Crosspost to newsgroups Ubi doesn't read cut.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:

The article plagarized by Ubi the shithead is this one:

Whoopi Snaps At Trump, Says If He Touches Entitlements, 'We Could Put
You In Jail'
By Virginia Kruta
The Daily Wire
Mar 12, 2024
https://www.dailywire.com/news/whoopi-snaps-at-trump-says-if-he-touches-entitlements-we-could-put-you-in-jail

>>Whoopi Goldberg snapped at former President Donald Trump on Tuesday, claiming
>>that if he touched entitlements, "we could put you in jail".

>>Goldberg, who was responding to Trump's recent remarks regarding how badly
>>mismanaged entitlements have been in the past, made the comments on ABC's
>>midday talk show THE VIEW.

>>Goldberg began the segment with a clip of Trump giving a phone interview on
>>CNBC's SQUAWK BOX, where he lamented the poor management of entitlement
>>programs in years past.
>>"The bad management, the tremendous bad management of entitlements, there's
>>tremendous amounts of things, number of things you can do," Trump said,
>>apparently suggesting entitlement reform in some fashion.
>>"Yeah, we could put you in jail-- for all of your entitlements," Goldberg
>>said as the clip ended. "You know, Social Security is not an entitlement, we
>>paid for that. We paid for that. Every time you get a check, you paid into
>>the... you know, this is your money!"

>Jeezus Christ, I can't believe I actually agree with Hoo-Pie Goldberg on
>something.

>She's right. Social Security is not an entitlement program the way that
>term is used to describe government welfare schemes. You're not getting
>paid someone else's money merely for existing. You're being paid back
>money you were forced to pay into a system to save for your retirement.
>Yes, you're entitled to it, the same way you're entitled to your own car
>or your own home. But it's not an 'entitlement program', which is just a
>fancier and less pejorative term for welfare.

She's wrong. "Entitlement" is Washington double speak for a program in
which the spending is in the authorization bill, and not appropriated.
Similarly, the Social Security tax is euphemistically called a
"contribution".

It's all moviePig speak.

"Save for your retirement", uh, no. Your taxes paid for pensions
received by Americans already retired. You're fucked.

Don't make me defend Trump. He's absolutely right. The Social Security
pension system is utterly mismanaged.

On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 00:05:51 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>"Save for your retirement", uh, no. Your taxes paid for pensions
>received by Americans already retired. You're fucked.
>
>Don't make me defend Trump. He's absolutely right. The Social Security
>pension system is utterly mismanaged.

Trump's problem is of course that if he talked about "Social Security
reform" nobody would believe him.

Kerman wrote:

>She's wrong. "Entitlement" is Washington double speak for a program in
>which the spending is in the authorization bill, and not appropriated.
>Similarly, the Social Security tax is euphemistically called a
>"contribution".
>
>It's all moviePig speak.
>
>"Save for your retirement", uh, no. Your taxes paid for pensions
>received by Americans already retired. You're fucked.

On Tuesday, I apparently blew up the Internet because I touched the political
third rail. I talked about Social Security.

Now I know what you�re thinking: What�s so spicy about Social Security? And I
will admit I was thinking the same thing.

Well, I said two things.

First, I said that Social Security needs to change. We must raise the
retirement age.

Second, I said that as a general rule, it is not a good personal decision for
people to retire early, unless we are talking about people who suffer a
physical or mental malady as a result of continued work. Retirement,
particularly in the post-familial, post-church age, harms mental health and
robs people of purpose. That doesn�t mean you can�t retire if you want to �
it�s a free country � or that you should be forced not to retire if you can
afford to retire. It means that we should seriously consider what
�retirement� itself means before we jump to the universal belief that
retirement is always good.

Let�s start with the first argument.

There are a few simple facts of the matter with regard to Social Security.
One, we don�t have the money for it: it�s a Ponzi scheme. We don�t have
enough young people to pay for it, and life expectancy has increased. This
means that by 2033, we will in fact be forced to cut benefits or raise taxes.
There is no third option.

