Hot Topic: Social Security

[rruff]

The other option is nothing substantial gets done and retirees get less in the future.

The odd thing is that a lot of people who get SS benefits get ~$1,000/mo. I just looked up SSI and it is now $841/mo. This is welfare that poor old people qualify for. The SS recipient should get Medicare, but the SSI recipient gets Medicaid which might be better (less hassle). Both should qualify for foodstamps.

For a person who really *needs* all their SS to survive, the cost/benefit analysis is pretty awful... your living standard is the same as someone who never paid in.

 

[bullfrog]

^^^ I don’t think anyone living at that income level is complaining about someone else getting close to the same as they are. They are just trying to survive between checks. Most probably have a hard time even getting to vote or let anyone who could change the situation know. Probably deciding between buying medicine or food. Truly a sad state of affairs.

 

[rruff]

Truly a sad state of affairs.

Having lived at about that income level for most of my life (by choice because I like freedom way more than having stuff) and also never getting foodstamps or free healthcare, or free anything... it isn't necessarily sad at all.

If anyone that poor needs to pay a cent for food or medicine, then they are doing it wrong. I have a buddy in OR who I met on the road about 20 years ago. He gets about $900/mo in SS, plus generous foodstamps (so generous he buys food for other people), free healthcare (when I say free, he gets top service and never pays a dime for anything, and he has a lot of health issues), etc. He pays his son $400/mo to let him park a small trailer behind his house. He has a stash from his working days, but he constantly adds to it rather than subtracting. He takes a few extended trips every year, using his old Rav4.... which he sleeps in, and has set up for camping. He is very happy with his financial and living situation.

 

[BlueMarkOhio]

(Quoted by Spaceman Spiff) "Why? Because for at least 30 years the SSA has been collecting less money than necessary. And they have been investing in a vehicle that hasn't kept up with inflation."

This is not correct.

SS collected more money than it has spent up to 2021. We are only just into the second year of SS drawing down the $2.9 trillion dollar surplus that was accumulated.

Less than 2 years, NOT "at least 30".

And this is completely as intended. It is why there is a trust fund to begin with.

 

[bullfrog]

ruff as I said before there seem to be a lot of people “doing it wrong” especially ones that went bankrupt before they got old enough to qualify for Social Security because of medical problems and the debt they incurred or having made some bad choices keeps them from many options. There are many people that can not afford a camping set up never the less a reliable Toyota to travel in and a trailer to live in or have relatives willing or able to provide a cheap safe place to park legally. Maybe doing an in-depth interview and posting it in a thread on this site would benefit many others trying to do just as he is doing. Thanks bebewanna for making my point as you posted while I was typing! Lol!! First hand experience is the best. Here in the Tucson area we are eventually going to be doing something similar to your friend except hopefully not needing the food stamps. A cheap full hook up spot with utilities is almost impossible to find for less than $525 a month unless off a rough dirt road. Further out towards Benson is an Escapees Park and some Private RV parks that may be cheaper but crowded.

 

[Zerpersande]

U.S. citizens won't let others in need go without social security income.

My perception of ‘the public’ is that they don’t give a rodent’s buttocks about those in need.

If it runs out, the government will switch to Universal Basic Income.

That statement above is written in the real conditional tense and, and REALLY haven’t seen any inclination toward this except from one particular presidential candidate in the most recent election. Given that the party most likely to support any UBI income didn’t choose that candidate as their nominee I don’t see any justification for your If/Will phrasing. Maybe… ‘I THINK that others SHOULD…’ is more approriate.

 

[user 22017]

My perception of ‘the public’ is that they don’t give a rodent’s buttocks about those in need.


That statement above is written in the real conditional tense and, and REALLY haven’t seen any inclination toward this except from one particular presidential candidate in the most recent election. Given that the party most likely to support any UBI income didn’t choose that candidate as their nominee I don’t see any justification for your If/Will phrasing. Maybe… ‘I THINK that others SHOULD…’ is more approriate.

