White House Calls for End to ISS Funding in 2025

[gamerk2]

I grew up planning on Social Security not being around. I know when I'm very old, it won't amount to anything. SS was a scam for the boomer generation... guess who is footing the bill for the boomers as they stop working, the younger generations. There is no SS "fund." All the tax collected is immediately spent on current recipients.

You'd fare much better putting that money in stocks.

The problem with SS is there aren't enough people being born to keep the program viable long term. There simply aren't enough people paying into the program to support each successive generation. There are fixes that would keep it viable, but none that are seen as politically acceptable. Letting the program fail has been deemed politically less bad then actually doing something to fix it [which says a lot about where our country is going].

Personally, I'd roll most programs like SS and Medicaid into a UBI; more efficient to handle it that way, and much harder to abuse.

 

[gamerk2]

Yeah, they eat up a huge portion of the annual budget and the wars are accountable for about an estimated $7T of the national debt that ballooned under Obama yet most of America worships the ground they walk on.

My coworker makes like $140k/yr and then collects his military retirement pension (for life) as soon as he got out at ~40 years old. Why don't they just make it so that he has to wait until 65 like the rest of the country? Add in the Tricare for life also and he makes off like a bandit. He pays $40/mo for him and his 3 children.

I work in federal contracting and a ton of the guys there are ex-military and collect some sort of disability for the rest of their life - while gainfully employed making 6 figures give or take.

Many of them say the military is wasteful as hell, there's tons of rampant abuse and fraud for VA disability benefits (sleep apnea is big one people "claim" in order to get free money for life), and a whole lot of "hurry up and wait".

The military actually has to overpay it's soldiers; that's the downside to having a totally volunteer military.

Don't even get me started on the VA; it's a very special brand of neglect and abuse. Just roll the damn thing into Medicaid and be done with it; there's no fixing the VA.

 

[lilbabycat]

It's called humor and being funny which is something many of you kiddo's desperately need. But I got just the right description for you young lads to help you out, my man Patrice RIP breaking down funny:

Oh wow L O L. For anyone not willing to watch whole thing, go to about 4:15 in.

 

[c3k]

Nevermind. I misread the headline as proposing to defund ISIS.

 

[tetris42]

Nevermind. I misread the headline as proposing to defund ISIS.

Yeah no worries, we're still providing them with weapons.

 

[Exavior]

My welfare reform package.

1. ONLY eligible if you are REALLY unable to work
2. For unemployment, you MUST be actively be looking for a job.
3. A regular/random audit can happen to you if you are a welfare recipient.
--a. If you are paying for cable or any other TV service (anything above basic internet access), your welfare is cut by that amount.
--b. If you are buying alcohol, your welfare is cut by that amount.
--c. If you are buying tobacco products, your welfare is cut by that amount.
--d. If you have a vehicle that is more than basic transportation (I am sick of seeing welfare recipients driving around in Escalades, BMWs, Mercedes, etc), your welfare is cut off completely unless you can prove that you purchased it legally for a very low amount.
--e. If you have a positive drug test result, your welfare is cut off immediately and you are banned from re-applying for at least 2 years.
--f. If you are a drug dealer, your welfare is cut off immediately and you are banned from re-applying for life.
--g. If you commit medicare/medicaid fraud, you are cut off immediately and are banned from welfare for life.

That right there would cut out most of the fraud IF the government would actually implement and follow through with those rules.

One change to #2. Must be looking for a job they can actually obtain. Right now there is a requirement of needing to send out x number of resumes every so often but the issue is that it can be for anything. So people start applying for jobs as surgeons, CEOs, and any other job they see that they aren't anywhere near qualified for. That way they don't get a job but still meet the requirement. Change that to must apply to x number of jobs during some time frame that you are qualified for or have a reasonable expectation to be able to acquire without proper qualification and you will ensure the people can get hired. You then just have to worry about them getting a job then doing everything possible to get fired to go right back onto unemployment.

 

[Zion Halcyon]

Guys this not a bad thing.

The problem with the ISS is that like any experiment its beginning to get old and inundated and time to replace it with much newer focus on a better larger platform. There is more to the defunding in a decade than... oh look at Trump destroying the space programme.

If you listen to what he said he wants to bring NASA back to its full glory using a smarter more economically streamlined approach with more allocation of research and funding being contributed by society at large.

The time of exclusive govt. Space programs are coming to an end. Its tine for society to advance space travel with the assistance of govt. Not exclusive and only exclusively gov.

