Fund, stop redirecting the interest that fund earns to the general fund.

[-] 1 points by JonValle (133) 2 years ago

Yeppers, this x 100. Excellent. I didn't think about lower the retirement age, allowing for better employment of younger generations.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

This. 100% Thanks.

[-] 0 points by chrischrischris (143) 2 years ago

Force people to retire? You're really sick.

And sure, remove the cap on SS (increase SS revenue), yet force people into early retirement (increasing SS spending), so the net effect does nothing for the deficit. Cool.

[-] 2 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

Where did you see the word "force", other than in your own post?

Not only are people not forced to retire now, in fact many cannot ever afford to retire.

[-] 2 points by JohnMarsden (47) 2 years ago

Raise the retirement age........just as your retiring so it doesn't affect you. God I love boomers and their selfishness. Never ceases to amaze.

[-] 1 points by stevemiller (1062) 2 years ago

Oppose all Chinese slave made imports

American hypocrites disregard the terrible lives more than 100,000,000 slaves who work every day with no time off, and only a life of misery to supply Americans with cheaper supplies than they would be if American factories were rebuilt and all those products were made by Americans who earned a lower middle class salary and decent benefits.

If people elected me to represent them in congress I would cause a daily commotion until America followed the constitution that abolished slavery in 1865. Our constitution didn't say to move the slaves to China so American hypocrites couldn't see the slaves but bought the crap at a slightly lower price. That goes double for all Christians who don't follow the teaching of the messiah. No legitimate Christian would take advantage of people forced into slavery and then have the nerve to claim that their lives were better.

Instead American Christians are sucking the blood of the Chinese slaves to get a slightly lower price. That doesn't mean to charge a tariff on those imports. Our constitution forbids importing that stuff, it doesn't allow charging tariffs on it.

That would force the multinationals to spend their $2 trillion cash on financing new factories here or they will have no market because they will have no supplies to sell.

[-] 1 points by stevemiller (1062) 2 years ago

Americans are all selfish hypocrites. A few of us are letting you hypocrites sink our great ship. OWS is a bunch of nitwits.

Oppose all Chinese slave made imports

American hypocrites disregard the terrible lives more than 100,000,000 slaves who work every day with no time off, and only a life of misery to supply Americans with cheaper supplies than they would be if American factories were rebuilt and all those products were made by Americans who earned a lower middle class salary and decent benefits.

If people elected me to represent them in congress I would cause a daily commotion until America followed the constitution that abolished slavery in 1865. Our constitution didn't say to move the slaves to China so American hypocrites couldn't see the slaves but bought the crap at a slightly lower price. That goes double for all Christians who don't follow the teaching of the messiah. No legitimate Christian would take advantage of people forced into slavery and then have the nerve to claim that their lives were better.

Instead American Christians are sucking the blood of the Chinese slaves to get a slightly lower price. That doesn't mean to charge a tariff on those imports. Our constitution forbids importing that stuff, it doesn't allow charging tariffs on it.

That would force the multinationals to spend their $2 trillion cash on financing new factories here or they will have no market because they will have no supplies to sell.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I also agree uncap the payments. We need to stop raising the retirement age to qualify. Just because the age is raised does not mean that your are going to be employed. Our older workers got nailed so hard the last several years that many who did not see themselves retiring and/or lost everything are living hand to mouth until they can qualify.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 2 years ago

You are illustrating the difference between mortality and morbidity. In plain English, the average life expectancy can go up without the average ability to work at a given age going up in tandem.

Also, the biggest changes in life expectancy came from reduced deaths of babies and children. Social security came first; antibiotics that reduced death of the young came after.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Personally.... I think we should scrap the fund and donate all the money to those poor people in Egypt.

[-] -1 points by whisper (212) 2 years ago

Make those who 'borrowed' the money from the SS funds (government officials and their 'buddies') produce enough goods and services to pay it back. Allow an opt-in policy for SS. Done.

[-] -2 points by Jimboiam (812) 2 years ago

Im with Whisper. Sorry but its your generation that continued to elect these thieves to Congress, and to lobby to make the laws in your favor. You didn't care while you were pissing away the money in the past, but now that you might take a hit, you are against it. Means test social security. Period. That will save social security. Graduate payments down as other income goes up, and that includes savings accounts. No more scamming the system with medicare trusts either. FYI for all you kids out there, if someone paid in social security in the 50s they were paying about 4% of their pay (2% employee/2% employer), on an average wage that was about $30,000. So basically they paid in about $1200 a year in the 50s. That same person now collecting the SSi is getting nearly $1200 a month. 12 times what they put in during those years. There is your problem.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 2 years ago

Everything that is means tested becomes "welfare" and gets killed off. That is why means testing is being resisted by people who would not be hurt by it.

