Perhaps I confused the two, but I’d honestly if they didn’t support social security. Most people recognize it’s not an entitlement program, but something you pay into and get back.
Looks like a good many of them did.
Once the Republicans control the government they won’t need to care. We’re handing over our democracy to people who don’t support democracy. I think the outcome is predictable, and it *isn’t *democracy.
You want to give us some cites for this? :dubious:
Gerrymandering.
That still doesn’t tell us anything.
“Cites” for future events? I left my time machine in my last apartment, sorry.
YOU’RE the one making claims like:
How do you get these crazy ideas that the government plans on gerrymandering everything, “are heavily into voter suppression” (I’d definitely like a cite for THAT one), and that the people who voted for them actually would support this shit? Any examples, or just your own feelings? :dubious:
I didn’t say “the government”, I said “the Republicans”; who will soon control the government. The people who voted for them are just tools for them to gain power, and don’t otherwise matter to them. And I’m just projecting the normal behavior of the Republicans onto a situation where the Democrats can no longer restrain them. They’ve wanted some kind of theocracy/plutocracy for decades, and hate democracy.
Pence for example suppressed votes by having police grab tends of thousands of voter registrations in search of imaginary voter fraud, conveniently meaning that none of those people could vote. And there’s voter suppression laws all over the country, aimed at suppressing Democratic votes; that’s not a secret, the Republicans openly admit it since that isn’t even illegal. They only get in trouble because they keep insisting on targeting blacks, which* is* illegal. And of course there’s old standards like surrounding poling places in black neighborhoods with police “as a precaution”, which of course tends to scare black people off.
As for gerrymanding everything, it’s* already* gerrymandered to favor the Republicans.
What do you mean? They’re doing exactly what they SAID THEY WOULD DO, and voters gave them effective control of the entire government. I guarantee you that the flaming disaster that results will be 100% blamed on Democrats, and that their supporters (who will never hear an unbiased news story about it) will believe it and double down. My evidence? Donald )(#$@_)( Trump is currently President-Elect.
You need cites that Republicans get large majorities of seats with minorities of votes, or that the recent spate of GOP-led “voter ID” laws are intended to suppress Democratic votes? Der Trihs sometimes holds some fairly extreme positions, sure, but these ain’t them. These seem to be well into the “evident fact” category. They don’t just plan on doing them, they actively are doing them.
It answers your question. Gerrymandering by the Republicans demonstrates that they do not support democracy. They are willing to construct a situation where one party’s votes count for less than their own party’s votes.
The math on this doesn’t really work as far as building a nest egg, though. Somebody contributing relatively little (like the 6.25% of FICA), even compounded over their working career, isn’t going to be able to achieve the return they currently get from SocSec. See, for example, comparisonsof Social Security with the “Galveston Plan” [Galveston, Brazoria, and Matagorda counties in Texas opted-out of Social Security and established their own plan in the early 1980s].
Consistently, workers low on the wage scale did much better with Social Security; workers in the 50th percentile did better initially with the Galveston plan, but usually lost out within 4-12 years because Social Security is inflation-indexed.
I disagree that it “doesn’t belong to me,” but let’s let that lie for the sake of argument. If I were give the option to opt out of Social Security, get NOTHING back from all of my past contributions, get NOTHING in the future, but STOP having them take money out of my paycheck? I’d still jump at that in a heartbeat. I can STILL invest my money better than the federal government can. I’ve got enough good years left in me that I can make up for all the money they’ve take from me against my will, and would happily have the thievery stop here and now.
Hey, good for you.
Lube.
Yeah, and why should I have to pay for those darned schools, now that my kids are grown?
Damned selfish attitude of yours IMO. In our society, one does not get to pick and choose to fund only those functions they personally agree with.
I haven’t looked into any specific proposals to amend SS. I’ve often expressed my opinion that TPTB have erred in failing to acknowledge that SS is largely a wealth redistribution scheme. Just admit it is a tax, and that wealthy folk will not be seeing any portion of their contributions in their latter years. Some form of graduated means testing - in addition to elimination of the max w/holding cap, gradually increasing eligibility ages, and tweaking the withheld percentage.
I also feel SS disability and SSI are dishonestly being used as a substitute for welfare and/or voc retraining. Encourages more people to consider themselves “disabled”, which is often perceived as permanent and beyond their control, rather than considering themselves to be in unfavorable circumstances from which they can improve their situation. Of course, if no jobs exist which offer a living wage, the incentives are skewed.
I’m perceiving a horrible cross-pollination between the medical and disability advocacy communities. Diagnosed conditions allow care providers to bill for treatment, and can provide the basis for disability claims. In the meanwhile, the culture of victimhood and helplessness is strengthened. Not every person who experiences unpleasantness develops PTSD. Not everyone who injures their back is incapable of working again. But if jobs don’t exist, there is considerable incentive for some people to pursue disability benefits.
If the process was honest, the folks opting out would have 12.5% to invest, not 6.25%. That would certainly improve the math.
I haven’t worked out whether it results in a tolerable outcome for low income folks. My WAG is that it’d still be real marginal.
I’m pretty darn sure it wouldn’t work as well for them as does current SS with its very progressive redistribution features. Which is a good thing in my book. Despite my having topped out the earnings limit for much of my working years.
Well, that was short-sighted of you. Too bad you didn’t have some way of knowing it would come in handy later…
The money you and your employer contribute now doesn’t go into a piggy bank. It is used to pay current retirees. Therefore, it’s not your money. It belongs to the recipients. Future workers will contribute money that does not belong to them. Your share of their contributions will belong to you. But the money you’re contributing now, doesn’t.
Maybe, maybe not. What will you do when the stock market crashes again? (Also, taxes are not theft.)
Excuse me, Miss Candide, but you seem to be logged in to Guinistasia’s account instead of your own. Let’s get you over to Professor Pangloss; he’ll put you right…