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.

 

[Lightbeamrider]

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.

 

[Lightbeamrider]

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?

Actually, 1% of a thousand dollars is ten dollars. Nobody caught that.

 

[Lightbeamrider]

Another nut job, and electronic one.

GROK is not bad if you know how to use it and its limitations. Factual information right at your fingertips. Like Social Security history in this case or comparing Social Security to 401Ks which is what we were doing here. Hopefully it benefits others who may not know.

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

Full retirement age for me was 66 and my sister who is younger was 66 and a couple of months. I think full retirement age is now 67 for SSR. For my purposes, it means I can still work full time and still collect the full amount. So if I collect 2K a month for 12 months, it raises my earnings by 24 K, meaning part of that is taxed. Lets say it is 24 K. They reduce the amount by $600 ( don't remember the exact amount) then i would be taxed @ 18K. Trump eliminated all that but i think it is coming back. The Dems want to raise taxes on bottom 50% elderly while Trump attempted to reduce it by eliminating taxes on SSR. Keep that in mind. If they opposed Trumps plan they are in favor of raising taxes on elderly retired citizens and the Dems block voted against Trump tax breaks on SSR and no tax on tips, meaning the Dems were also in favor of high taxes on the working-class waitress at the restaurant who may be a single mom with a child to support. The Dems are never held accountable for their tax raises on bottom 50% by the media, working or retired. Instead the common trope is the Dems are for the working poor. Not all the time as Trump tax cuts has shown. Trump got what he could seeing as how his plan, as presented, was rejected by both establishment Repubs and Dems. They came back with compromises and the present plan is only temporary. It will revert to the original plan over time, meaning the higher taxes will be reinstated. I think?

 

[ScooterJackson]

Factual information right at your fingertips.

Right, until it isn't and AI changes the facts to control what people believe.

I think full retirement age is now 67 for SSR.

No, you get the largest monthly payout if you wait till you are 70.
Some politicians have talked about raising that to 73 or even 75 which will save them system some money in the short term.
Since people are living longer this may not be a bad idea.

they are in favor of raising taxes

Liberals are always in favor of raising taxes.
Repub continue to be in favor of run away spending

One group is just as corrupt and ignorant as the other.
There will be no help forthcoming from the donkeys or the elephants.
The joke is on the ones that think their side is going to do anything to help.

 

[stilllearning]

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

Correct. Why I am comparing the two sides attitudes and finding nothing is going to happen at all. Here is my full thought.

"I don't think that dog is gonna hunt. I believe it was last week I was reading how there is a bill in congress or committee or some kind of rumor as such. Anyway the bill aims to lower the full retirement age to 60 for folks who have worked manual labor and jobs where you are on your feet. So to me at least it seems like their are some at least who want to go in the opposite direction."

I am noting that some want to go opposite in a farther direction than normal. Which means if anything gets done it will be some sort of minor band aid for now. Again my thought.

"I think every politician is aware that trying to cut or do anything with SS that is perceived as negative is a poison pill. "

There is always a lot of talk but not much doing. For us on the right we heard that if the right was to get control they would end the evil they call Obama care and people would get something better. We have controlled everything twice now and what was the outcome? Obama care still exists and we have yet to get that pot of golden stew that was promised.

Thing is they all talk but when it comes down to what gets them voted in or voted out it is the driving force to what their actions will be.

There will always be the true believers for whatever cause on both sides, however, for most whatever serves their personal self interest. That is the bet to lay your money down on.

 

[ScooterJackson]

comparing the two sides attitudes and finding nothing is going to happen at all.

No help will be forthcoming from the donkeys or the elephants.

Really no need to concern ourselves with any of this stuff because the one world government is not far away and only those who take the mark of the beast will be able to buy and sell. Much larger problems are coming other than managing social security.

At some point they'll most likely confiscate all financial assets like they did in Greece back when their government went broke.
Once the socialists take over they will quickly reveal they are actually communists.

 

[stilllearning]

My point is that they made themselves the trustee, didn't have to do that.

Is understandable that they did so. Seeing how the depression was just brought on by actions of individuals and the brokerages. You unreasonably apply todays standards to what they were in fact facing and the causes. They were faced with trying to give some kind of confidence and took the route that offered the most. It would have been seen as lunacy and not giving much confidence. If they would have turned around and made the folks in charge the ones that busted the market and sent the country into a tail spin.

 

[ScooterJackson]

Is understandable that they did so. Seeing how the depression was just brought on by actions of individuals and the brokerages. You unreasonably apply todays standards to what they were in fact facing and the causes. They were faced with trying to give some kind of confidence and took the route that offered the most. It would have been seen as lunacy and not giving much confidence. If they would have turned around and made the folks in charge the ones that busted the market and sent the country into a tail spin.

