Repub Influencer (Millionaire?) Matt Walsh Calls for Elimination of Social Security Prior to Election, and the Dems Loving it?

[ZNP]

What scam when the early contributors were only mandated 1% of their gross with an employee match? 1% of a thousand dollars is one dollar? How is that a scam if all legal? You can have your opinion, not your facts.

What is full inheritance for your average Joe who does not plan for retirement?

No negatives there. Government mandates. Your suggestion is nothing new. A flavor of potential problems includes, but is not limited to......

Keep in mind old-age SS was designed as a partial, not a full, retirement plan
---------------------------------
What problems could be predicted by alternative scenarios where government mandates money be taken from employees check and put into 401K programs?

..government mandate diverting a portion of employee paychecks into individual 401(k)-style (defined-contribution) accounts—whether as a partial or full alternative to Social Security—would face several predictable structural, financial, and political problems. These draw from the existing U.S. 401(k)/IRA system’s track record, transition analyses of Social Security reform proposals, and outcomes in countries that have tried versions of mandatory private accounts (notably Chile’s AFP system and Australia’s superannuation). Transition and Financing Costs​ Social Security is largely pay-as-you-go: current payroll taxes fund current retirees. Diverting those taxes (or an equivalent amount) into private accounts creates an immediate revenue shortfall for existing and near-term benefits. Closing it requires some combination of higher taxes on workers, increased government borrowing/debt, or steeper benefit cuts for transition generations. Past U.S. proposals and analyses (e.g., from the SSA actuaries, CBO, and academic work) estimated multi-trillion-dollar transition costs over decades. Younger workers can end up funding both their own future accounts and current retirees, creating a “double burden” that is politically and economically difficult. Market Risk, Volatility, and Inadequate Returns.....​ Fees, Administrative Costs, and Leakage.......​ Coverage, Contribution Adequacy, and Behavioral Problems​ Many workers (especially low-wage, part-time, or those with career interruptions) cannot easily sustain high mandatory contribution rates without reducing current living standards. Chile’s original 10% employee-only contribution proved too low for adequate pensions for large numbers of people; the government has had to provide substantial minimum-pension top-ups......

If they collect that amount of money into the General Fund what makes you think they will forfeit that amount so you can keep your 6.2%? That is 62 dollars on a thousand? At 1% it was 1 dollar on a thousand and you wrote it was a scam from the beginning? One dollar on a thousand?

It is a rosy scenario that will probably fall apart and leave many elderly or otherwise unable to work, destitute and you offer no safety net for them. Not all boomers are hot-tub rich with oodles of property and dying off at 7000 a day, which would mean a huge wealth transfer to survivors since they cannot take it all with them. If boomers own all the property, then they also pay the most property taxes. The more property owned, the higher the amount of property taxes. Property taxes on 1,000 acres of land are much higher than on 40 acres.

The top 10% of boomers hold the large majority of that generation’s wealth; lower-education subgroups often fare no better (or worse) than earlier cohorts at the same ages.⁠Boldin This asset concentration (homes, stocks, retirement accounts) is partly a natural result of longer accumulation time, rising asset prices, and demographics. It underpins arguments that the average older household is far wealthier than the average younger one today. Social Security remains critical for many seniors. Official and tax-linked data (preferred over pure self-reports, which can understate other income sources) indicate that roughly 12–15% of those 65+ rely on it for 90%+ of income, with higher figures in surveys and advocacy data (sometimes 25–40%+ for “sole” or majority reliance). For the lowest income quintile it can account for 80%+ of income; for the highest, far less. Aggregate reliance is often cited around 30% of income for those 65+. Average retired-worker benefits are roughly $2,000/month.

What don't you understand? They could have done the exact same thing with a mandated 401k. It would have guaranteed People were saving for retirement. If they did that the amount of money people would have had would have been 10x what they get from retirement with Social Security. The government gets 90% of the money you put away and yet they call it "an entitlement" and lump it with welfare.

Every single person who collected money from Social Security was robbed. Of course there will be someone, somewhere out of hundreds of millions of people they will point out. But the reality is the average American lost $4-6 million in inheritance money when either of their parents who had worked died. And that money was robbed from the US economy. We would have had trillions of dollars pumped into the US economy that never got there.

 

[Lightbeamrider]

What don't you understand?

I understand you are not responding to any of my counters like i did yours.

They could have done the exact same thing with a mandated 401k.

They did not, since it was from 35 to 1940. SSR predates 401K by more than 40 years. That means not in 1935 when SSR was developing.

It would have guaranteed People were saving for retirement.

Answered and ignored.

If they did that the amount of money people would have had would have been 10x what they get from retirement with Social Security.

