Pics What conservatives want (don't want).

The problem with that is when they get older these people will reach a point where they are unable to work physically. Since it's not socially acceptable to just push them out on an ice floe as the Eskimos did, they become an increasingly expensive burden on the system. Social security is guaranteed and steady. The investment return shouldn't be that great.
Well, there's the problem.
 
Usual trolls are usual..



So how much money would it take for Social Security to actually work like intended?
 
Usual trolls are usual..



So how much money would it take for Social Security to actually work like intended?

work like intended? Was intended to get people to retire during the great depression, was never intended to cover every one (ie: non contributors) like it currently does. the system has been modified so much since it's inception that it could never work like originally intended. to few putting in to cover to many.
 
Blah blah with what is was created for. All that matter is what is should be doing right now, and I want to know what it would take for it to be successful.
 
Usual trolls are usual..



So how much money would it take for Social Security to actually work like intended?

It's (Charles) Ponzi scheme. Social security was never meant to work only bring revenue to the federal government. Why do do think they set the age at 65, which was just above the average lifespan at the time Social Security passed. If it was passed today, the age would have to be ~85.
 
Last edited:
You thinking social security is something that could be useful. It sounds like dandelions and sunshine, butttt...... government doesn't operate that way.

ahhh see, that's where you went wrong.. You hallucinated and thought you saw me post that Social Security is useful, when all I did was ask what it would take to make it do what it is intended for.

Lay off the crack, Ape..
 
It's (Charles) Ponzi scheme. Social security was never meant to work only bring revenue to the federal government. Why do do think they set the age at 65, which was just above the average lifespan at the time Social Security passed. If it was passed today, the age would have to be ~85.

They rightly figured that with all the cigarettes and asbestos and mercury and other shit we tend to kill ourselves with that most seniors will not last long enough to see 65. But good health and diets and modern drugs and environmentalists have caused us to live far past what we used to live until.

once upon a time I was counted lucky to see 25 due to the mortality rate among those of the chocolate ilk. heart attackes and poor diet and simple fucked up living killed a good chunk of us before we hit 25.
now I'm looking at 40 in 5 years time and it's mortifying how many of my friends and family I have put into the ground.
 
It's (Charles) Ponzi scheme. Social security was never meant to work only bring revenue to the federal government. Why do do think they set the age at 65, which was just above the average lifespan at the time Social Security passed. If it was passed today, the age would have to be ~85.

The life expectancy statistics are skewed heavily by infant mortality rates. And those infants did not pay in to social security as far as I know.
 
one thing that would help social security is changing it from having a retirement age to changing it to having to contributed for X amount of years instead. wtf are 25 year olds still living at home and require their parents health insurance??