Please think about this before you refer to the played out and absolutely childish nbc cnn hln talking points.

Somehow one of you will call him racist for this sigh... never fails.

What can you say for people whom the educational system has failed them by choosing to indoctrinate them rather than truly educate them?

They can only regurgitate the talking points that are passed around the echo chamber and can't be bothered to research anything outside of said Echo chamber, because they believe anything outside of it is some weird right-wing conspiracy.

 

[SomeoneElse]

De-funding an ageing program that really no longer serves its purpose isn't such a bad idea. Its more a maintenance issue than research facility anymore. So letting the 4 billion dollar tab fall off is better. They can transfer that into the R&D of better more efficient space engines for faster space travel or better programs that suit space exploration. Why are people up in arms about this? the ISS has been in used for 20 years now. Its time to move to better options, 4 billion can do a lot for NASA to refocus on more ambitious goals like more missions to Mars and anything beyond the asteroid belt.

 

[Cmdrmonkey]

My welfare reform package.

1. ONLY eligible if you are REALLY unable to work
2. For unemployment, you MUST be actively be looking for a job.
3. A regular/random audit can happen to you if you are a welfare recipient.
--a. If you are paying for cable or any other TV service (anything above basic internet access), your welfare is cut by that amount.
--b. If you are buying alcohol, your welfare is cut by that amount.
--c. If you are buying tobacco products, your welfare is cut by that amount.
--d. If you have a vehicle that is more than basic transportation (I am sick of seeing welfare recipients driving around in Escalades, BMWs, Mercedes, etc), your welfare is cut off completely unless you can prove that you purchased it legally for a very low amount.
--e. If you have a positive drug test result, your welfare is cut off immediately and you are banned from re-applying for at least 2 years.
--f. If you are a drug dealer, your welfare is cut off immediately and you are banned from re-applying for life.
--g. If you commit medicare/medicaid fraud, you are cut off immediately and are banned from welfare for life.

That right there would cut out most of the fraud IF the government would actually implement and follow through with those rules.

Ah yes, the old "he has a big screen TV so isn't worthy of government assistance" argument so popular on the right. The funny thing is most of the people making these kinds of arguments will also argue that they're the ones who really deserve the assistance. It's those damn neighbors of theirs who are cheating the system. Red states are actually the biggest recipients of welfare. It's hilarious that the poor whites in these states vote against their own economic interests.

 

[groebuck]

If you think welfare and ssi fraud recovery is going to pay for the trillion dollar tax cuts for corporations you are sadly mistaken. The labor department reports that 1.9% of UI (unenployment insurance) cases are fraud. In Florida cash welfare recpeients were drug tested and less than 2.6% came back positive and those that did mostly tested positive for weed. Welfare fraud, SSI fraud is a very very tiny percentage of recipients. Blaming the poor for debt is ridiculous.

 

[Elf_Boy]

I think we get into weird territory calling food stamp recipients leeches, seeing as how the majority of them already have jobs and are working.

When the bank apocalypse happened and I lost my job my unemployment was too high to get food stamps.

We are talking about the poorest of the poor.

Fraud needs to be fixed of course.

 

[sfsuphysics]

Exactly, and first thing we need to do is attack the biggest leaches: Medicare and Social Security. Because screw the elderly, they're all going to be dead soon.

The problem is dumping Social Security won't really change the budget at all, because (depending upon the year) it actually is self funded (or has been the past few years). That said, those people of wealth, or have some sort of retirement setup through the company (or personally do it) don't like it because they won't really benefit too much (if at all) from it. That said I don't mind because as a state employee I don't actually pay SS taxes, as we get a pass due to the fact we have a state retirement system and won't receive SS.

 

[NoOther]

If your car had 32000 sq feet of habitable space and cost more than an aircraft carrier to build you'd probably take good care of it.

The station is in good shape and there's a lot of research that still hasn't been done. I hope they extend it another 4-8 years.

Actually the Space Station is not in good shape, it is old, filled with old slow technology that makes missions much harder. Engineers have been complaining about this for the past 10 years. The cost to keep it up with the old technology is astronomical. The fact they have been extending it, just goes to show that money is not being well spent on finding a replacement. The ISS wasn't supposed to be a long term station, they were supposed to build a different one.

 

[bugleyman]

The problem with SS is there aren't enough people being born to keep the program viable long term. There simply aren't enough people paying into the program to support each successive generation. There are fixes that would keep it viable, but none that are seen as politically acceptable. Letting the program fail has been deemed politically less bad then actually doing something to fix it [which says a lot about where our country is going].