What amount? 6.2% on the top 35 yrs of income? Or was the withdrawal from paychecks as high as 6.2% 35 years ago? Probably not so it would be even less.

The government gets 90% of the money you put away and yet they call it "an entitlement" and lump it with welfare.

What do you mean exactly by getting 90%? It goes into the general fund.

Every single person who collected money from Social Security was robbed.

Opinion. I have been collecting since 66 at full retirement age and am now 72 and was not robbed. So you are wrong. I live on that money and the money i get from working goes right into savings. Posssible medical bills which will probably wipe me out just like it wiped out my older brother who is dying from cancer after getting all the COVID shots. After COVID he gets cancer. Worked all his life and now is destitute

Of course there will be someone, somewhere out of hundreds of millions of people they will point out.

That disproves your claim.

But the reality is the average American lost $4-6 million in inheritance money when either of their parents who had worked died.

Again at present it is 6.2% max since 1990, 5.08% 1980, and 4.2% 1970 when my work history started. Inheritance money idea came much later as far as i know. 401Ks do not guarantee inheritance money if the account runs dry so it is not an absolute.

 

[ScooterJackson]

Generating all kinds of hatred directed at boomers who are considered leeches

No, people paid in to that and they need to get what was promised to them.

Matt Walsh, Ben Shaperio Dana Loesch Peter Schiff

Nut jobs one and all ya'll

GROK

Another nut job, and electronic one.

Tone Deaf Matt

Yeah, he's almost as bad as liberals who want to charge parents with child abuse if they don't support their children "transitioning" from one gender to another.

Before long they'll have people "transitioning" from one race to another. That'll be entertaining!

the bill aims to lower the full retirement age to 60

No, they are looking to raise retirement age since people are living longer and it'll help kick the can down the road

Just like in some states EV car owners have to pay more fee4s since they are not paying taxes on gas, the companies using AI instead of employees need to pay more in just as though they still had all those employees. It's only fair.

 

[ZNP]

I understand you are not responding to any of my counters like i did yours.

They did not, since it was from 35 to 1940. SSR predates 401K by more than 40 years. That means not in 1935 when SSR was developing.

Answered and ignored.

What amount? 6.2% on the top 35 yrs of income? Or was the withdrawal from paychecks as high as 6.2% 35 years ago? Probably not so it would be even less.

What do you mean exactly by getting 90%? It goes into the general fund.

Opinion. I have been collecting since 66 at full retirement age and am now 72 and was not robbed. So you are wrong. I live on that money and the money i get from working goes right into savings. Posssible medical bills which will probably wipe me out just like it wiped out my older brother who is dying from cancer after getting all the COVID shots. After COVID he gets cancer. Worked all his life and now is destitute

That disproves your claim.

Again at present it is 6.2% max since 1990, 5.08% 1980, and 4.2% 1970 when my work history started. Inheritance money idea came much later as far as i know. 401Ks do not guarantee inheritance money if the account runs dry so it is not an absolute.

My point is that they made themselves the trustee, didn't have to do that. A 401k and and IRA are both examples of retirement accounts where the government is not the trustee. Also, they take money out of your check to put into Social Security, they can do the same thing with any other retirement account. There was no reason to make the US government the trustee.

They tell you that they are taking the money out for your retirement and they are the trustee. But that is a lie. The money is not yours. You could die before you ever take a single dollar and 100% of it goes straight to the government.

"What do you mean by 90%"

I used to be a stock broker, I googled the average amount the average American puts into Social Security before retiring. I included employer contributions and I gave this a very conservative rate of growth. You could easily double the rate of growth I used and it would have been quite plausible. So the number I used would have been the amount that could have been guaranteed rate of return. Doing this I calculated that the average amount the average American pays into Social Security would grow to at least $5.4 million when they retire. Now Social Security can pay out different amounts but it is safe to say that they would have paid this average American $24k a year. That is 0.5% of their $5.4 million. At the very least they should be paying 4%, which is $216k, not 24k and that would not have touched the principal. So when this person dies they should be able to leave their children the $5.4 million.

So what I mean by the 90% is instead of paying $216k a year, they are paying $24k and instead of giving your heirs the $5.4 million when you die they keep that as well.

I would call this robbery but you can call it the absolute worst retirement plan in the history of retirement plans. That would only be fair if we had a choice, since no one has a choice, robbery is the more appropriate description.

The problem is not wealthy people who paid much more into Social Security than the average American, the problem is the thieves who have proved themselves to be untrustworthy to be trustees.

I then asked how many retirees who are collecting Social Security die each year, multiplied that by $5.4 million and it comes out to $10 trillion dollars. That is a good estimate of how much is stolen each year.