Just wait till AI takes over all the financial markets and requires everyone to get a mark to buy and sell.

It's on the way!

 

[ZNP]

Is understandable that they did so. Seeing how the depression was just brought on by actions of individuals and the brokerages. You unreasonably apply todays standards to what they were in fact facing and the causes. They were faced with trying to give some kind of confidence and took the route that offered the most. It would have been seen as lunacy and not giving much confidence. If they would have turned around and made the folks in charge the ones that busted the market and sent the country into a tail spin.

Yes, it is understandable since the main principle of our government is "never let a serious crisis go to waste".

 

[stilllearning]

Just wait till AI takes over all the financial markets and requires everyone to get a mark to buy and sell.

It's on the way!

The mark I believe is misunderstood and often used as the boogeyman for anything. Satan said I will be like the most high. It is about him counterfeiting all that is God so he can proclaim himself god. That is what the "anti" truley is the fake or counterfeit. In Exodus 13 we get introduced to the sign of the firstborn. Where you have a mark upon you right hand or forehead. The Israelites would then therefore bind parts of the Torah around their forehead or hand.

Christ is the firstborn of the dead and therefore those wha are his are marked upon their forehead for a seal. In Ezekiel 9 you see the mark that is being placed by God. The mark of the tav as it stands for complete. It is also a number it is a X. These verses in Ezekiel are explained by schoolership as God was actually placing his name his signature. The tav or X as his signature.

The antichrist is the counterfeit in a way the firstborn of evil. The first born of the dead as he was dead and now lives. 666 the Greek number for the first six or six hundred is X. Why it is a number and a name it is a signature upon the right hand or forehead. Why it is about so much more than economics. As the buy and sale is the same LXX word used to denote Joseph and his authority over the famine and he alone had the power to decide who could buy or sale any grain.

So what we have is one who proclaims he will be like the most high placing his signature upon those who are his, those who worship him. His antichrist and false prophet operating in copycat form to counterfeit the true God.

So I find it reasonable they will use tech. However, to when the mark will come I have no clue but am well aware that it is a counterfeit and done so in fashion after what God has done already. As the anti is all about the fake standing in the place of the true.

 

[stilllearning]

Yes, it is understandable since the main principle of our government is "never let a serious crisis go to waste".

I just don't find that everything is malicious is all. Sometimes the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[ZNP]

I just don't find that everything is malicious is all. Sometimes the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Luke 22:25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. 26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. 27 For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.

So instead of public servants they are public benefactors, got it. They take your money with one hand and when they keep 90% for themselves and give you 10% they call themselves benefactors. You are a marvelous example of all we have come to expect from the public school education.

 

[stilllearning]

Luke 22:25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. 26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. 27 For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.

So instead of public servants they are public benefactors, got it. They take your money with one hand and when they keep 90% for themselves and give you 10% they call themselves benefactors. You are a marvelous example of all we have come to expect from the public school education.

Actually I never graduated I flunked out of school. I just don't agree with all the negative your are or the lengths you will go to spread your fear porn fetish.

 

[ZNP]

Actually I never graduated I flunked out of school. I just don't agree with all the negative your are or the lengths you will go to spread your fear porn fetish.

simple math. 10-9=1. Not fear porn, simply preaching the gospel, there is salvation in no other name than Jesus. The entire world lies in the evil one. When they say Peace and Security then sudden destruction.

 

[stilllearning]

simple math. 10-9=1. Not fear porn, simply preaching the gospel, there is salvation in no other name than Jesus. The entire world lies in the evil one. When they say Peace and Security then sudden destruction.

Yea, yea I am aware of your math in fact a lot of us are aware of your math. If any of us took it seriously we would be talking about how all our shelves and pantries are full of cans of sardines........LOL

Then with your lack of fear to always place the name of Christ as a by line on your mutterings. You have missed a real opportunity to do your math and then place Christ as the by line then proclaim how buying cans of sardines is the deeper meaning to being a fisher of men...LOL

 

[ZNP]

Yea, yea I am aware of your math in fact a lot of us are aware of your math. If any of us took it seriously we would be talking about how all our shelves and pantries are full of cans of sardines........LOL

Then with your lack of fear to always place the name of Christ as a by line on your mutterings. You have missed a real opportunity to do your math and then place Christ as the by line then proclaim how buying cans of sardines is the deeper meaning to being a fisher of men...LOL

Well thank you for giving me this real opportunity to let everyone know, Jesus Christ is the only security, everything else is vanity, a puff of smoke.