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if the debit crisis comes to a head before the SS crisis, rendering the latter moot.

 

[bugleyman]

Squabbling over the ISS is silly when the country is headed toward a fiscal disaster in the form of unsustainable public debt.

The truly scary part is that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats show the slightest inclination to seriously tackle the problem. Team R can't throw money at the military industrial complex fast enough (that is, when they aren't cutting taxes), and team D wont' just won't face reality when it comes to entitlements.

In short, we're well and truly F#@ked. Have a nice day.

 

[sfsuphysics]

The problem with SS is there aren't enough people being born to keep the program viable long term. There simply aren't enough people paying into the program to support each successive generation. There are fixes that would keep it viable, but none that are seen as politically acceptable. Letting the program fail has been deemed politically less bad then actually doing something to fix it [which says a lot about where our country is going].

It's really not a problem with enough people being born, that's somewhat easily fixed with modest increases in SS taxes and/or being less "aggressive" in payout formula. The problem is two fold, it's people living longer and women. Now historically men didn't live as long as women, this has always been the case, but historically women were not major wage earners, they were housewives or mothers full time, and at best they had a low paying job and didn't gain much credit for retirement, so much so to the point that when their husbands died it was more beneficial to take their husband's SS at a much reduced rate, and financially speaking that's fine. Now women are earning money just like men and their life expectancy isn't dropping either, granted it has not grown as much as men's have either but it's still very high just over 81 years old. And thanks to the modern world of "here take this pill" men's life expectancy has literally skyrocketed as well, being over 76 years old today.

The average retirement age in 1960 was 66 years old, yeah people worked, the average life expectancy for men in 1960... 66.6 years old. So on average someone works a lifetime (40+ years) and you only have to pay them benefits for less than a year, so yeah that worked absolutely fabulously! Fast forward to the year 2000, where the average retirement age was 63, and the average lifespan for a man was 74 years old, now you have to pay that same person benefits for 11 years, and women lived 5 years beyond that, so compared to the 60s were maybe a single SS check was collected per family (and was enough to work with), now we have twice as many people collecting social security on average for 13.5 years each OR 27 more collection years. Granted that also means twice as many people people into the system but still that's a fairly large drain compared to the 60s when everyone had a Leave It to Beaver smile on their face.

 

[SilverSliver]

We shall see if you still feel that way in your 50's after paying in social security taxes your entire working life. If the politicians would have kept their MF'ing hands out of the cookie jar in years past then social security would in great shape today.. Don't get me started on this subject.....

I've accepted that I will never see a dime out of SS, or whatever I get will be a pale spectre of what I paid in.

 

[tetris42]

Squabbling over the ISS is silly when the country is headed toward a fiscal disaster in the form of unsustainable public debt.

The truly scary part is that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats show the slightest inclination to seriously tackle the problem. Team R can't throw money at the military industrial complex fast enough (that is, when they aren't cutting taxes), and team D wont' just won't face reality when it comes to entitlements.

Now now, let's be fair. The Democrats trip over themselves to spend money on the military too. After all, they're the ones that voted to RAISE the amount of money for the military budget $50 billion above and beyond what Trump was asking for. The main difference is they like to pretend that they don't.

 

[bugleyman]

Now now, let's be fair. The Democrats trip over themselves to spend money on the military too. After all, they're the ones that voted to RAISE the amount of money for the military budget $50 billion above and beyond what Trump was asking for. The main difference is they like to pretend that they don't.

Neither party displays anything close to the fortitude needed to tackle this crisis, period. Partisan bickering is a waste of time.

What needs to happen is that BOTH parties need to publicly agree that tackling the debt is our #1 priority, and to stop using spending as political ammunition. ("Why do Republicans hate poor people?", "Why do Democrats hate the military?", etc.). Of course, that would require putting country before party and our long term well-being ahead of winning the next election.

So like I said, we're f$#ked.

And to the "deficits don't matter" people: You're living in a dream world.

 

[Aireoth]

This is a sad reality of space exploration. There is no immediate benefit, thus corporations are not interested. There is no short term benefit (4-8 years) thus politicians are not interested. There is only long term discovery of the unknown, which is too risky a proposition when most people will say 'yeah, but what can we do with it?'. That very question is why the super collider was never finished in the US.

The only reason we made it as far as we have (the Moon) is because of international dick waiving during the cold war.

