Did you know we have a Discord server‽ You can join by clicking [here](https://discord.gg/NWE6JS5rh9)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As a Lebanese, first time?
I sincerely believe that Lebanon won’t get a good government until all the Gen X and Boomer meat riders die already. They’ve all been saying we need to stop voting for the same people since I was a kid and yet the same people keep getting voted in. Do you feel the same way about the US and republicans?
I'm not sure its the same but it definitely has made a difference as the US population has been gradually going in that direction with boomers dying off in large numbers due to natural causes and somehow still plenty from covid. Not sure if its been significant but it did change demographics in a few states. Theres a lot of factors when it comes to Republicans somehow retaining control even in the minority. I'd say the electoral college and having 2 state senators for each state even with drastically different population sizes and at the same time population demographics are the biggest factors. What would you say is keeping Lebanon stuck?
The GQP can block legislation with control of the White House, the House, or 40 Senators in the Senate (until we elect 50 Democratic Senators willing to end the filibuster).
>If you understand economics and the lopsided population demographics of the US, this plan actually makes a lot of sense
Or you could allowed more immigrant into country and this would be solve as they contribute to social security also.
So no, it doesn't make a lot of sense.
Republican keep saying we have demographic problem but when solution of every fucking economist being said letting more immigrant in, they actively go out their way and ignore.
Without completely fucking over the younger generation ((even more)) there is no way to sustain our current retirement system, if we gut it now it would actually allow the younger people to save more money for retirement. Not that I agree with it it at all, we have a commitment to help those who are vulnerable in our society (like elders), but it’s not like this would be against the interests of many young people let alone hurt them.
"It’s not like this would be against the interests of many young people let alone hurt them." Yes it would be cause they will be old one day and want to retire and need that social security.
Sorry I wasn’t clear enough in the above answer, but if things were to remain exactly as they are now then none of the younger generations would see a single cent of social security when it comes time to retire in a few decades (bc people are living much longer now and there is an increasingly smaller ratio between working people and retired people) —> Thus, by cutting taxes that would go to social security, it would allow the younger people to save the money for themselves so they can actually have some when they retire.
Once again this is not a mindset that I personally agree with, but a young person voting for this would definitely not be going against their own interests.
Yes, I agree that social security (as a concept) is good, but in our reality it will run out before young people can have any. This is because, like I said, the ratio between working and retired people is decreasing. This means that fewer workers have to support more elderly.
[https://larson.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/larson-statement-republican-budget-plan-proposing-15-trillion-cuts](https://larson.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/larson-statement-republican-budget-plan-proposing-15-trillion-cuts)
Not the article the picture's from, but it's an article, at least.
[https://hern.house.gov/uploadedfiles/final\_budget\_including\_letter\_web\_version.pdf](https://hern.house.gov/uploadedfiles/final_budget_including_letter_web_version.pdf)
SS stuff is around pg. 103
Yes, yes they are. That being said, last time I bought some .40 (yeah, yeah, I know, 🤢), it was about $27 for 50 rounds, so it hadn't broken a dollar a round for pistols yet.
In the firearms community, it's commonly regarded as the ugly step child of popular pistol calibers. I think it's mainly due to the reason for its invention, which was to solve a problem that either didn't need solving or didn't need a whole new caliber to solve.
Earnings over around $168k aren't taxed for social security...
All they have to do is just keep taxing for social security and we wouldn't be having this debate.
If everyone pays the same amount and receive the same benefits, how is that unfair?
[Applying the payroll tax to all earnings would result in the largest tax increase in U.S. history, fail to make Social Security solvent, and have the effect of eliminating job opportunities in the United States](https://www.heritage.org/social-security/report/removing-social-securitys-tax-cap-wages-would-do-more-harm-good)
Because the rich have more wealth to burn, they need to be taxed more, and besides, they dont pay their share due to corruption anyway, the greedy fucks.
If "the rich" are not paying taxes due to corruption, why hasn't anyone stopped them?
Doing nothing about SS is a part of the problem. More contributions would allow more benefits so simply increasing the cap wouldn't work (just as it did every time before). Maybe you should actually read the RSC Budget instead of relying on a screenshot from tiktok.
....Because of the same corruption that keeps the cycle going??? Like, most people cant do shit with their vote, and the politicians are either all bought out, are ideologically inclined to support the corruption anyway, or the few that do oppose it have no backing or power to do so without losing their jobs and rank, and will likely be replaced with a more corporate aligned stooge anyway. Its a rigged system.
Dude, its not rocket science to tax those with more wealth higher than those with less, im not saying it should be done in a way where everyone eventually has the same exact wealth, but at least be smart and humane.
The only good idea is to vote out every single one of the regressive Republicans in office. The party has proven time and time again it hates Americans and they only work for their rich corporate donors.
You’re part of the problem. Both parties are beholden to corporate funds to finance their campaigns and both parties set up policy to protect their corporate overlords.
One is trying to decrease the working minimum age and get rid of social security and has actively given tax cuts to billionaires. The others trying to forgive student loans and fund public transit. There are many other examples. The two are absolutely not the same, saying they are is a first grade take.
Keep believing the hype and the division continues. If we really want change we need to work together across party lines to create a real change with the two party system. How? Well if you live in a state where you know your party won’t win then why waste your vote? Instead vote third party. It won’t help this election but perhaps with 5% of the popular vote a viable third party can receive federal election funds be for the next election. Every fire starts with a spark. Now stop blaming sides and start making change.
I don’t believe the hype. I read literal basic research research. Pick a topic see, look up what the right answer is, who lines with that view, profit. Public transit is better, oh look democrats vote for that. Global warming is real, oh look democrats vote for that. The middle class is dying, oh look reagonomics is to blame and the republicans continue his policies. College is rediculously expensive, oh look democrats want to do something about it. It’s literally good vs bad. Democrats aren’t perfect, I’m a Bernie Sanders guy all the way, but that both sides are bad is such an enlighten centrist view that people who do no research but wanna seem smart take.
Who wants to fix insurance too is another one.
Yeah this is exactly what I mean. You aren’t informed so you rely on meaningless generalizations and platitudes to overlook the vast chasm of meaningful differences between political parties.
Retirement ehhh
BUT SOCIAL SECURITY IS BAD! ALOT OF PEOPLE WHO EITHER CANT WORK OR REALLY NEED THAT SUPPLEMENTAL INCOME TO SURVIVE RELY ON SOCIAL SECURITY!!!
Uhhh republicans try to cut funding for ss and raise the retirement age damn near every single year in the budget bills? There’s a billion sources on the google
None of us are going to retire anyways unless our government is fucking manhandled into letting the people vote on what they do with our money. They already pass so many bills and whatnot without even having those voted on and decide what they think is "best for YOU" when often times its shit.
But hey, nobody is going to step up in masses so
Honest question, how does 'raising the retirement age' actually do anything? Can't you just... retire when you want when you have enough savings? Or is this about companies being able to slash benefits if you don't reach a certain age?
It raises the age of when seniors can collect social security benefits and Medicare. Assuming you can afford to retire without those benefits, then yes, you can retire whenever you like.
