EMitch

psu_fish
 

 If they raise the SSI retirement age to 70 in an attempt to save it, it'll be wrong. 

You don't think that's wrong??  Holy-$heet!  You're probably collecting.  R u collecting??

Solvency is at 2034. That means it will actually equal what is going in and what is going out. Right now, there is still more going in than going out. It doesn’t just go away at that point. Luckily, the proposed plan of tying it to the market didn’t happen or it would be at solvency right now.

There are many avenues to “fix”, raising the date to full benefits is one. Lowering the benefit payout amount is another. Raising the rate of putting in is another. Eliminating or raising the high end limit on contributions is another. Cutting benefits being paid out to people at the very top is another. I’m sure there are many others as well.

With those at the very top paying less and less as a percentage, while making more and more, why is it always called socialism by many media outlets and politicians when anyone suggests they pay more? You know, like they did when America was great in the 50s & 60s? When a man could work a blue collar job and provide for his entire family and have enough saved that social security was enough for a comfortable retirement at 65. When a CEO made 100 times that of his employees, rather than 1500 times. When the gap between the top 5% and the middle 50% was much closer. When can we make America great again???

Here he comes!!!!! Down to the Lee Greenwood song. 🙄🤣 you can't make this chit up.

Bring on the gag order baby.

The judge does not want to put a gag order in place. He did advise all the lawyers to have their clients/witnesses to be mindful of any statements they make. Guess that went out the window as soon as the former President landed in Mara-Lardo. With how weak this case is, all he had to do was talk about that. Instead it was his typical talking points and grievances. The guy is a broken record.

Porktown
With those at the very top paying less and less as a percentage, while making more and more, why is it always called socialism by many media outlets and politicians when anyone suggests they pay more? You know, like they did when America was great in the 50s & 60s? 

You've made some very good points in the above post, Pork. I only highlighted part of it. I'll come out and tell ya that I am basically a conservative republican, but I do have a couple of Libertarian beliefs. Here's a bit of food for thought.
The law is that workers pay 6.2% of EARNED wages, (emphasis on EARNED),and the employer pays in the same 6.2% in your name and SSN. (Imagine if that was also going into your 401K along with your own contributions and the company match, if any. SSI yields about 01.5% on your investment). The problem is that SSI contributions DO NOT get charged against wages earned for every wage earner; in 2022 it stopped at $147,000, and in 2023 it will be $150,000. So why do those fortunate enough to make 200 grand, or 20 million a year get a free ride after the max contribution. They will get a max monthly check that is 3 times the average recipient. What would it do for SSI if a CEO making 5 mil per year, plus 20 mil in bonuses, (I consider a bonus as a wage too)? And an employer, (corporation) that can pay money like that in wages should also be able to contribute the same 6.2% on those monster figures because obviously, they can afford it.
Your thoughts?

EMitch
 
 I went out at 66, (full rate), but worked until I was almost 71. The 70 retirement age would still be for full benefits, and early would be 66 but you lose 30%. We've been told for a long time that people live much longer nowadays, and you can actually see how many in their 70s still get around and still work. So what's better: retiring at 70 and gettin' that monthly check, or doing nothing about SS and getting nothing? We've been hearing for years that SSI is in trouble, and pols keep kicking the can down the road. The can needs to go in the garbage and the pols need to get something done, no matter how painful. Otherwise, it's only good 'til 2034.

I'm not concerned about "retiring" per say, I'm concerned that I get my money back as soon as I can.  Unlike some others I pay my fair share as I'm sure you did.  I think the idea of raising the age should be last on a long list of options, many of which Pork outlined in his post.  Why should I want to wait to get MY money back when there's a myriad of options to keep it solvent? 
 

EMitch
The law is that workers pay 6.2% of EARNED wages, (emphasis on EARNED),and the employer pays in the same 6.2% in your name and SSN. (Imagine if that was also going into your 401K along with your own contributions and the company match, if any. SSI yields about 01.5% on your investment). The problem is that SSI contributions DO NOT get charged against wages earned for every wage earner; in 2022 it stopped at $147,000, and in 2023 it will be $150,000. So why do those fortunate enough to make 200 grand, or 20 million a year get a free ride after the max contribution. They will get a max monthly check that is 3 times the average recipient. What would it do for SSI if a CEO making 5 mil per year, plus 20 mil in bonuses, (I consider a bonus as a wage too)? And an employer, (corporation) that can pay money like that in wages should also be able to contribute the same 6.2% on those monster figures because obviously, they can afford it.
Your thoughts?

100% EMitch! Don’t forget that many of those CEOs get stock options instead of pay. $250M worth of stock, without a dime of tax until they decide to sell it. They get company cars, company housing, company yachts, all are provided by their company that they don’t really need an income to cover the expenses. You, I and others here rely on our taxed income to pay for our much less expensive cars, houses and boats. Having many $Ms in investments, you can get extremely low loans to purchase things too, that you never really have to take that money out of investments. And when you do, it is taxed at 15%, rather than 30%+, like most incomes are. Our economy is completely rigged for those that were born into wealth and the lucky few that break into it. Don’t get me wrong, when the market is rolling, those of us that have saved every crumb benefit a little from that 15%. For SSI, it is kind of a smack in the face that raising that $150K threshold to $1M or so is off the table. But raising the age is always floated around. Shows who really runs the system. Amazing that so many will defend it too that aren’t even close to the $150 limit.