This means that the government should not be paying people to phase into
retirement at 62. And make no mistake, that�s what�s happening: Other
taxpayers are paying for your Social Security. The money you paid in was
stolen long ago. Which means that fewer and fewer workers � people generally
poorer than those of retirement age � are paying for more and more retirees.

What�s more, the average person who lives to 60 will live at least another
couple of decades. If you wish to bankrupt the American economy, the
continuation of Social Security as-is is guaranteed to do so. Every single
politician knows this. And they all lie for political gain.

Second, with regard to the personal decision to retire, very often when
people retire, they�re making a bad decision.

Not always, of course: There are people who are suffering from health
problems who don�t want to continue working. That�s understandable. And if
you want to retire on your own dime, because you�ve earned enough to retire,
and you can find other forms of fulfillment aside from work, that�s certainly
your prerogative.

The point I was making is that many people who see retirement as a cure-all
will be disappointed. Statistically, according to one study from the
Institute of Economic Affairs, �while retirement may initially benefit health
� by reducing stress and creating time for other activities, adverse effects
increase the longer retirement goes on. It found retirement increases the
chances of suffering from clinical depression by around 40%, and of having at
least one diagnosed physical illness by 60%.� According to a meta-analysis of
retirees, continuing to work prolonged life for those who worked beyond 65:
�Healthy workers that continued to work until they were 66 had an 11% reduced
mortality risk. Even retirees with health conditions that worked until they
were 66 still had a 9% reduced mortality risk.� Yet another study from Social
Science and Medicine finds that �those who had retired were 40 percent more
likely to have had a heart attack or stroke than those who were still
working.�

My point about retiring is simple: Work provides purpose and fulfillment for
a huge number of people throughout their lives. That purpose and fulfillment
does not automatically disappear at age 65. If we really believe that work is
inherently degrading and joyless, what does an ideal retirement age look
like? In that world, we should be looking to institute a universal basic
income and get rid of work entirely. Which would, of course, be a truly awful
idea.

The vision of retirement we are constantly sold � sitting on a beach in a
lounge chair � may not actually be real for many people. And what�s more, all
people need a sense of purpose � from family, from community, from church.
Our society has steadily removed all of those social institutions from daily
life. The elderly no longer live in intergenerational homes, helping out kids
and grandkids; they�re too often shuttled into old age homes, dependent on
programs like Social Security. Which means a lot of people find that purpose
in work. Retirement from work without getting involved in another job, or
another community purpose, or in church is a recipe for personal malaise.

Now, again, you can choose to retire. Nobody should force you to work; nobody
is suggesting anything like that. But when it comes to government
subsidization of retirement, we can�t afford it, and there�s little evidence
that it�s good public policy.

The solution, of course, is for you to keep your own money. We ought to phase
out the Social Security system � if you�re close to 65, you can�t be left
without a safety net, of course. But we need to move toward a system where
you get to keep your own money, save and invest for the future.

Politicians will continue to lie about this. But we should all understand
that they are, in fact, lying.

--
Let's go Brandon!

On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 04:30:52 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
wrote:

>There are a few simple facts of the matter with regard to Social Security.
>One, we don’t have the money for it: it’s a Ponzi scheme. We don’t have
>enough young people to pay for it, and life expectancy has increased. This
>means that by 2033, we will in fact be forced to cut benefits or raise taxes.
>There is no third option.

That's hardly surprising - when the first old age pension system was
established (by Bismarck in Germany) the average German male lived 68
years so Bismarck set retirement to last only a very short time. These
days average lifespans are at least 10-15 years longer than that so
such universal systems have become much more expensive.

THAT's where age 65 as 'retirement age' came from. >I< retired at 66
but that was more about exiting the family business in a way that
assured continuity after a store relocation than any fixed date.

