| Author |
Topic:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor [Locked] |
Yukishiro1  Posts: 3,243
Registered: 2002-9-20 23:52:57
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor |
SS is independently funded and you were just ranting about taking money from it to pay for other stuff.
Now you are in favor of taking money from it to give to other stuff and cutting the benefits to do it?  |
Abaddon_Ambrosius Title: Retired Theurgist TL
Posts: 1,674
Registered: 2001-12-21 09:51:39
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor |
You know exactly what I'm in favor of.
Reference my 10+ posts on balancing the budget and precisely how, over the last 5 years.
-----signature-----
In the immortal words of Socrates - "I drank what?"
"God you guys suck at the internet - how can you fail to locate porn?!" - Eternal_Midnight
"Knowing means nothing." - Fat-badger
|
Yukishiro1 Posts: 3,243
Registered: 2002-9-20 23:52:57
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor |
|
I have no idea what you are for or not. If you think anyone remembers any of the boring crap you type you're flattering yourself.
You just ranted about taking money from SS and using it to pay for other stuff. And yet the only way to read your comments coherently is you want to cut SS benefits and use the surplus generated from SS to pay for other stuff. Because there is no need to cut SS the way you want to cut if if the goal is simply to make it self-financing in the future as well as right now.
|
Bobvillas  Posts: 643
Registered: 2008-11-19 12:56:18
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor |
Payroll taxes kept Social Security mainly at break even until ~1975-1981 when expenses began to exceed revenue.
Reforms that cut average benefits by 5%, raised tax rates by 2.3%, and increased the full retirement age by 3%(67) restored the system's stability for the next 25 years, but the demographic outlook is poor for its pay as you go funding structure.
In 1950, 100 workers supported six beneficiaries. Today, 100 workers support 33 beneficiaries.
Conclusion: If this program is not reformed again, it is not sustainable.
-----signature-----
"well honestly i didnt learn "jw" on the net i learned it from multiple females that have texted me. but keep on truckin broheim." Thorikos
http://fluffytit.mybrute.com |
Yukishiro1 Posts: 3,243
Registered: 2002-9-20 23:52:57
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor |
Bobvillas posted:
Conclusion: If this program is not reformed again, it is not sustainable.
No one disputes that there need to be tweaks. But math is math. The tweaks are not as large as people seem to think. Raising the age by a couple years over the next 30 and maybe meanstesting benefits for wealthy americans is all you need to do. Or you could not means-test benefits and collect SS on all income, not just the first 107k. That would solve the problem practically on its own.
|
eodoll Posts: 1,028
Registered: 2002-2-14 12:35:42
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor |
|
If someone puts in zero and gets back 1 then they got a lot more than someone who put in 10 and got back 5.
|
Crooq_Lionfang  Title: Master Zergling
Posts: 185
Registered: 2003-3-11 11:53:17
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor |
Yukishiro1 posted:
-----signature-----
If you have one foot in tomorrow and one foot in yesterday all you're going to do is piss on today
|
Bobvillas Posts: 643
Registered: 2008-11-19 12:56:18
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor |
It will need to be a combination if we expect reform.
While the tweaks as you put it, do not necessarily need to be large, in the eyes of the public they will be.
Hence, it is a large tweak.
Raising the age is a great start.
Edit: Just looked and since SS began in 1935, the life expectancy has risen 26% (to 78), but the retirement age for full benefits has increased only 3%.
I am open to removing a cap on SS revenues as well.
-----signature-----
"well honestly i didnt learn "jw" on the net i learned it from multiple females that have texted me. but keep on truckin broheim." Thorikos
http://fluffytit.mybrute.com |
Abaddon_Ambrosius Title: Retired Theurgist TL
Posts: 1,674
Registered: 2001-12-21 09:51:39
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor |
Yukishiro1 posted:
I have no idea what you are for or not...
Unlikely. I've set up that context in every major argument. If you haven't been paying attention... too bad. Feel free to sit and spin.
I won't take SS in a vacuum, any more than anything else we're doing. You start with a cap and balance amendment. Then move forward from there.
In the process, that which SS is NOT SUPPOSED to be doing will be defunded, and the net savings reallocated to other vital activities we SHOULD be doing in our radically downsized federal government.
Nibbling around the edges program by program without that framework is nothing but mental masturbation.
-----signature-----
In the immortal words of Socrates - "I drank what?"
"God you guys suck at the internet - how can you fail to locate porn?!" - Eternal_Midnight
"Knowing means nothing." - Fat-badger
|
Yukishiro1 Posts: 3,243
Registered: 2002-9-20 23:52:57
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor |
Abaddon_Ambrosius posted:
In the process, that which SS is NOT SUPPOSED to be doing will be defunded, and the net savings reallocated to other vital activities we SHOULD be doing in our radically downsized federal government.
Got it. You want to cut SS and take the SS tax revenues and spend it on something else. Which is just what you were ranting about before.
Glad we cleared that up.
|
|