Rats fight to the death 
 
Be nice if Biden didn't run again. Pretty sure he's going to announce soon. ZZZZZzzzzz

Bud Light got cancelled because they attempted to treat trans people like human beings.

MyWar
Bud Light got cancelled because they attempted to treat trans people like human beings.

Bud Light got cancelled because the American people are sick to death of having the Transgender and LGBTQ agenda shoved down their throats by advertisers, major media outlets, pro **** politicians and the LGBTQ Pride organization themselves. We don't care what they do to and with each other. Just stop forcing the general population to believe that it is completely normal and that we not only have to accept it, but also have to support it. 330 million people in the US, and they are less than 1%, so how have they suddenly become so powerful?
 

DeadGator401
Yeah I get the general jist of it - but is there a specific instance that started it?

A Bud Light marketing manager decided that sales of BL were stagnating and they need to appeal to a younger crowd. She cut a deal to put the picture of Dylan Mulvaney, (a young Trans TikTok influencer popular with teens and the younger generation), on umpteen eleven cans & bottles of Bud Light. (Is she promoting underage drinking)? Major uproar! Budweiser and parent company InBev's stock lost $5 billion in one week. She was placed on administrative leave of absence and a senior marketing manager from InBev is now in her place and his job will be to try and rescue Budweiser.
 

DeadGator401
Yeah I get the general jist of it - but is there a specific instance that started it?

I had no idea about any Bud Light controversy until seeing it on here.  Call me insensitive or whatever, but it is clearly a mental condition these people are dealing with and the topic itself should be treated that way IMO.  For many, it is not a choice of theirs, their brains are telling them they are the other gender.  I can't say that is for all, but for many that is the case.  There have been tremendous strides through the autism awareness campaign in the past 2+ decades and inclusion of those with down's syndrome and other conditions mental/physical before that and continue today.  Why is it unacceptable or "woke" to be sensitive of the feelings of families and individuals dealing with transgender conditions, but not these conditions?  It seems that depression and anxiety disorders are more and more accepted now than they were 10-20 years ago.  Is that woke too?  If someone that I know is being treated for depression, I don't treat them any different than I would anyone else.  In my past interactions with anyone transgender (that I am aware of being transgender) have been very limited.  I had a client many years ago that an employee that had input on a project that I was working on for them.  I did feel uncomfortable with her, but I know she was dealing with issues on a scale that I have never had to.  I treated her as you know "do unto others" and go along with my day collecting other data for the project.  Should I have called her a man and refused to work on the project, to not be woke?  
 
I agree 100% on there being transgender rules in women's competitive sports.  NCAA got caught with their pants down, not having rules in place when that swimmer decided to change.  I truly feel bad for any girls that were effected by that.  From my understanding, they have fixed it now.  I do not see the need to ban any kids under a certain age though.  Young boys that are going through some sort of identity crisis prior to puberty, I highly doubt are claiming to be girls for competitive advantage.  Allowing them to participate in sports with the other gender at a young age, may help them and their parents through a pretty difficult time.  After a certain age/competitive level, there should definitely be an assigned at birth rules allowed.  Even if that "age" is puberty, if you were born a boy, you play with the others born as boys, because after puberty on average boys will dominate girls in sports.  Sports at the youngest levels is about learning something new, being social outside of school and basics of that sport.  Each sport changes as the kids develop through them.  When they get to puberty, sports are no longer learning basics and something to do outside of school, they become competitive and need to be regulated in born genders.  If there are highly competitive youth leagues that people leave their communities to seek out, I see no reason for them to have specific rules either.  For recreational sports, many that I know of, have mixed gender options already at those youngest ages (due to registration numbers and nothing to do with gender advantages).  Maybe not in all sports, but many.  Though it is nice for the timid girls at any age to not have to play against the out of control boys.  I was a board member for many years in our local soccer club.  We didn't have a single transgender athlete.  Or at least any that we were notified considered themselves transgender, if any, they played in their birth assigned gender.
 
The banning of assignment surgery before 18 is a topic that I see the validity of arguments on both sides.  I thank God that I don't have to deal with that dilemma.  Not only the horror these kids go through, but their parents is something that I am not sure how I would handle.  "Normal" teenage drama and our society as a whole that we live in, is already challenging enough to handle.

DeadGator401
Rats fight to the death 
 
Be nice if Biden didn't run again. Pretty sure he's going to announce soon. ZZZZZzzzzz

Not excited about Robert Kennedy Jr?  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_YMfCfGiMs

EMitch

snagr

DeadGator401
Rats fight to the death 
 
Be nice if Biden didn't run again. Pretty sure he's going to announce soon. ZZZZZzzzzz

Not excited about Robert Kennedy Jr?  

He's polling at about 3%. You'd think the college kids would jump in behind him as politically he's left of Bernie Sanders.

Nah. RFK is an anti vax idiot and conspiracy theorist. And before anyone gets all excited, there's more vaccines than just the Covid ones. He's been an idiot on that front for a long, long time. That alone is enough for me to give him nothing more than a passing glance.