(For reasons I'm still unsure of my exit took 8 months rather than the
3 weeks expected - and two months after my wife's passing which caught
me by surprise as I never expected to be the surviving spouse)

On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 12:59:41 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 04:30:52 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
>wrote:
>
>>There are a few simple facts of the matter with regard to Social Security.
>>One, we don’t have the money for it: it’s a Ponzi scheme. We don’t have
>>enough young people to pay for it, and life expectancy has increased. This
>>means that by 2033, we will in fact be forced to cut benefits or raise taxes.
>>There is no third option.
>
Except there is a third choice that has been proposed for a long time
which is to raise or eliminate the limit on what income can be taxed
for Social Security. So currently the base limit is $168,600 so any
money earned over that amount doesn't get taxed for Social Security.
Eliminate that limit and there's more than enough money to pay out the
benefits going forward without hurting anyone.

>That's hardly surprising - when the first old age pension system was
>established (by Bismarck in Germany) the average German male lived 68
>years so Bismarck set retirement to last only a very short time. These
>days average lifespans are at least 10-15 years longer than that so
>such universal systems have become much more expensive.
>
>THAT's where age 65 as 'retirement age' came from. >I< retired at 66
>but that was more about exiting the family business in a way that
>assured continuity after a store relocation than any fixed date.
>
>(For reasons I'm still unsure of my exit took 8 months rather than the
>3 weeks expected - and two months after my wife's passing which caught
>me by surprise as I never expected to be the surviving spouse)

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>Sat, 16 Mar 2024 12:59:41 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>Fri, 15 Mar 2024 04:30:52 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:

Ubi the shithead is plagarizing. He didn't write this. He doesn't write
shit.

>>>There are a few simple facts of the matter with regard to Social
>>>Security. One, we don’t have the money for it: it’s a Ponzi
>>>scheme. We don’t have enough young people to pay for it, and life
>>>expectancy has increased. This means that by 2033, we will in fact be
>>>forced to cut benefits or raise taxes. There is no third option.

>Except there is a third choice that has been proposed for a long time
>which is to raise or eliminate the limit on what income can be taxed
>for Social Security. So currently the base limit is $168,600 so any
>money earned over that amount doesn't get taxed for Social Security.
>Eliminate that limit and there's more than enough money to pay out the
>benefits going forward without hurting anyone.

That's simply not true. Uncapping the earned income tax base while not
raising the pension benefit -- which is what you are suggesting -- is
politically infeasible and changes the way Social Security is set up.

Of course there is a third way, and it was suggested by the Problem
Solvers Caucus in Congress: Take a new pot of money and invest it
according to sound principles, and after repaying the federal treasury,
pay out its income in increased retirement benefits that the Social
Security Tax won't cover.

The example of the sound investment strategy is the Alaska Permanent Fund.

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 12:59:41 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 04:30:52 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> There are a few simple facts of the matter with regard to Social Security.
>>> One, we don’t have the money for it: it’s a Ponzi scheme. We don’t have
>>> enough young people to pay for it, and life expectancy has increased. This
>>> means that by 2033, we will in fact be forced to cut benefits or raise taxes.
>>> There is no third option.
>>
> Except there is a third choice that has been proposed for a long time
> which is to raise or eliminate the limit on what income can be taxed
> for Social Security. So currently the base limit is $168,600 so any
> money earned over that amount doesn't get taxed for Social Security.
> Eliminate that limit and there's more than enough money to pay out the
> benefits going forward without hurting anyone.
>
>> That's hardly surprising - when the first old age pension system was
>> established (by Bismarck in Germany) the average German male lived 68
>> years so Bismarck set retirement to last only a very short time. These
>> days average lifespans are at least 10-15 years longer than that so
>> such universal systems have become much more expensive.
>>
>> THAT's where age 65 as 'retirement age' came from. >I< retired at 66
>> but that was more about exiting the family business in a way that
>> assured continuity after a store relocation than any fixed date.
>>
>> (For reasons I'm still unsure of my exit took 8 months rather than the
>> 3 weeks expected - and two months after my wife's passing which caught
>> me by surprise as I never expected to be the surviving spouse)
>