I read about UBI being tried long before Yang ran for office. From Wikipedia:

Antiquity
See also: Cura Annonae

In a 46 BC triumph, Roman general and dictator Julius Caesar gave each common Roman citizen 100 denarii. Following his assassination in 44 BC, Caesar's will left 300 sestertii (or 75 denarii) to each citizen.[11]

Trajan, emperor of Rome from 98–117 AD, personally gave 650 denarii (equivalent to perhaps US$260 in 2002) to all common Roman citizens who applied.[12]

<snip>

Late 20th century

In his 1964 State of the Union address, U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson introduced legislation to fight the "war on poverty". Johnson believed in expanding the federal government's roles in education and health care as poverty reduction strategies. In this political climate, the idea of a guaranteed income for every American also took root. Notably, a document, signed by 1200 economists, called for a guaranteed income for every American. Six ambitious basic income experiments started up on the related concept of negative income tax. Succeeding President Richard Nixon explained its purpose as "to provide both a safety net for the poor and a financial incentive for welfare recipients to work."[19] Congress eventually approved a guaranteed minimum income for the elderly and the disabled.[19]

In the mid-1970s the main competitor to basic income and negative income tax, the Earned income tax credit (EITC), or its advocates, won over enough legislators for the US Congress to pass laws on that policy.

More:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income

 

[rruff]

ruff as I said before there seem to be a lot of people “doing it wrong” especially ones that went bankrupt before they got old enough to qualify for Social Security because of medical problems and the debt they incurred or having made some bad choices keeps them from many options. There are many people that can not afford a camping set up never the less a reliable Toyota to travel in and a trailer to live in or have relatives willing or able to provide a cheap safe place to park legally. Maybe doing an in-depth interview and posting it in a thread on this site would benefit many others trying to do just as he is doing.

It's simple arithmetic, nothing tricky about it. I wonder what you think the bad choices are that keep people from government benefits? Or what keeps a single person from being able to live on ~$1,000/mo while getting food, healthcare, and meds for free? Being bankrupt would be irrelevant... you don't have to pay creditors if you are below the poverty line. If you can work then you should be able to earn at least that much, and if you are disabled you can get disability.

BTW, I included depreciation on that truck and all the stuff I owned. I still spent way less than $1k/mo in today's money, with no benefits. But I know, there are people who live on 10 times the amount and are on the verge of bankruptcy all the time. It's easy to get addicted to money... our society very strongly encourages it.

My buddy is parked illegally... and at $400/mo I think his son is getting a good deal. I met a woman at the grocery last month who told me she was letting a guy park in her back yard for free. Of course it's illegal in town, pretty much everywhere. Just depends on what the neighbors are like.

I'm not excusing our "system" that's for sure. It should be a lot easier to earn a decent living and stay out of poverty, like it is in every other developed country! I'd much rather see higher wages (and SS) than higher welfare. We have terrible support for workers. MW of $7.25/hr; you can work full time all year and just make it to the poverty line! We are definitely sliding into a 3rd world socio-economic structure.

 

[bullfrog]

The bad choices I’m referring to are mainly based on values that many older folks from my neck of the woods had inbred. Many poor states made getting benefits difficult and used to discourage people from using them by making them travel, wait in long lines and fill out lots of forms with a required paper trail that took many trips to their offices to get very small benefits or help. Local people helped each other but looked down on those that couldn’t get by on their own. Coming from that place and time makes it difficult for many my age and from those areas to choose to try to get help and many get embarrassed by their ignorance of the system so they just don’t use it until in many cases it’s just too little too late. Really it’s hard to explain. So many have been taken advantage of, fooled or tricked by offers of help that ended up being a way to take what little they had and therefore they just do the best they can on their own. Many are veterans that were given pain medication while in service and once discharged became addicted to street drugs as they were easier and cheaper to get, but that is a whole another discussion. Many are now on Social Security now living a shortened life on the streets. Those are the kinds of bad decisions I was referring to.

 

[rruff]

So many have been taken advantage of, fooled or tricked by offers of help that ended up being a way to take what little they had and therefore they just do the best they can on their own.

^This is a big issue I have with our system. You either need to be smart and spend the time, or rich enough to hire lawyers and accountants just to figure it out! That goes for SS and Medicare too most of the time. The "private" insurance is an even bigger mess. No simple peace and easy living for anyone. If you don't stick your head deep in it and figure it all out and keep track of it, you *will* get screwed... because a lot of people make $$$ screwing other people.