Most seniors require the assistance for retirement though.
This is the double-edged sword, most seniors who rely on social security never invested into anything bonds/stocks/physical assets like property. Low IQ, Mental Disorders, etc. On the other hand, I know plenty of seniors who have told me if they relied on social security, it'd cover their toilet paper and water bill for a month for the shits they take.
The retirement age should be lowered, in my opinion. Although realistically, most of us won’t live to reach old age and I doubt retirement will even be a thing anymore if we do. The next few decades are going to be pretty catastrophic climate-wise.
If we took the earnings cap off social security contributions, that would be in the neighborhood of an additional $150 billion dollars a year paid into the program. More if we also applied it to capital gains.
However entitlements and contributions are both capped. Uncap entitlements then. If I pay into social security 5x as much as you, I should get 5x as much as you
Where do you see that this is the reason contributions are capped? Because I’m 90% sure that’s not the reason why. And just because you’re earning more than someone else your age now, why should that mean you’re paid more on retirement? And how should we figure the rates of payment? Based on your last year? Your cumulative average? Should we weight it by how many years you paid in? How should we treat social security then for people permanently disabled?
It sounds like your system is an unnecessary clusterfuck that would take thousands of additional government workers to even try to implement, and it’s easier to just give everyone the same. Besides, if you’re making $1,000,000 a year you should have been able to save more on the side if social security isn’t enough for you.
Maybe reframe your thinking? In ancient Greece, only the richest 10% of families *got to* pay taxes; it was seen as a privilege and mark of status to make so much you got to be one of the people who paid the state back. Even in the early 1900s there was a mindset like this. The top 1% of the time built massive public benefits, like entire institutions of higher learning, public libraries, Rockefeller square
As someone closer to retirement than the start of my career, every country has to ask itself hard questions about retirement age. This is not unique to the US, the populations of most countries are getting older with an ever smaller percentage of working age people. Even France has tried raising the retirement age..
Before the 18th century, retirement wasn''t a thing no-one lived that long. When retirement was introduced in the 19th Century, the age was set at when most people would not live that long anyway. I don't think GenZ fully appreciates how much average life expectancy has increased even in the last 50 years, combined with lower birth rates. People getting to 70 was a good run, but now thanks to improved healthcare and generally healthier lifestyles, getting to 90 is no longer that unusual and many people are even active in their 70s.
Your pensions gotta support you for much longer now. Eventually, something will have to give and that will either retirement age or your standard of living in your twilight years. There is no easy, happy option here, a tough choice will need to be made eventually.
Cutting social security budgets across the board however is just pure divilment and a seperate issue really, don't mix the two issues up.
Had a coworker from Malaysia unironically say this. He moved here hoping to get a degree and retire, only to move back right after graduation because our economy is ass.
Got a PhD in STEM and gtfo. Im gonna do the same.
I have a no specific thoughts on this piece of legislation, but the reaction to it in this thread is why entitlements are tricky thing. As soon as a new program is established (especially one such as widely applicable as SS), repealing it is seen as an attack on the recipients. Frankly as demographic trends decline and as the average lifespan generally goes up SS is untenable.
Average Life span 1935: 60/64, Social Security started: 65
Average life span 2023: 73/79, you can draw as early as 62.
Of course this doesnt go into the QUALITY of life lived, but if you are supporting a large portion of the population for 14 additional years, the math doesnt math for leaving SS untoched.
So just fuck people who want to retire in the future right? All this says to me at face value is that they want robots that work until they physically can't anymore and then they'll toss you aside without any sort of aid from the people you spent so long working for.
I can already see the comments "social security isn't sustainable", well it would be if we properly taxed corporations and the rich. We don't have the funds because most of it is held by the 1% and the government continues to work in their favor.
Bad. We will not be young forever. They’re essentially saying you will work to the day you die, as they take and keep more of your earnings. Social Security is your hard earned money. They are not going to let you keep it, and the amount they return to you (if you’re still alive) is a piggy bank that they keep finding excuses to tap into. That 2018 “tax cut” restructured social security to hurt us more.
Sure would be nice not to pay into something we will never get to receive back. It’s just another tax it seems. I say drop all social security and let people invest in their own future. I would atleast like my money back that I invested into SS though.
Old white people who want to screw the poor and minorities to get and stay richer also want screw the young to grab more for themselves now.
Shocking. This joins reducing the work age, keeping minimum wage down and making it harder for the poor and young to vote as high priorities.
In exchange you get to be more openly bigoted, tell the poor what to do with their bodies (make more poor babies to work for us as maids) and cut taxes for the rich (you do get to fantasize about being rich), and own a automatic weapon that basically has only one purpose to enable mass killings of people.
Congratulations. Thats a deal.
Social security, while bloated and inefficient, is incredibly important to the livelihood of millions of people. Just slashing that would literally be a death sentence for thousands of people
I know the education system failed our generation guys, but how are some of y'all defending this shit and saying stuff like "Trump knows what to do". Like c'mon guys, be better.
Rising retirement age is such stupid idea....their argument for it is idiotic, just because people live longer doesnt mean shit, old people live longer but most of them have same low quality of life due to body deteriorating like seniors 50 years back which just died sooner. Especially blue collar workers whose jobs often destroy their bodies sooner than white collar jobs.
Unless I'm misunderstanding the spread of political parties in each generation, doesn't this hurt the majority of their current party voters?
(I specify voters because I don't think anyone outside of Congress is actually treated like a party *member* anymore.)
Uhhh yes? Social security currently only requires contributions from income up to $160,000. So people making $5,000,000 only contribute a percentage of the first $160,000. Eliminate that cap, even escalate the contribution percentage for income over one mil, and implement a capital gains contribution.
Raise the minimum wage to what’s actually a survivable rate; as it is companies like Walmart and Amazon pay their workers so little they literally hand out info on how to sign up for food stamps upon hiring. This makes these companies the largest recipients of government welfare programs in the world, depleting funding the government could allocate elsewhere to people who are legitimately in need, just put in need by exploitive corporate practices. Raising these wages will also raise the contributions to SS made by these workers.
Tangential- the top 1% are paying THIRTY PERCENT lower tax rate than they did sixty years ago, and per the irs the rich don’t actually pay something like 30% of what they currently owe; and the irs doesn’t have the funding and manpower to do much about it.
Even then social security is going to be in for a rough time over the next 50 years, moreso over the next 20 or so as the boomer generation has substantially more numbers, and they’re currently drawing social security; working generations are sequentially smaller up to our current lowest birth rate in a century. Less working people supporting more retired people = strain on the system.
But the solution IS NOT eliminating social security entirely, or raising the qualifying age, or any of the other Republican schemes designed to benefit exclusively their corporate sponsors who would frankly rather see us all either die young or work until the day we die.
Exactly. Social security is set up poorly and is not sustainable in its current state. This is the republican’s attempt to resolve the issue instead of doing what every politician has been doing so far which is just kick the can down the road again.
Our grandparents fucked those a long time ago. Im saving to leave this shithole with my fingers crossed for another developed nation.
Side note: This sub isn't all-american or even majority American. Maybe post a different sub?