The instructions that come with my Social Security say to take the amount
they give you (it doesn’t say if that should be gross or net, so I have no
idea how the 10% of it that goes to Medicare counts) and multiply times 1.5
(I have no fucking idea why)and then add your other income to it and if
you’re under $25,000, you probably don’t need to pay taxes.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On 3/16/2024 4:11 PM, shawn wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 12:59:41 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 04:30:52 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> There are a few simple facts of the matter with regard to Social Security.
>>> One, we don’t have the money for it: it’s a Ponzi scheme. We don’t have
>>> enough young people to pay for it, and life expectancy has increased. This
>>> means that by 2033, we will in fact be forced to cut benefits or raise taxes.
>>> There is no third option.
>>
> Except there is a third choice that has been proposed for a long time
> which is to raise or eliminate the limit on what income can be taxed
> for Social Security. So currently the base limit is $168,600 so any
> money earned over that amount doesn't get taxed for Social Security.
> Eliminate that limit and there's more than enough money to pay out the
> benefits going forward without hurting anyone.

Yep, that's probably the best solution.

>
>> That's hardly surprising - when the first old age pension system was
>> established (by Bismarck in Germany) the average German male lived 68
>> years so Bismarck set retirement to last only a very short time. These
>> days average lifespans are at least 10-15 years longer than that so
>> such universal systems have become much more expensive.
>>
>> THAT's where age 65 as 'retirement age' came from. >I< retired at 66
>> but that was more about exiting the family business in a way that
>> assured continuity after a store relocation than any fixed date.
>>
>> (For reasons I'm still unsure of my exit took 8 months rather than the
>> 3 weeks expected - and two months after my wife's passing which caught
>> me by surprise as I never expected to be the surviving spouse)

On 3/16/2024 4:56 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 12:59:41 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 04:30:52 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There are a few simple facts of the matter with regard to Social Security.
>>>> One, we don’t have the money for it: it’s a Ponzi scheme. We don’t have
>>>> enough young people to pay for it, and life expectancy has increased. This
>>>> means that by 2033, we will in fact be forced to cut benefits or raise taxes.
>>>> There is no third option.
>>>
>> Except there is a third choice that has been proposed for a long time
>> which is to raise or eliminate the limit on what income can be taxed
>> for Social Security. So currently the base limit is $168,600 so any
>> money earned over that amount doesn't get taxed for Social Security.
>> Eliminate that limit and there's more than enough money to pay out the
>> benefits going forward without hurting anyone.
>>
>>> That's hardly surprising - when the first old age pension system was
>>> established (by Bismarck in Germany) the average German male lived 68
>>> years so Bismarck set retirement to last only a very short time. These
>>> days average lifespans are at least 10-15 years longer than that so
>>> such universal systems have become much more expensive.
>>>
>>> THAT's where age 65 as 'retirement age' came from. >I< retired at 66
>>> but that was more about exiting the family business in a way that
>>> assured continuity after a store relocation than any fixed date.
>>>
>>> (For reasons I'm still unsure of my exit took 8 months rather than the
>>> 3 weeks expected - and two months after my wife's passing which caught
>>> me by surprise as I never expected to be the surviving spouse)
>>
>
> The instructions that come with my Social Security say to take the amount
> they give you (it doesn’t say if that should be gross or net, so I have no
> idea how the 10% of it that goes to Medicare counts) and multiply times 1.5
> (I have no fucking idea why)and then add your other income to it and if
> you’re under $25,000, you probably don’t need to pay taxes.
>
My benefits are over $30K and I pay no taxes.

suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
> On 3/16/2024 4:56 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 12:59:41 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 04:30:52 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There are a few simple facts of the matter with regard to Social Security.
>>>>> One, we don’t have the money for it: it’s a Ponzi scheme. We don’t have
>>>>> enough young people to pay for it, and life expectancy has increased. This
>>>>> means that by 2033, we will in fact be forced to cut benefits or raise taxes.
>>>>> There is no third option.
>>>>
>>> Except there is a third choice that has been proposed for a long time
>>> which is to raise or eliminate the limit on what income can be taxed
>>> for Social Security. So currently the base limit is $168,600 so any
>>> money earned over that amount doesn't get taxed for Social Security.
>>> Eliminate that limit and there's more than enough money to pay out the
>>> benefits going forward without hurting anyone.
>>>
>>>> That's hardly surprising - when the first old age pension system was
>>>> established (by Bismarck in Germany) the average German male lived 68
>>>> years so Bismarck set retirement to last only a very short time. These
>>>> days average lifespans are at least 10-15 years longer than that so
>>>> such universal systems have become much more expensive.
>>>>
>>>> THAT's where age 65 as 'retirement age' came from. >I< retired at 66
>>>> but that was more about exiting the family business in a way that
>>>> assured continuity after a store relocation than any fixed date.
>>>>
>>>> (For reasons I'm still unsure of my exit took 8 months rather than the
>>>> 3 weeks expected - and two months after my wife's passing which caught
>>>> me by surprise as I never expected to be the surviving spouse)
>>>
>>
>> The instructions that come with my Social Security say to take the amount
>> they give you (it doesn’t say if that should be gross or net, so I have no
>> idea how the 10% of it that goes to Medicare counts) and multiply times 1.5
>> (I have no fucking idea why)and then add your other income to it and if
>> you’re under $25,000, you probably don’t need to pay taxes.
>>
> My benefits are over $30K and I pay no taxes.
>

Cool. Mine are way way way way way less than that.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On 3/16/2024 9:42 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>> On 3/16/2024 4:56 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 12:59:41 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 04:30:52 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There are a few simple facts of the matter with regard to Social Security.
>>>>>> One, we don’t have the money for it: it’s a Ponzi scheme. We don’t have
>>>>>> enough young people to pay for it, and life expectancy has increased. This
>>>>>> means that by 2033, we will in fact be forced to cut benefits or raise taxes.
>>>>>> There is no third option.
>>>>>
>>>> Except there is a third choice that has been proposed for a long time
>>>> which is to raise or eliminate the limit on what income can be taxed
>>>> for Social Security. So currently the base limit is $168,600 so any
>>>> money earned over that amount doesn't get taxed for Social Security.
>>>> Eliminate that limit and there's more than enough money to pay out the
>>>> benefits going forward without hurting anyone.
>>>>
>>>>> That's hardly surprising - when the first old age pension system was
>>>>> established (by Bismarck in Germany) the average German male lived 68
>>>>> years so Bismarck set retirement to last only a very short time. These
>>>>> days average lifespans are at least 10-15 years longer than that so
>>>>> such universal systems have become much more expensive.
>>>>>
>>>>> THAT's where age 65 as 'retirement age' came from. >I< retired at 66
>>>>> but that was more about exiting the family business in a way that
>>>>> assured continuity after a store relocation than any fixed date.
>>>>>
>>>>> (For reasons I'm still unsure of my exit took 8 months rather than the
>>>>> 3 weeks expected - and two months after my wife's passing which caught
>>>>> me by surprise as I never expected to be the surviving spouse)
>>>>
>>>
>>> The instructions that come with my Social Security say to take the amount
>>> they give you (it doesn’t say if that should be gross or net, so I have no
>>> idea how the 10% of it that goes to Medicare counts) and multiply times 1.5
>>> (I have no fucking idea why)and then add your other income to it and if
>>> you’re under $25,000, you probably don’t need to pay taxes.
>>>
>> My benefits are over $30K and I pay no taxes.
>>
>
> Cool. Mine are way way way way way less than that.
>
That's per year, not monthly, you know.