Re: the future long term financial apocalypse of the USA

On Sat, 11 May 2024 22:37:33 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:

On Fri, 10 May 2024 21:02:21 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
>

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:

On 5/10/2024 1:46 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:

For those who are interested in the future long term financial
apocalypse of the USA

=20
More dystopian fiction.   Talk about depressing.

>
Yup, just like reality.
>
USA Social Security sent me a letter the other day and said that if I=20
wait until I am 67 to start taking SS, they will give me $4,000/month.=20
That is an amazing number.  I am wondering that they are going to send >>a=20
hit man instead, much cheaper.

>
Talk to congress,  they've had plenty of warnings and decades to
alleviate the problem, but the fucking unelected grover norquist
has screwed us all.
>
Corporations, who benefit from stable employees, should be
contributing to SS.    They should (as per Warren Buffet)
be paying their fair share, rather than leaching off the
American public.

>
As others have pointed, they are.

>
As far as their half of the ssi insurance, that's true.

SSI and Medicare.

As far as the part that would otherwise have been covered
by a traditional pension, not so much.   And the lack of
pensions is a reason that many need to tap SS early.

That's what the IRA was invented for. And the 401(k).

But you have to have more income than expenses to be able to save
money. So the problem shoots right back from the gummint to the
1%-ers.

As to Social Security problem: AFAIK, the basic problem is that
Congress had, for decades, borrowed from the Social Security funds to
minimize their deficits [1]. Both parties did this. Now the time has
come to /pay the money back/, and they don't want to. The Republicans
don't want to because it would mean raising the Income Tax rates. The
Democrats don't want to because they can always find a better use for
the money raised than boring goal of funding Social Security. At last!
Bipartisanship!

[1] Yes, it is my understanding that, bloated as it is, the National
Debt is less than it would be had Social Security's funds not been
used to avoid the political consequences of keeping the
deficits/National Debt down. Paying the money back may well amount to
simply converting the SSA deficit into an increase in the National
Debt. Some solution is needed, because old people /vote/ and their
children, who will have to support their parents just as they do their
children (the traditional pattern, BTW) also /vote/ and neither group
is going to be happy with reductions. Not even the semi-fascist
ultra-MAGA types.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"