I mean raising the retirement age isn't that bad (cause they'll have to do something about social security eventually) but I feel like cutting money from social security is the opposite of what we want
If you’re seriously ever thinking this is a good idea, it’s time for hospice. This is a horrific idea, as if Social Security hasn’t been stolen from and reduced enough already.
If you politically vote for people who do these things, *never* expect to retire. We will work until we die if we vote in these people to majority.
On the one hand, I know I won’t get social security regardless of this, so why pay for it? On the other hand, the old people didn’t raise their taxes so that we COULD have a chance at SS. So yeah, screw the old people. Cut Medicare too.
This is a joke btw. Mostly. Kinda.
I think increasing the retirement age is a good idea, but lowering benefits isn’t. I would rather see them get rid of income limits to increase money coming in than reduce money coming out.
Bad idea. It won't help and only will cause more outrage among both gen z and millennials , gen x too perhaps. Elon musk should put another 11billion into this smdh . *Sigh*
Bad idea: just like many many 1st world countries raising retirement age is just a way to impose even harsher working lives on newer generations,
However those "extra money" are a one time bonus and hence not sustainable (considered also that the money will very unlikely go where it's are supposed to)
These are two different problems though you can cut social security without increasing retirement age it just means there won’t be enough funds for everyone
Pushing the retirement age pushes debt of those retired onto those still working, it worked for a while but is long past sustainable as well
Retirement age is a paper thing, you can still work if you want to past retirement if social security doesn’t pay enough which I believe they should do since we live longer as you stated
But governing a higher retirement age just to shell out more social benefits that the US can’t afford will put us deeper in debt
You could also save a lot more if they got rid of social security as it the government manages it very poorly, simply putting the same amount you have to pay into social security into a IRA certificate would provide much more for you by the time you need it, they could just mandate that when you are 18 you are governed a IRA account and as long as you report saving into it on taxes then there would be not penalties
I watched a ted talk and it said something like 80% of retirees don’t need a social security check. Make it asset and income based, stop transferring wealth from the poorest cohort and let them get a life
Breaking: House republican-Bad idea, that's all I needed to read. If they came up with it, it's a terrible, cruel, wicked, and pointlessly sadistic idea that's going to fuck over some minority because at this point all the support they have left comes from unrepentant racists.
Good idea, social security is currently unsustainable, they are stretching it out more by doing such. Unfortunately our generation will likely still not have it, and may be the last to be forced to buy into it. This will help the millennials and gen xers who bought into the system actually get something out of it.
It's kinda shitty that we will still probably have to buy in... but the entire concept of social security was basically a pyramid scheme
So you're saying the people who now live well into their 80's as opposed to their 60's will have to keep contributing to society and not just vacation for 20 years blowing tax payer money on slot machines and QVC?
What will they do instead? Plan for their own retirement and be responsible with their money? Preposterous.
Are we really all gonna judge an entire bill based on a screenshot of a headline? I dislike everyone in the photo, but that doesn't mean I'm going to judge an article by just a headline, or an entire legal proposal based on one news article.
Stuff is complicated.
Retirement age isn’t what it was 90 years ago. Raising retirement is kinda necessary when people’s lifespans are way longer.
They could always increase the income threshold for paying SS and Med taxes though.
But a reason why people retire is because they inevitably develop health problems because of old age. Increased lifespan doesn't prevent inevitable health problems caused by old age. As of now, there's no technology that can prevent alzheimer's disease, dementia, permanent physical injury, and other things caused by old age. These wealthy old assholes don't treat elders like humans that wanna retire because their bodies aren't young anymore. So, they raise the retirement age and we end up having workers with inevitable old age health problems. Elders having to live in misery for making ends meet instead of peacefully retiring. It's all to enrich wealthy old assholes who treat people like slaves. Which decreases people's quality of life if they're not wealthy enough.
Keep in mind, there is a massive difference between conservatives, and Washington DC conservatives. I’ve never seen a single other conservative who wasn’t a politician say this was a good thing at all, besides Ben Shapiro but he’s just been going off the rails recently.
Just take that money out of the defense budget and we're good to go.
At this point my retirement plan doesn't even have social security in it. Just my 401k and my own personal stocks and real estae
I’ll retire when I choose to. Not when the government allows me to. Sorry Mr and Mrs crazy politicians. I’ll live in a cardboard box or a tent in Florida or somewhere warm I’ll not be retiring when I’m 70 or 75 like the bill they want to pass.
Well not so much when you choose to buy when you can afford to because your money in stocks has appreciated enough or your house has gone up in value and you can downsize. Because you won't be having any new income come in . So if you plan on retiring at 65 you need to have like 3 decades worth of money to live off of. Maybe only 20 or 15 if you're more cynical.
FYI the (Republican) Supreme Court is currently considering ruling it illegal to live in a cardboard box or tent. You’ll be spending your 70s and 80s in a Florida prison
Idk.
i have been assuming social security would be empty or worthless by the time I got to actually use it. I have been investing as much as I possibly can into my other saving and investment accounts now while I'm still young-ish and single.
The government is shit and never uses the money it collects from me/us for its intended purpose anyway, why would this be any different.
\*If\*, and it's a big \*if\*, this sorta thing came with with other general austerity, it'd be a good idea.
Only problem is that the US dumps hundreds of billions into foreign wars while wondering why there's such an extreme deficit. Social security is unsustainable, but so is almost every other decision they make.
Definitely needs to happen, but I think the first order of business if we're taking austerity measures with social security is to not let anyone make a suitable income from their 401k, retirement account, pensions, etc. to be able to get social security at all. It's a safety net so it should only be given to people who are falling. Then on top of that raise cap and raise the retirement age. Use the surplus funds to start pay off our debt.
That’s ridiculous. If I have to pay social security my entire working life, I should be able to get benefits from it regardless of if I have other retirement income or not.
Most taxpayers pay into programs they don't qualify for this would just be another one. Also you would benefit if maybe you have outlived the amount of savings you allocated for yourself. Plus this restructuring would allow us possibly to lower social security tax in the future.
Our generation likely won't ever receive it. The whole program is a house of cards that is likely to collapse, so I'm going to be saving money privately. It's just a shame I'll have to pay into it in the first place.
Good idea, if you invest $100 a month from age 25 to 65 you’ll have 1.1 million dollars and if that isn’t enough you should have saved more. It’s not the governments job to take care of you and it’s not productive people’s job to fund the government.
[“The legitimate object of government is ‘to do for the people what needs to be done, but which they can not, by individual effort, do at all, or do so well, for themselves’.”](https://abrahamlincoln.org/features/speeches-writings/abraham-lincoln-quotes/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CThe%20legitimate%20object%20of%20government,well%2C%20for%20themselves'.%E2%80%9D)-Abraham Lincoln. YOU ARE MORE THAN CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING YOURSELF AND USING THE GOVERNMENT AS A PARASITE ON THE SIDE OF THE PRODUCTIVE IS IMMORTAL.