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

What, you didn't vote?

[-] 1 points by suyabaa01 (244) from Milford, CT 2 years ago

On calculation you got F.

How can you forget the inflation? It's "the catch" of the debt-money system. Here is calculator for you: http://www.usinflationcalculator.com

Do your math again. And don't forget statistical (gaussian) age distribution – It's a bell curve.

[-] 1 points by stevemiller (1062) 2 years ago

I don't speak for my generation. I speak for me.

I won't take any hit. If I wasn't a fair person I wouldn't give a shit. What about all the people who died before they got a penny. Half the people I graduated high school with in 1960 are dead.

[-] 0 points by Jimboiam (812) 2 years ago

Then they don't get shit. With 75 million boomers soon to retire in the next 10 years the drain on SSi is going to skyrocket. There are lots more people collecting than money paid in by far.

[-] 3 points by stevemiller (1062) 2 years ago

I don't know and I doubt you do either. Uncap it and let it get paid for in full. Tax the shit out of the rich who ripped off everybody since Reaganomics.

[-] 0 points by Jimboiam (812) 2 years ago

I have no problem with removing the cap, but since i have no chance of collecting it when i am older enough there is clearly a problem. Good for me i planned ahead and can retire now at 42 without ever taking a dime for social security I don't ever intend to claim it anyways. But for other people its not fair for people to be taking out many times more than they ever contributed.

[-] 2 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

"But for other people its not fair for people to be taking out many times more than they ever contributed."

Actually, it is fair. People who have paid into SS via FICA have a reasonable expectation of interest being paid on the funds collected. While the interest rate has changed over the years, it has always been a competitive interest percentage.

The trust was raided in the early 70's and later in the 80's at which time the interest was redirected into the general fund.

The Social Security Trust Fund is one of the largest holders of US debt. Over $2.8 trillion dollars.

SSI is a separate program which is paid out of the general fund and administered by the Social Security Administration.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

75 million boomers...I love how we get termed...We didn't get to voice our concerns about the trust interest being redirected to the general fund, we got to pay and pay again. Out of 75 million there will be a percentage that will never draw a dime, some will die, some will live on investment returns and some will simply continue working at jobs they created themselves. It's called self employment.

The SSI fund (Supplemental Security Income)

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a Federal income supplement program funded by general tax revenues (not Social Security taxes):

Please note it is not attached to Social Security taxes. It is, however,administered by the Social Security Administration.

Your argument is therefore invalid.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

and remember kids.. in the fifties .. minumum wage was 90 cents an hour. no body made anywhere near 30k.. exept maybe corporate ceo's

[-] 0 points by Jimboiam (812) 2 years ago

Check again. Median income in 1955 was $30,000.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

so you are saying median income has only risen less than 20k in 60 years? median income today is 50k . or is it just a result of wealth disparity? because.. to make 30k you have to make around 15 bucks an hour. if minumum wage was 90 cents... who did you work for?? chevy and ford only paid 4 bucks an hour and that was high wages.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

Maybe the better question would be, how did you compare minimum wage with median income?

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

well today.. minimum wage equals 15k a year. median wage is 50k at 90cents .. minumun wage equals 1800. so median being 30k begs the question where did people earn that much money from? or was there that much less wealth disparity?

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

It's evident that there was that much wealth disparity. Yet the literal understanding between minimum wage and median wage begs the question whether or not the clearly defined statement was able to be understood by another reader.

I understood it.

[-] 1 points by JonValle (133) 2 years ago

If you consider inflation compared to today, the average income was around 28kish.

[-] 0 points by Jimboiam (812) 2 years ago

Yes it is inflation adjusted, which makes it much worse and further enhances my argument. But since the social security money increases in value over the years, it is a wash. Technically if someone was making a nominal average income of $6000 in the 50s then they were only paying $240 a year in total SSi contributions with the employer match. Today those people are getting $1200 a month. That is taking 60x their contributions on a year to year basis comparison. It declines as income went up but clearly shows how the program is flawed. It needs to be treated like a tax and welfare and only to needy people.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

i still think.. back in the seventies.. there was a few billion surplus in soc sec. which had it been left alone.. would more than suffice today. why not demand that the government return that money plus inflation and what not and then there would be no argument over soc sec. though i do agree that someone that retires on 5 million pension does not need soc sec. that should have been put in the law at the get go

[-] 1 points by stevemiller (1062) 2 years ago

$30,000 isn't true. It was much less.

When a kid I went to school with got $100,000 to play baseball, that was a mountain of money then.