Shot in the Dark

No Pain…

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Social Security admits outgo will exceed income in four years, as older workers retire and start taking money out instead of paying it in.  They think they can stave off disaster until 2034, if the General Fund will repay the IOUs it has written over the last 40 years.  But everyone agrees that eventually, the program will collapse unless changes are made.

Liberals claim the program can be saved by small changes.  I don’t think that will work.

Social Security is like trying to fill a bathtub that you forgot to plug.  When the bath faucet was running full blast, the water level was good.  But when you begin to close the bath faucet, the water coming in can’t keep with the water going out.  Eventually, the tub runs dry.

The small changes that Liberals propose are like adding water from the sink.  By teaspoon. 

It’s not going to work.

That’s what I wish the presidential debates would have covered.  “Candidates, how will you solve this problem?”  I already know Hillary’s plan is to tax the rich (use a tablespoon instead of a teaspoon).  I would have liked to hear the details of Trump’s plan.

Joe Doakes

The problem we have is that both parties have suggested they can “solve” the problem – not just Social Security, but the entire debt and deficit issue – via means that cause no pain to the taxpayer, or in Hillary’s case only pain to other taxpayers.

Posted

in

,

by

Mitch Berg

Tags:

Comments

12 responses to “No Pain…”

  1. Chuck Avatar
    Chuck

    So now Nolan is running commercials saying that Rick Mills wants to cut or eliminate social security. First off….I doubt a single congressman from Minnesota can cut or eliminate social security. Second, I doubt Rick Mills wants to cut (in real dollars) or eliminate social security. Third, if we don’t do something, as you note above, social security will implode. Now, grandpa Nolan will be dead by then, but I will hitting retirement about the time this occurs. So Ricky boy, what’s your plan? Tax “the rich” more? To the tune of billions per year?

  2. DMA Avatar
    DMA

    Back in the 80s (I will swear under oath this it true) The Red Star published an editorial explaining out their plan to “save” social security.

    They said all we have to do is raise the interest on the SS bonds.

  3. Joe Doakes Avatar
    Joe Doakes

    Democrats – Social Security is broken but we’ll fix it by taxing the rich; and Trump is bad because the rich don’t pay taxes.

    Why doesn’t this cause intellectual whiplash?

  4. bikebubba Avatar
    bikebubba

    As I’ve noted before, the downfall of Socialist Insecurity is the premiss that has inspired it since it started; that Uncle Sam is going to cover your retirement. Sadly, millions of Americans have taken Uncle Sam up on that promise and failed to do the things that would provide for their own retirement–having kids, saving money, and the like. If it hadn’t been for the Depression generation that eschewed debt to the day they died, I would guess that Socialist Insecurity would have died in the 1970s.

  5. justplainangry Avatar
    justplainangry

    To the tune of billions per year?

    Billions when we need trillions? Teaspoon is not small enough. Plus, billions in assets does not mean billions in yearly income. Plus, “the rich” already pay WAY more than their fair share. Anything more on the scale demoncrats want to do and most of “the rich” will go Galt. Then, conversion into a Venezuelan-style banana republic will really kick into high gear. Can’t wait!

  6. Chuck Avatar
    Chuck

    What is the amount in unfunded entitlements at the federal level? $100 Trillion? Most people have no idea what a billion dollars is, let alone a trillion. Or $20 Trillion.
    (Note on the first post above, I meant to see Stewart Mills and Rick Nolan, not Rick Mills).

  7. thorleywinston Avatar
    thorleywinston

    How I’d fix Social Security:

    (1) Continue phasing in a higher retirement age from 67 or 70 or 72 to account for longer life expectancies while allowing some who are physically incapable of working to that age to draw benefits at the current age.

    (2) Means test. Social Security is a program designed to help the elderly from outliving their savings. It has never been a “you get what you pay into system” and has always taken more from some to give more to others. I’d prefer to narrow the number of “takers” that are the most needy.

    (3) Change the Cost-of-Living formula which overstates inflation.

    (4) Let younger workers opt out by investing a portion of their FICA into personal retirement account.

  8. bikebubba Avatar
    bikebubba

    Really, the entire question of Socialist Insecurity and Mediscare for the future is what it will take before a politician can say this without being crucified:

    I’m sorry, but the promises I and other politicians have been making for the past eighty years regarding Social Security, and for the past half century for Medicare, are unsustainable. We cannot fulfill them, even if we were to tax your grandchildren into the poorhouse. So our choice is simple; a fair amount of pain if we act now, or horrendous pain later if we don’t. What is your pleasure in this matter?

  9. Deplorable Swiftee Avatar
    Deplorable Swiftee

    If Hillary doesn’t try and ban gun ownership first, the inevitable demise of SSI will probably get the first bullets flying in earnest.

  10. justplainangry Avatar
    justplainangry

    2) Means test. Social Security is a program designed to help the elderly from outliving their savings. It has never been a “you get what you pay into system” and has always taken more from some to give more to others. I’d prefer to narrow the number of “takers” that are the most needy.

    Only if you make involuntary confiscation of SS contributions tax deductible on the same level as charity donations if you means test out, or willfully elect not to withdraw. Else, SS contributions are pure and unadulterated theft if you do not “get what you pay into”. You can rationalize this theft, but it remains theft of someone’s property, and no rationalization can make that right. And theft, is wrong.

  11. thorleywinston Avatar
    thorleywinston

    People don’t make “contributions” to Social Security, they pay a tax called FICA. It is not and has never been voluntary any more than the income tax or a sale tax is voluntary (save to the extent that people who don’t work, don’t earn money or buy stuff don’t have to pay them). And people who pay FICA are no more “entitled” receive Social Security benefits than people who pay the income tax are entitled to receive food stamps or people who pay the sales tax in the Twin Cities are entitled to go to a Twins Game. It’s just another tax that we’re all required to pay and the government that we all get to elect gets to pass laws determining and even changing who can and cannot receive benefits just like any other welfare program.

  12. justplainangry Avatar
    justplainangry

    Winston, I am not versed history behind SS and how it was sold to the American people. What it has involved into today does not make it right. It is a redistribution of wealth scheme and goobernment sanctioned theft. Just like a tax to build stadiums for the billionaires.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.