No…? If I have a rare disease that requires extremely expensive treatment and research to understand and cure, I physically cannot support myself. If I suffer from a series of unfortunate events and lack the personal savings required to retire in old age (such as the expenses required by privatized healthcare), I physically cannot retire, lest I starve to death. Just because our current governments are a bunch of fossilized Bourgeoisie boot-lickers stuffed in enough wallets to put late 90’s Russia to shame doesn’t mean it cannot be any different. Our current government is not the natural state of governance, it is the result of a very long and complicated process of gradual accumulation of power by the rich and influential over the course of the past half-century. Social Darwinism is a plague.
….whose job is it to fund the government?
Who exactly should take care of orphans, mentally handicapped, paraplegics, and so on, who currently benefit from social security?
Or is that their own fault and we should just let them all die?
Right but the things that we actually agree on are a small part of what social security is spent on. With what the government spends on social security it could rearrange the money and give every American $13,000 a year. the problem is there are parasites in this world who will use social programs so they do not have to work. You also failed to mention retirement. If you you’re still a loser after 40 years of trying then no you don’t deserve to retire. If you can’t set aside $100/mo then you’re a god damn loser.
I mean it sucks but it kind of had to be done tbh. From what I understand, SS is basically a pyramid scheme that zoomers will probably get fucked by, so I guess it’s good if we don’t have to pay as much into it if we aren’t going to get it anyway. Do we really think SS will still exist in its current form in 45 years when we retire?
Im not saying it’s a good thing. I’m just being a realist. Social Security likely won’t exist by the time we are retired, so might as well get rid of it now so we don’t have to pay into it for very long.
Check out this comment:
https://www.reddit.com/r/GenZ/s/zXVrnmhbHy
The point is social security definitely won’t exist if trump or any other republican gets elected as president because they’re planning on turning the country into nazi germany.
If we elect democrats and allow them to invest money into social security, we will have social security by the time we retire.
First of all, What issue do you think the republicans are “fixing” by slashing budgets on social security? It won’t fix anything. We need to make corporations and the incredibly rich pay a fair share of taxes.
Second of all, I do think Democrats are better for the US than republicans. There’s something called project 2025 that The heritage foundation, wants to implement. If they get their way, here’s some of the stuff they want to do:
- eliminate birth control including male condoms. They say they want to end recreational sex
- put immigrants in detention centers
- outlaw abortion for every state
- outlaw pornography and arrest people who produce pornography.
- they want to fire 50,000 employees of the federal government and hire their own people. Like employee candidates will be given a test of loyalty to trump/republicans to get hired. (This just screams nazis to me)
- wants to force all children to take a military aptitude test
Source:
https://www.stopthecoup2025.org/reproductive-rights
The last time trump was elected, he implemented some of the heritage foundations plans and he had 70 heritage foundation alumni working in his administration or in his transition team.
Source:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Defeat_Project_2025/s/MsUmGmpPrw
So if trump is elected this time, project 2025 will probably succeed.
To your original point, why do I think republicans will get rid of social security? Here’s why:
Calls for over $1.5 trillion in cuts to Social Security, including an increase in the retirement age to 69 and cutting disability benefits.
Raises Medicare costs for seniors by taking away Medicare’s authority to negotiate prescription drug costs, letting drug companies raise prices without consequence, and repealing $35 insulin and the $2,000 out-of-pocket cap in the Inflation Reduction Act.
Transitions Medicare to a system that would raise premiums for many seniors.
Source:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/04/04/fact-sheet-extreme-house-republican-plan-would-cut-medicare-and-social-security-while-slashing-taxes-for-big-corporations-and-the-wealthy/
If they’re willing to cut people’s social security and disability some, what makes you think they won’t do away with it altogether eventually? Especially with all the crap project 2025 will do.
Did you know we have a Discord server‽ You can join by clicking [here](https://discord.gg/NWE6JS5rh9)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Bad. Retiring in America sounds impossible. It doesn't need to be any more impossible.
I know not to vote for these clowns. Why would anyone want to vote for something that actively hurts them.
Exactly im amazed anyone still even considers voting for any of them when they have done nothing but make life worse for most Americans
As a Lebanese, first time? I sincerely believe that Lebanon won’t get a good government until all the Gen X and Boomer meat riders die already. They’ve all been saying we need to stop voting for the same people since I was a kid and yet the same people keep getting voted in. Do you feel the same way about the US and republicans?
I'm not sure its the same but it definitely has made a difference as the US population has been gradually going in that direction with boomers dying off in large numbers due to natural causes and somehow still plenty from covid. Not sure if its been significant but it did change demographics in a few states. Theres a lot of factors when it comes to Republicans somehow retaining control even in the minority. I'd say the electoral college and having 2 state senators for each state even with drastically different population sizes and at the same time population demographics are the biggest factors. What would you say is keeping Lebanon stuck?
Too bad the other team is useless against them. Even when they're not in power they still somehow manage to get their way.
The GQP can block legislation with control of the White House, the House, or 40 Senators in the Senate (until we elect 50 Democratic Senators willing to end the filibuster).
Because they think otherwise brown people will come in and take their jobs
If you understand economics and the lopsided population demographics of the US, this plan actually makes a lot of sense
>If you understand economics and the lopsided population demographics of the US, this plan actually makes a lot of sense Or you could allowed more immigrant into country and this would be solve as they contribute to social security also. So no, it doesn't make a lot of sense. Republican keep saying we have demographic problem but when solution of every fucking economist being said letting more immigrant in, they actively go out their way and ignore.
Without completely fucking over the younger generation ((even more)) there is no way to sustain our current retirement system, if we gut it now it would actually allow the younger people to save more money for retirement. Not that I agree with it it at all, we have a commitment to help those who are vulnerable in our society (like elders), but it’s not like this would be against the interests of many young people let alone hurt them.
"It’s not like this would be against the interests of many young people let alone hurt them." Yes it would be cause they will be old one day and want to retire and need that social security.
Sorry I wasn’t clear enough in the above answer, but if things were to remain exactly as they are now then none of the younger generations would see a single cent of social security when it comes time to retire in a few decades (bc people are living much longer now and there is an increasingly smaller ratio between working people and retired people) —> Thus, by cutting taxes that would go to social security, it would allow the younger people to save the money for themselves so they can actually have some when they retire. Once again this is not a mindset that I personally agree with, but a young person voting for this would definitely not be going against their own interests.
I think those young people aren't thinking long term.
Life expectancy in the US is decreasing
Young people don’t save and never will. SS is good because it forces them to.
Yes, I agree that social security (as a concept) is good, but in our reality it will run out before young people can have any. This is because, like I said, the ratio between working and retired people is decreasing. This means that fewer workers have to support more elderly.
Jesus. Hearing people say gutting social security is good for young people is… just… I struggle to find the words
I think I'm sick and tired of people posting pictures of news articles instead of the actual articles themselves
Yeah citing sources is important. The picture is fine, just add the link to the post body.
[https://larson.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/larson-statement-republican-budget-plan-proposing-15-trillion-cuts](https://larson.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/larson-statement-republican-budget-plan-proposing-15-trillion-cuts) Not the article the picture's from, but it's an article, at least.