 

[bugleyman]

This is a sad reality of space exploration. There is no immediate benefit, thus corporations are not interested. There is no short term benefit (4-8 years) thus politicians are not interested. There is only long term discovery of the unknown, which is too risky a proposition when most people will say 'yeah, but what can we do with it?'. That very question is why the super collider was never finished in the US.

The only reason we made it as far as we have (the Moon) is because of international dick waiving during the cold war.

Never underestimate the power of dick waving.

 

[Aireoth]

Never underestimate the power of dick waving.

Time for a second cold war?

 

[bugleyman]

Time for a second cold war?

China seems game, but we can't afford it.

 

[Aireoth]

China seems game, but we can't afford it.

Most of your debt would cease to exist if China and US went to a cold war state.

 

[Hulahoops]

Funny how people rarely mention clamping down on all the tax avoidance and evasion methods used by people and businesses yet will rush to beat those with difficulties in life instead, the real ironic thing is you dream of being the former but are much closer to needing the later....that is the issue with dreaming to much.

 

[tetris42]

Neither party displays anything close to the fortitude needed to tackle this crisis, period. Partisan bickering is a waste of time.

What needs to happen is that BOTH parties need to publicly agree that tackling the debt is our #1 priority, and to stop using spending as political ammunition. ("Why do Republicans hate poor people?", "Why do Democrats hate the military?", etc.). Of course, that would require putting country before party and our long term well-being ahead of winning the next election.

So like I said, we're f$#ked.

And to the "deficits don't matter" people: You're living in a dream world.

Oh I agree, I was just chiming in that military spending is hardly Republican-only territory. That's actually why I brought it up, military spending in practice is non-partisan. Both sides love it!

As for tackling the debt, it won't happen, since we have regulatory capture. The government does what the biggest donors want. If they don't care about the debt and would rather see more short to medium-term profits for their various industries instead, then that's what will happen. I see this stuff already as a foregone conclusion. The big uncertainty is the when.

 

[bugleyman]

Most of your debt would cease to exist if China and US went to a cold war state.

A good chunk, perhaps, but we'd still be at a worryingly high percentage of GDP. Also, cold wars aren't inexpensive...ask the USSR.

 

[bugleyman]

Oh I agree, I was just chiming in that military spending is hardly Republican-only territory. That's actually why I brought it up, military spending in practice is non-partisan. Both sides love it!

As for tackling the debt, it won't happen, since we have regulatory capture. The government does what the biggest donors want. If they don't care about the debt and would rather see more short to medium-term profits for their various industries instead, then that's what will happen. I see this stuff already as a foregone conclusion. The big uncertainty is the when.

Ah yes...our old friend regulatory capture.

Also, you're not making me feel better.

 

[zamardii12]

Guys this not a bad thing.

The problem with the ISS is that like any experiment its beginning to get old and inundated and time to replace it with much newer focus on a better larger platform. There is more to the defunding in a decade than... oh look at Trump destroying the space programme.

If you listen to what he said he wants to bring NASA back to its full glory using a smarter more economically streamlined approach with more allocation of research and funding being contributed by society at large.

The time of exclusive govt. Space programs are coming to an end. Its tine for society to advance space travel with the assistance of govt. Not exclusive and only exclusively gov.

Please think about this before you refer to the played out and absolutely childish nbc cnn hln talking points.

Somehow one of you will call him racist for this sigh... never fails.

This would be all well and good if Trump didn't have his people attacking companies like Space X.

https://electrek.co/2016/11/22/elon-musk-right-wing-trump-propaganda-campaign-against-tesla-spacex/

 

[Aireoth]

A good chunk, perhaps, but we'd still be at a worryingly high percentage of GDP. Also, cold wars aren't inexpensive...ask the USSR.

True but that money does go into our economy, and in a cold war state it would have better local absorption then in the current global environment.

In the long run it would push technology and exploration further, faster, regardless of who 'wins', just don't collapse like Russia in the 80's and your all good.

 

[NoOther]

tetris42 bugleyman

Military spending is a tired argument, it is only 16% of the budget and its discretionary spending at that, meaning it can be adjusted year to year or cut. On the other hand there is a ton of domestic spending that is predominately mandatory meaning it cannot be easily adjusted year to year. The biggest impact on the budget would be to cut and re-organize a large portion of the mandatory spending. The problem is that Congress is a bunch of gutless asshats that will never really cut and reorganize the majority of our domestic programs, because it requires a lot of work, and at the end of they day it has no net gain for them, since they measure their success on what they pass not what they cut.