 

[RoamerRV428]

^ head deep in it and figure it all out and keep track of it, you *will* get screwed... because a lot of people make $$$ screwing other people.

you said it right there. dog eat dog world no matter what is offered out there for help or what is available for support. even in those realms of those supports is corruption and more so? feel ya on it

 

[FutureNomad]

SS is the worst "investment" anyone can ever do. You are forced to pay into a program that will lose 4.3% over time and after all the years of paying into it, when you die it all goes back to the folks that waste it the best. Wish we could opp out and have a personal account. It will grow and when you pass, you can give it to others, not Uncle Sam. No party will stop it but having a plan to replace it over time would be in the best interest of all. A bit over 47% don't even pay taxes so it won't stand on it's own forever. Get yours while you can and enjoy toda

Several posts have been deleted, and I always sign my work so if your post is gone, I'm probably the mod who deleted it.

Please stay on topic, and lets not argue about politics.

Question for you. I replied to 2 posts in this thread clarifying their misleading information. Yes, it was "political" only because their post was political. Both of my replies have been deleted, just wondering why?

 

[tx2sturgis]

We value the input our members provide in this thread, but if your comments are primarily focused on disparaging the 'other party' or the politicians that represent the the 'other party', then your post is subject to removal.

Again, some posts have been removed by myself and other mods.

 

[FutureNomad]

We value the input our members provide in this thread, but if your comments are primarily focused on disparaging the 'other party' or the politicians that represent the the 'other party', then your post is subject to removal.

Again, some posts have been removed by myself and other mods.

So even the OP was aimed at "other party". Yet, it is allowed to remain. I'd be more than happy to discuss this in PM. I'm new here and just trying to figure out "the rules".

 

[FutureNomad]

Despite what other threads in this section suggest... the "new House" is NOT proposing any cuts to current SS recipients. It's a flat out LIE.

 

[user 22017]

Why start a new thread?

They want all kinds of changes to SS and Medicare in their proposal:

https://banks.house.gov/uploadedfiles/budget_fy22_final.pdf
But that group of conservative Republicans don't speak for every Republican. Thank goodness.

 

[FutureNomad]

Why start a new thread?

They want all kinds of changes to SS and Medicare in their proposal:

https://banks.house.gov/uploadedfiles/budget_fy22_final.pdf
But that group of conservative Republicans don't speak for every Republican. Thank goodness.

Yes, they want to change SS. But those changes would be for younger workers who just started paying into the system. Everyone keeps wanting Congress to "save SS", yet whenever a Congressmen/party proposes a solution it's met with these misleading lies. I would be more specific, but I've already had some of my posts deleted by the bias moderators.

If you are on SS or about to become eligible... there are no plans to change what you will receive... NONE.

 

[rruff]

Despite what other threads in this section suggest... the "new House" is NOT proposing any cuts to current SS recipients. It's a flat out LIE.

I don't recall anyone claiming otherwise. They are still proposing a reduction in the program that will reduce future benefits. Giving current recipients a pass is how they hope to get support.

 

[FutureNomad]

I don't recall anyone claiming otherwise. They are still proposing a reduction in the program that will reduce future benefits. Giving current recipients a pass is how they hope to get support.

Another thread on this site is parroting the fear mongering by certain politicians. I can't be more specific or the moderators will delete this reply. Feel free to PM me if you want a more specific explanation.

 

[Dirtrider]

Thanks for trying to keep it civil which isn't always easy on certain topics that hit close to home for many.
There are words/phases that drive me nuts when it comes to anything that people receive, for whatever reason.
The "free" stuff isn't free. Maybe for one person and not for another or two. Tax payers are paying for anything given away be it health care or benefits.
When there are less & less people paying into the system plus all the US assistance financially throughout the world, it all will work fine until you run out of other peoples money. If anyone spends more than they take in, they will be broke. It's just a matter of time.
If nobody pays into UBI, where's the money going to come from? The basic math doesn't add up to a solution that will work.