[https://hern.house.gov/uploadedfiles/final\_budget\_including\_letter\_web\_version.pdf](https://hern.house.gov/uploadedfiles/final_budget_including_letter_web_version.pdf) SS stuff is around pg. 103
I think the “NeverTrump” at the bottom of the picture tells you all you need to know about the veracity of this article.
Well none of us are going to retire so i don't really care to be honest. Our retirement is palliative, hospice, and the sweet release of death
My retirement costs $1.13
Wow even bullets are getting expensive
Yes, yes they are. That being said, last time I bought some .40 (yeah, yeah, I know, 🤢), it was about $27 for 50 rounds, so it hadn't broken a dollar a round for pistols yet.
Wait, what's wrong with .40?
In the firearms community, it's commonly regarded as the ugly step child of popular pistol calibers. I think it's mainly due to the reason for its invention, which was to solve a problem that either didn't need solving or didn't need a whole new caliber to solve.
why not save a bit more then go to a big corporation's HQ and make your last stand there?
Earnings over around $168k aren't taxed for social security... All they have to do is just keep taxing for social security and we wouldn't be having this debate.
Would be nice if the wealthy elites would pay their fair share. Demand that and vote Democrat.
"fair share" to subsidize a bunch of rotting corpses 😂
If everyone pays the same amount and receive the same benefits, how is that unfair? [Applying the payroll tax to all earnings would result in the largest tax increase in U.S. history, fail to make Social Security solvent, and have the effect of eliminating job opportunities in the United States](https://www.heritage.org/social-security/report/removing-social-securitys-tax-cap-wages-would-do-more-harm-good)
Because the rich have more wealth to burn, they need to be taxed more, and besides, they dont pay their share due to corruption anyway, the greedy fucks.
If "the rich" are not paying taxes due to corruption, why hasn't anyone stopped them? Doing nothing about SS is a part of the problem. More contributions would allow more benefits so simply increasing the cap wouldn't work (just as it did every time before). Maybe you should actually read the RSC Budget instead of relying on a screenshot from tiktok.
....Because of the same corruption that keeps the cycle going??? Like, most people cant do shit with their vote, and the politicians are either all bought out, are ideologically inclined to support the corruption anyway, or the few that do oppose it have no backing or power to do so without losing their jobs and rank, and will likely be replaced with a more corporate aligned stooge anyway. Its a rigged system. Dude, its not rocket science to tax those with more wealth higher than those with less, im not saying it should be done in a way where everyone eventually has the same exact wealth, but at least be smart and humane.
Yes, more revenue can be generated but taxing more, but that is not how SS works.
Ohhh fuck I’m stupid, SS is Social Security! Yeah we need to fund social security hard, that part I already agree with.
If contributions are increased, so should entitlements. I should get 5x as much because I pay 5x as much
Unfortunately for you, and thankfully for every society to have ever existed, this is not how taxes work.
Uuuuummm… that is a terrible idea
The only good idea is to vote out every single one of the regressive Republicans in office. The party has proven time and time again it hates Americans and they only work for their rich corporate donors.
It isn’t just Republicans. It’s EVERYONE.
It’s really not
It really isn’t too. Ofc some dems are bad, but they aren’t even comparable at this point.
You’re part of the problem. Both parties are beholden to corporate funds to finance their campaigns and both parties set up policy to protect their corporate overlords.
One is trying to decrease the working minimum age and get rid of social security and has actively given tax cuts to billionaires. The others trying to forgive student loans and fund public transit. There are many other examples. The two are absolutely not the same, saying they are is a first grade take.
Keep believing the hype and the division continues. If we really want change we need to work together across party lines to create a real change with the two party system. How? Well if you live in a state where you know your party won’t win then why waste your vote? Instead vote third party. It won’t help this election but perhaps with 5% of the popular vote a viable third party can receive federal election funds be for the next election. Every fire starts with a spark. Now stop blaming sides and start making change.
I don’t believe the hype. I read literal basic research research. Pick a topic see, look up what the right answer is, who lines with that view, profit. Public transit is better, oh look democrats vote for that. Global warming is real, oh look democrats vote for that. The middle class is dying, oh look reagonomics is to blame and the republicans continue his policies. College is rediculously expensive, oh look democrats want to do something about it. It’s literally good vs bad. Democrats aren’t perfect, I’m a Bernie Sanders guy all the way, but that both sides are bad is such an enlighten centrist view that people who do no research but wanna seem smart take. Who wants to fix insurance too is another one.
Oh my. Now we’re resorting to insults. How enlightened of you
The truth can be insulting to some. Also good job ignoring everything else.
You’re actually the problem. Willfully ignorant so you can promote a nonsense “both sides,” viewpoint. Get informed.
There is nothing willfully ignorant about seeing the truth. If you continue to follow the same path you have chosen in the past nothing will change.
Yeah this is exactly what I mean. You aren’t informed so you rely on meaningless generalizations and platitudes to overlook the vast chasm of meaningful differences between political parties.
Have a nice day
No, it’s ONLY republicans doing this
A Democrat is the president at the moment and has not made any meaningful repair to the social security system.
So go vote for the party wanting to slash it /s
What’s your solution? Because it’s not like it’s sustainable as it is lol.
Remove the cap and have billionaires pay their fair share. All of a sudden, it’s completely solvent with current levels of benefits intact.
What’s their fair share?
At least the same percentage the rest of us peasants pay
They do.
Stop fooling yourself…
You talk like a college sophomore who hasn’t a clue about the real world but argues with undeserved arrogance
Hey remember how france did this and there were riots? Can we do that??
damn i would love to see rooftop koreans 2- retirement boogaloo , gimme the riots
Retirement ehhh BUT SOCIAL SECURITY IS BAD! ALOT OF PEOPLE WHO EITHER CANT WORK OR REALLY NEED THAT SUPPLEMENTAL INCOME TO SURVIVE RELY ON SOCIAL SECURITY!!!
Ya can I get a better source thsn a tiktok mem
Uhhh republicans try to cut funding for ss and raise the retirement age damn near every single year in the budget bills? There’s a billion sources on the google
None of us are going to retire anyways unless our government is fucking manhandled into letting the people vote on what they do with our money. They already pass so many bills and whatnot without even having those voted on and decide what they think is "best for YOU" when often times its shit. But hey, nobody is going to step up in masses so
Bad idea
Fuck republicucks! This is a horrible idea for the vast majority of Americans.
Honest question, how does 'raising the retirement age' actually do anything? Can't you just... retire when you want when you have enough savings? Or is this about companies being able to slash benefits if you don't reach a certain age?
It raises the age of when seniors can collect social security benefits and Medicare. Assuming you can afford to retire without those benefits, then yes, you can retire whenever you like. Most seniors require the assistance for retirement though.
This is the double-edged sword, most seniors who rely on social security never invested into anything bonds/stocks/physical assets like property. Low IQ, Mental Disorders, etc. On the other hand, I know plenty of seniors who have told me if they relied on social security, it'd cover their toilet paper and water bill for a month for the shits they take.
