I have a feeling that I will never see social security in my lifetime.
Medicare went up 30 Dollars a month before you get this increase. My wife's in Sept. and mine in Oct.
Doesn’t change the simple fact it’s still a socialist program
I like to ask my father in law why he’s collecting it while he’s railing against socialism. But since he didn’t save a dime for retirement….
Ive been planning on it not being there since I started working. I have zero issues with the program. I do get annoyed with the socialism hypocrites.
Last edited:
Social Security Increases Accelerate Insolvency Timeline
The Social Security Administration's plans to increase recipients' benefits by 5.9% next yearcould lead the Social Security Trust fund to run out of money by 2032, one year ahead of previous estimates, according to Maya MacGuineas, president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
"The trajectory for Social Security was already an incredibly troubling one," MacGuineas commented, according to a report published on NBC Montana. "When you have a big bump up like this that means that spending is going to be higher, not just this year, but all years going forward."
The upcoming increases, which will start in 2022, are the largest since 2009, when retirees got a 5.8% increase. In other years over the last decade, low inflation has brought increases of less than 2% a year. The 2022 increase is also the largest cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) since 1982.
If inflation causes workers paying into the program to earn higher wages, Social Security may not be in trouble, but if the wages don't increase, Social Security could face insolvency sooner than expected.
"[There are] a lot of challenges and a Congress that only seems to agree on doing nothing to reform and strengthen the program," MacGuineas said.
Meanwhile, Social Security is the largest item in the federal budget, with the United States spending $1.135 trillion this fiscal year, resulting in one-third of all mandatory spending.
Those costs will only increase in upcoming years, as payouts increase and more Americans reach retirement age.
The upcoming pay bumps will mean larger checks starting in January. For example, retirees earning $1,565 a month last year will get $1,657 this year.
The adjustment comes after the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced data showing the continued rise of the price of consumer goods, including prices up overall by 5.4% for the year, including the price of groceries up by 4.5%, and energy costs climbing 25%.
The Senior Citizens League, a nonpartisan advocacy group, says it has gotten hundreds of emails in the past month from older Americans who are unable to pay their bill. It estimates that Social Security benefits have seen their buying power cut by as much as one-third since 2000, and the situation will get worse, said Mary Johnson, a policy analyst for the organization.
"It appears that inflation is not done with us yet, and the buying power of Social Security benefits may continue to erode into 2022," she said.
For one in four older Americans, Social Security benefits represent at least 90% of their total income.
The control and distribution of social security is held by the government. That is socialism. Entitlement, getting back what you paid in, etc has nothing to do with it. It’s a common fallacy.
I disagree. The government may mandate taking it from my check but it is my money.
When SS was first instituted, the worker was supposed to contribute lets say $1. The original intent was that the government also match that $1.
The Government has never contributed a single dollar to the trillions that have been taken from American workers over the years without their permission.
It's a serious ponzi scheme that the government came up with, hoping that enough contributions from workers would sustain it even though the government has robbed the fund more than once by workers paying into the fund and dying young leaving a balance to support those that didn't. They didn't take into consideration that the improvements in health care have retired folks living much longer which is exactly what that scheme didn't need.
Just because the government controls the distribution of MY MONEY back to ME, does not constitute socialism.
In fact it has nothing to do with it.
For the correct definition of socialism, lets consult Webster.
Full Definition of socialism
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Definition of SOCIALISM
any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods; a system of society or group living in which there is no private property… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com
It’s right there in the 1st definition. Try to not pay into social security or Medicare and see what happens. Since the govt controls the means of production and distribution…I disagree. The government may mandate taking it from my check but it is my money.
When SS was first instituted, the worker was supposed to contribute lets say $1. The original intent was that the government also match that $1.
The Government has never contributed a single dollar to the trillions that have been taken from American workers over the years without their permission.
It's a serious ponzi scheme that the government came up with, hoping that enough contributions from workers would sustain it even though the government has robbed the fund more than once by workers paying into the fund and dying young leaving a balance to support those that didn't. They didn't take into consideration that the improvements in health care have retired folks living much longer which is exactly what that scheme didn't need.
Just because the government controls the distribution of MY MONEY back to ME, does not constitute socialism.
In fact it has nothing to do with it.
For the correct definition of socialism, lets consult Webster.
Full Definition of socialism
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Definition of SOCIALISM
any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods; a system of society or group living in which there is no private property… See the full definition
Last edited:
That video should scare everyone and argues against your statement. His point is SS will only pay 78% to 50% of the recipients. What will it pay to the top tier? And it would be solvent if we raise taxes on the employees and employers. Of course it would until that base is diminished.
And let’s not even talk about the time value of money and the massive .gov induced inflation. And how the real value of the soci security benefit has diminished exponentially.
The fact is, SS is going away. It may not be totally disappeared, but it will not be able to sustain the retirement of those who need it the most.
Oh, and that guy in the video is living in the past. When he said entitlements will never be taken away, think about what byeden did to those Americans left in Afghanistan and the saying, no Americans left behind. American is not the same under a leftist regime where they are anti-everything.
I suspect you’re coming from the point of view that you do not need social security. Am I correct? If that’s the case, then it really doesn’t matter if it’s solvent or not.
Young folks have been saying SS wouldn't be around for them for probably 40 years.
Hasn't disappeared yet...
___
Hasn't disappeared yet...
___
Similar threads