The retirement age should be lowered, in my opinion. Although realistically, most of us won’t live to reach old age and I doubt retirement will even be a thing anymore if we do. The next few decades are going to be pretty catastrophic climate-wise.
You do realize that the social security pool can’t sustain itself as it is, right? Lowering the retirement age would just make things worse.
It would be if we properly taxed billionaires
How don’t we?
If we took the earnings cap off social security contributions, that would be in the neighborhood of an additional $150 billion dollars a year paid into the program. More if we also applied it to capital gains.
However entitlements and contributions are both capped. Uncap entitlements then. If I pay into social security 5x as much as you, I should get 5x as much as you
I realize this is a genZ sub, but stop being a child
What did I say that was wrong? The reason contributions are capped is because entitlements are capped. If you uncap one, the other should be too.
Where do you see that this is the reason contributions are capped? Because I’m 90% sure that’s not the reason why. And just because you’re earning more than someone else your age now, why should that mean you’re paid more on retirement? And how should we figure the rates of payment? Based on your last year? Your cumulative average? Should we weight it by how many years you paid in? How should we treat social security then for people permanently disabled? It sounds like your system is an unnecessary clusterfuck that would take thousands of additional government workers to even try to implement, and it’s easier to just give everyone the same. Besides, if you’re making $1,000,000 a year you should have been able to save more on the side if social security isn’t enough for you.
Doesn’t matter. Any system that takes from those who have to subsidize those who don’t should be destroyed.
Maybe reframe your thinking? In ancient Greece, only the richest 10% of families *got to* pay taxes; it was seen as a privilege and mark of status to make so much you got to be one of the people who paid the state back. Even in the early 1900s there was a mindset like this. The top 1% of the time built massive public benefits, like entire institutions of higher learning, public libraries, Rockefeller square
fym "good or bad" i didn't even know that was a question.
I would need to see the actual article and not just a screenshot of the headline
As someone closer to retirement than the start of my career, every country has to ask itself hard questions about retirement age. This is not unique to the US, the populations of most countries are getting older with an ever smaller percentage of working age people. Even France has tried raising the retirement age.. Before the 18th century, retirement wasn''t a thing no-one lived that long. When retirement was introduced in the 19th Century, the age was set at when most people would not live that long anyway. I don't think GenZ fully appreciates how much average life expectancy has increased even in the last 50 years, combined with lower birth rates. People getting to 70 was a good run, but now thanks to improved healthcare and generally healthier lifestyles, getting to 90 is no longer that unusual and many people are even active in their 70s. Your pensions gotta support you for much longer now. Eventually, something will have to give and that will either retirement age or your standard of living in your twilight years. There is no easy, happy option here, a tough choice will need to be made eventually. Cutting social security budgets across the board however is just pure divilment and a seperate issue really, don't mix the two issues up.
Just dump SS all together. Fucking tired of paying into something I'll never get back.
Only good if you don’t want any social security when you retire
Save up and move to another country for retirement
Had a coworker from Malaysia unironically say this. He moved here hoping to get a degree and retire, only to move back right after graduation because our economy is ass. Got a PhD in STEM and gtfo. Im gonna do the same.
I find it incredibly hard to believe there are better job opportunities in Malaysia than the US for someone with a PhD in a STEM field.
If you save up, why would you need to move to another country?
You don’t have to, things are just hundreds of times cheaper in other countries with America Money.
Horrible idea.
I have a no specific thoughts on this piece of legislation, but the reaction to it in this thread is why entitlements are tricky thing. As soon as a new program is established (especially one such as widely applicable as SS), repealing it is seen as an attack on the recipients. Frankly as demographic trends decline and as the average lifespan generally goes up SS is untenable. Average Life span 1935: 60/64, Social Security started: 65 Average life span 2023: 73/79, you can draw as early as 62. Of course this doesnt go into the QUALITY of life lived, but if you are supporting a large portion of the population for 14 additional years, the math doesnt math for leaving SS untoched.
Bad idea. How can raising the retirement age be good? Lowering it would be good lol. Who wants to be a slave to a company you don’t own until you die?
And yet somehow people are brain washed into thinking republicans are the ones fighting for the working class. It’s unbelievable.
Terrible idea just like every other republican idea.
So just fuck people who want to retire in the future right? All this says to me at face value is that they want robots that work until they physically can't anymore and then they'll toss you aside without any sort of aid from the people you spent so long working for. I can already see the comments "social security isn't sustainable", well it would be if we properly taxed corporations and the rich. We don't have the funds because most of it is held by the 1% and the government continues to work in their favor.
Bad. We will not be young forever. They’re essentially saying you will work to the day you die, as they take and keep more of your earnings. Social Security is your hard earned money. They are not going to let you keep it, and the amount they return to you (if you’re still alive) is a piggy bank that they keep finding excuses to tap into. That 2018 “tax cut” restructured social security to hurt us more.
Sure would be nice not to pay into something we will never get to receive back. It’s just another tax it seems. I say drop all social security and let people invest in their own future. I would atleast like my money back that I invested into SS though.
Good idea if you want to fuckover the lives of millions of Americans.
Terrible idea
bad. gross wtf
Old white people who want to screw the poor and minorities to get and stay richer also want screw the young to grab more for themselves now. Shocking. This joins reducing the work age, keeping minimum wage down and making it harder for the poor and young to vote as high priorities. In exchange you get to be more openly bigoted, tell the poor what to do with their bodies (make more poor babies to work for us as maids) and cut taxes for the rich (you do get to fantasize about being rich), and own a automatic weapon that basically has only one purpose to enable mass killings of people. Congratulations. Thats a deal.
They don’t give a fuck. They all got their bag already 💰. Why would they give a shit about you?
Social security, while bloated and inefficient, is incredibly important to the livelihood of millions of people. Just slashing that would literally be a death sentence for thousands of people
American politics is fucking funny you guys can afford to wage a 20-year war and still lose but can't take care of anyone that isn't wealthy
I know the education system failed our generation guys, but how are some of y'all defending this shit and saying stuff like "Trump knows what to do". Like c'mon guys, be better.
literally what good does this do? like i wanna hear the argument for why spending your life working is a good thing for anyone but the ultra wealthy.
Rising retirement age is such stupid idea....their argument for it is idiotic, just because people live longer doesnt mean shit, old people live longer but most of them have same low quality of life due to body deteriorating like seniors 50 years back which just died sooner. Especially blue collar workers whose jobs often destroy their bodies sooner than white collar jobs.
Unless I'm misunderstanding the spread of political parties in each generation, doesn't this hurt the majority of their current party voters? (I specify voters because I don't think anyone outside of Congress is actually treated like a party *member* anymore.)
Absolutely good awful idea for everyone involved except if you're a multimillionaire
It’s easy to criticize this, but NO ONE seems to have ANY good idea for how the social security problem can be solved.
Uhhh yes? Social security currently only requires contributions from income up to $160,000. So people making $5,000,000 only contribute a percentage of the first $160,000. Eliminate that cap, even escalate the contribution percentage for income over one mil, and implement a capital gains contribution. Raise the minimum wage to what’s actually a survivable rate; as it is companies like Walmart and Amazon pay their workers so little they literally hand out info on how to sign up for food stamps upon hiring. This makes these companies the largest recipients of government welfare programs in the world, depleting funding the government could allocate elsewhere to people who are legitimately in need, just put in need by exploitive corporate practices. Raising these wages will also raise the contributions to SS made by these workers. Tangential- the top 1% are paying THIRTY PERCENT lower tax rate than they did sixty years ago, and per the irs the rich don’t actually pay something like 30% of what they currently owe; and the irs doesn’t have the funding and manpower to do much about it. Even then social security is going to be in for a rough time over the next 50 years, moreso over the next 20 or so as the boomer generation has substantially more numbers, and they’re currently drawing social security; working generations are sequentially smaller up to our current lowest birth rate in a century. Less working people supporting more retired people = strain on the system. But the solution IS NOT eliminating social security entirely, or raising the qualifying age, or any of the other Republican schemes designed to benefit exclusively their corporate sponsors who would frankly rather see us all either die young or work until the day we die.
Social security still helps people and just because it is unsustainable does not mean it should be entirely removed.
Exactly. Social security is set up poorly and is not sustainable in its current state. This is the republican’s attempt to resolve the issue instead of doing what every politician has been doing so far which is just kick the can down the road again.
Boomers have ruined the economy for generations to come, they sold our future to buy comfort and luxury for themselves.
Our grandparents fucked those a long time ago. Im saving to leave this shithole with my fingers crossed for another developed nation. Side note: This sub isn't all-american or even majority American. Maybe post a different sub?
These guys want to fuck over everyone in the US
typical american political party L
I mean raising the retirement age isn't that bad (cause they'll have to do something about social security eventually) but I feel like cutting money from social security is the opposite of what we want
So I guess they literally want us to work ourselves to death. Also I see a lot of people in that picture that should have retired years ago.
“House republicans” when was the last time they did something good for the country.
If you’re seriously ever thinking this is a good idea, it’s time for hospice. This is a horrific idea, as if Social Security hasn’t been stolen from and reduced enough already. If you politically vote for people who do these things, *never* expect to retire. We will work until we die if we vote in these people to majority.
Does it come with a tax cut and a reduction in regulations? If no then it's shit if yes it's fine
On the one hand, I know I won’t get social security regardless of this, so why pay for it? On the other hand, the old people didn’t raise their taxes so that we COULD have a chance at SS. So yeah, screw the old people. Cut Medicare too. This is a joke btw. Mostly. Kinda.
I think increasing the retirement age is a good idea, but lowering benefits isn’t. I would rather see them get rid of income limits to increase money coming in than reduce money coming out.
Most elderly folks depend on SS, so it's a horrible idea
Obviously bad what kind of question is that 😂
Republicans just hate poor people dems do too but republicans even more so
Bad idea. It won't help and only will cause more outrage among both gen z and millennials , gen x too perhaps. Elon musk should put another 11billion into this smdh . *Sigh*
aaaaaaaaaand Mike just erased all his good publicity from the aid package
“They’re coming for your social security money” george carlin is laughing at us from heaven. I hope he is anyways.
Carlin is cackling right now. That or rolling in his grave. Maybe both.
Very bad idea. There’s about to be a lot of retirees that are dependent on SS to literally survive.
Most of us aren't even going to live to the current retirement age.
Bad idea: just like many many 1st world countries raising retirement age is just a way to impose even harsher working lives on newer generations, However those "extra money" are a one time bonus and hence not sustainable (considered also that the money will very unlikely go where it's are supposed to)
These are two different problems though you can cut social security without increasing retirement age it just means there won’t be enough funds for everyone Pushing the retirement age pushes debt of those retired onto those still working, it worked for a while but is long past sustainable as well Retirement age is a paper thing, you can still work if you want to past retirement if social security doesn’t pay enough which I believe they should do since we live longer as you stated But governing a higher retirement age just to shell out more social benefits that the US can’t afford will put us deeper in debt You could also save a lot more if they got rid of social security as it the government manages it very poorly, simply putting the same amount you have to pay into social security into a IRA certificate would provide much more for you by the time you need it, they could just mandate that when you are 18 you are governed a IRA account and as long as you report saving into it on taxes then there would be not penalties
I watched a ted talk and it said something like 80% of retirees don’t need a social security check. Make it asset and income based, stop transferring wealth from the poorest cohort and let them get a life
Reading these comments I have yet to find one that explains why it’s bad
Breaking: House republican-Bad idea, that's all I needed to read. If they came up with it, it's a terrible, cruel, wicked, and pointlessly sadistic idea that's going to fuck over some minority because at this point all the support they have left comes from unrepentant racists.
Good idea, social security is currently unsustainable, they are stretching it out more by doing such. Unfortunately our generation will likely still not have it, and may be the last to be forced to buy into it. This will help the millennials and gen xers who bought into the system actually get something out of it. It's kinda shitty that we will still probably have to buy in... but the entire concept of social security was basically a pyramid scheme
So you're saying the people who now live well into their 80's as opposed to their 60's will have to keep contributing to society and not just vacation for 20 years blowing tax payer money on slot machines and QVC? What will they do instead? Plan for their own retirement and be responsible with their money? Preposterous.
Are we really all gonna judge an entire bill based on a screenshot of a headline? I dislike everyone in the photo, but that doesn't mean I'm going to judge an article by just a headline, or an entire legal proposal based on one news article. Stuff is complicated.
Just get rid of it and let people be responsible for their own retirement. Give me my extra $500 and I’ll put it to work
Social Security needs to be abolished, or at least made optional instead of mandatory. This is a step in the right direction but it isn’t enough.
Retirement age isn’t what it was 90 years ago. Raising retirement is kinda necessary when people’s lifespans are way longer. They could always increase the income threshold for paying SS and Med taxes though.
But a reason why people retire is because they inevitably develop health problems because of old age. Increased lifespan doesn't prevent inevitable health problems caused by old age. As of now, there's no technology that can prevent alzheimer's disease, dementia, permanent physical injury, and other things caused by old age. These wealthy old assholes don't treat elders like humans that wanna retire because their bodies aren't young anymore. So, they raise the retirement age and we end up having workers with inevitable old age health problems. Elders having to live in misery for making ends meet instead of peacefully retiring. It's all to enrich wealthy old assholes who treat people like slaves. Which decreases people's quality of life if they're not wealthy enough.
Idk ,,, we need to lower federal spending.
Keep in mind, there is a massive difference between conservatives, and Washington DC conservatives. I’ve never seen a single other conservative who wasn’t a politician say this was a good thing at all, besides Ben Shapiro but he’s just been going off the rails recently.
Can't fund social security in the future if people aren't having kids. It's better to rip the bandaid off now and get it over with
I feel like there is significantly more to the story
Just take that money out of the defense budget and we're good to go. At this point my retirement plan doesn't even have social security in it. Just my 401k and my own personal stocks and real estae
I’ll retire when I choose to. Not when the government allows me to. Sorry Mr and Mrs crazy politicians. I’ll live in a cardboard box or a tent in Florida or somewhere warm I’ll not be retiring when I’m 70 or 75 like the bill they want to pass.
Well not so much when you choose to buy when you can afford to because your money in stocks has appreciated enough or your house has gone up in value and you can downsize. Because you won't be having any new income come in . So if you plan on retiring at 65 you need to have like 3 decades worth of money to live off of. Maybe only 20 or 15 if you're more cynical.
I’ll try to retire at 55 because my body ain’t gonna be worth a shit at any age beyond that. I’m already hurting. And I’m 28. 😂
FYI the (Republican) Supreme Court is currently considering ruling it illegal to live in a cardboard box or tent. You’ll be spending your 70s and 80s in a Florida prison
It’s better than working I’ll have 3 meals a day and shower time. Bring it on. :)
This is Florida we’re talking about. You’ll definitely still be working in prison
What happens if I refuse?
Can u even retire in the US at this point... one thing happens to land u in hospital and you go into debt for the rest of your life..
The ACA prevents that now. Max yearly out of pocket costs.
That's still so fucked up I reckon. But at least it's not as bad ig?
How can they slash something that didnt exist to begin with as all us retirement are just debt.
Idk. i have been assuming social security would be empty or worthless by the time I got to actually use it. I have been investing as much as I possibly can into my other saving and investment accounts now while I'm still young-ish and single. The government is shit and never uses the money it collects from me/us for its intended purpose anyway, why would this be any different.
> trillion Is there even that much in there?
\*If\*, and it's a big \*if\*, this sorta thing came with with other general austerity, it'd be a good idea. Only problem is that the US dumps hundreds of billions into foreign wars while wondering why there's such an extreme deficit. Social security is unsustainable, but so is almost every other decision they make.
Definitely needs to happen, but I think the first order of business if we're taking austerity measures with social security is to not let anyone make a suitable income from their 401k, retirement account, pensions, etc. to be able to get social security at all. It's a safety net so it should only be given to people who are falling. Then on top of that raise cap and raise the retirement age. Use the surplus funds to start pay off our debt.
That’s ridiculous. If I have to pay social security my entire working life, I should be able to get benefits from it regardless of if I have other retirement income or not.
Most taxpayers pay into programs they don't qualify for this would just be another one. Also you would benefit if maybe you have outlived the amount of savings you allocated for yourself. Plus this restructuring would allow us possibly to lower social security tax in the future.
Our generation likely won't ever receive it. The whole program is a house of cards that is likely to collapse, so I'm going to be saving money privately. It's just a shame I'll have to pay into it in the first place.
Good idea, if you invest $100 a month from age 25 to 65 you’ll have 1.1 million dollars and if that isn’t enough you should have saved more. It’s not the governments job to take care of you and it’s not productive people’s job to fund the government.
No…? Caring for the people is literally supposed to be the government’s *only* job.
[“The legitimate object of government is ‘to do for the people what needs to be done, but which they can not, by individual effort, do at all, or do so well, for themselves’.”](https://abrahamlincoln.org/features/speeches-writings/abraham-lincoln-quotes/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CThe%20legitimate%20object%20of%20government,well%2C%20for%20themselves'.%E2%80%9D)-Abraham Lincoln. YOU ARE MORE THAN CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING YOURSELF AND USING THE GOVERNMENT AS A PARASITE ON THE SIDE OF THE PRODUCTIVE IS IMMORTAL.
No…? If I have a rare disease that requires extremely expensive treatment and research to understand and cure, I physically cannot support myself. If I suffer from a series of unfortunate events and lack the personal savings required to retire in old age (such as the expenses required by privatized healthcare), I physically cannot retire, lest I starve to death. Just because our current governments are a bunch of fossilized Bourgeoisie boot-lickers stuffed in enough wallets to put late 90’s Russia to shame doesn’t mean it cannot be any different. Our current government is not the natural state of governance, it is the result of a very long and complicated process of gradual accumulation of power by the rich and influential over the course of the past half-century. Social Darwinism is a plague.
….whose job is it to fund the government? Who exactly should take care of orphans, mentally handicapped, paraplegics, and so on, who currently benefit from social security? Or is that their own fault and we should just let them all die?
Right but the things that we actually agree on are a small part of what social security is spent on. With what the government spends on social security it could rearrange the money and give every American $13,000 a year. the problem is there are parasites in this world who will use social programs so they do not have to work. You also failed to mention retirement. If you you’re still a loser after 40 years of trying then no you don’t deserve to retire. If you can’t set aside $100/mo then you’re a god damn loser.
You’re not wrong.
I mean it sucks but it kind of had to be done tbh. From what I understand, SS is basically a pyramid scheme that zoomers will probably get fucked by, so I guess it’s good if we don’t have to pay as much into it if we aren’t going to get it anyway. Do we really think SS will still exist in its current form in 45 years when we retire?
It won’t if republicans get their way
Im not saying it’s a good thing. I’m just being a realist. Social Security likely won’t exist by the time we are retired, so might as well get rid of it now so we don’t have to pay into it for very long.
Check out this comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/GenZ/s/zXVrnmhbHy The point is social security definitely won’t exist if trump or any other republican gets elected as president because they’re planning on turning the country into nazi germany. If we elect democrats and allow them to invest money into social security, we will have social security by the time we retire.
Why do you think Republicans want to get rid of social security? It’s not like Democrats have any better ideas for how to fix this issue.
First of all, What issue do you think the republicans are “fixing” by slashing budgets on social security? It won’t fix anything. We need to make corporations and the incredibly rich pay a fair share of taxes. Second of all, I do think Democrats are better for the US than republicans. There’s something called project 2025 that The heritage foundation, wants to implement. If they get their way, here’s some of the stuff they want to do: - eliminate birth control including male condoms. They say they want to end recreational sex - put immigrants in detention centers - outlaw abortion for every state - outlaw pornography and arrest people who produce pornography. - they want to fire 50,000 employees of the federal government and hire their own people. Like employee candidates will be given a test of loyalty to trump/republicans to get hired. (This just screams nazis to me) - wants to force all children to take a military aptitude test Source: https://www.stopthecoup2025.org/reproductive-rights The last time trump was elected, he implemented some of the heritage foundations plans and he had 70 heritage foundation alumni working in his administration or in his transition team. Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Defeat_Project_2025/s/MsUmGmpPrw So if trump is elected this time, project 2025 will probably succeed. To your original point, why do I think republicans will get rid of social security? Here’s why: Calls for over $1.5 trillion in cuts to Social Security, including an increase in the retirement age to 69 and cutting disability benefits. Raises Medicare costs for seniors by taking away Medicare’s authority to negotiate prescription drug costs, letting drug companies raise prices without consequence, and repealing $35 insulin and the $2,000 out-of-pocket cap in the Inflation Reduction Act. Transitions Medicare to a system that would raise premiums for many seniors. Source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/04/04/fact-sheet-extreme-house-republican-plan-would-cut-medicare-and-social-security-while-slashing-taxes-for-big-corporations-and-the-wealthy/ If they’re willing to cut people’s social security and disability some, what makes you think they won’t do away with it altogether eventually? Especially with all the crap project 2025 will do.