Aireoth I am not sure where you get your information there chief.

First, there are quite a few corporations involved in the space game now. The governments controlled all things space exploration up until only recently. It takes decades to build up the knowledge, experience, and processes to effectively build space exploration ventures. Also, NASA has worked with many corporations for decades now on space exploration and continue to work with them.

Second, as for the super collider, it's fate was sealed when they could not accurately predict any kind of budget for it. It went from 4 billion, to 8 billion, to 11 billion, to 20 billion. Since they could never get a clear answer on the time it would take to finish or the budget, it was ultimately cut, as it should have been.

Third, Most of our debt would not be canceled by a war with China, and certainly not by a cold war. Debt would increase during a cold war. China only owns a bit more than 1 trillion of our debt. Most of the debt (76% actually) is actually owed to ourselves. So no amount of war is going to cancel that out.

 

[bugleyman]

tetris42 bugleyman

Military spending is a tired argument, it is only 16% of the budget and its discretionary spending at that, meaning it can be adjusted year to year or cut. On the other hand there is a ton of domestic spending that is predominately mandatory meaning it cannot be easily adjusted year to year. The biggest impact on the budget would be to cut and re-organize a large portion of the mandatory spending. The problem is that Congress is a bunch of gutless asshats that will never really cut and reorganize the majority of our domestic programs, because it requires a lot of work, and at the end of they day it has no net gain for them, since they measure their success on what they pass not what they cut.

You're kinda missing the point: Our politicians -- heck, our whole society, really -- seems to lack the will to do what is necessary to stave off disaster (assuming it isn't already too late). Not only does revenue need to go up (higher taxes), but spending needs to go down...across-the-board.

 

[DeathFromBelow]

Second, as for the super collider, it's fate was sealed when they could not accurately predict any kind of budget for it. It went from 4 billion, to 8 billion, to 11 billion, to 20 billion. Since they could never get a clear answer on the time it would take to finish or the budget, it was ultimately cut, as it should have been.

From Steven Weinberg in a piece about that subject:

In the early 1980s the US began plans for the Superconducting Super Collider, or SSC, which would accelerate protons to 20 TeV, three times the maximum energy that will be available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider. After a decade of work, the design was completed, a site was selected in Texas, land bought, and construction begun on a tunnel and on magnets to steer the protons.

Then in 1992 the House of Representatives canceled funding for the SSC. Funding was restored by a House–Senate conference committee, but the next year the same happened again, and this time the House would not go along with the recommendation of the conference committee. After the expenditure of almost two billion dollars and thousands of man-years, the SSC was dead.

One thing that killed the SSC was an undeserved reputation for over-spending. There was even nonsense in the press about spending on potted plants for the corridors of the administration building. Projected costs did increase, but the main reason was that, year by year, Congress never supplied sufficient funds to keep to the planned rate of spending. This stretched out the time and hence the cost to complete the project. Even so, the SSC met all technical challenges, and could have been completed for about what has been spent on the LHC, and completed a decade earlier.

We have the same problem with our space program.

 

[NoOther]

From Steven Weinberg in a piece about that subject:


We have the same problem with our space program.

Honestly that is only one view on the topic, you can read a number of views on it. It was a boiling hot mess from the start with loads of problems. To pin it on Congress and how it was funding is actually pretty stupid. Anyone that works on government projects can tell you that is the norm and most companies plan on that inevitability. Also the slow spending of Congress does not equate to the constant doubling of the expected costs.

You're kinda missing the point: Our politicians -- heck, our whole society, really -- seems to lack the will to do what is necessary to stave off disaster (assuming it isn't already too late). Not only does revenue need to go up (higher taxes), but spending needs to go down...across-the-board.

Not sure how I am missing the point? Did I not say that if we really wanted to fix things we would have to cut mandatory spending? The problem is people keep clamoring about military spending, but it is in fact not as large a part of the budget as people seem to think it is. The biggest problems really lie in the other 84% of the budget where the spending is mandatory. Politicians need to buckle down and really start cutting and revamping the entire domestic spending budget. It needs a complete overhaul. Honestly military spending, because it has been discretionary has been revamped over and over throughout the years. Programs change, grow/shrink/adjust to the times. Mandatory spending programs do not.

 

[bugleyman]

Honestly that is only one view on the topic, you can read a number of views on it. It was a boiling hot mess from the start with loads of problems. To pin it on Congress and how it was funding is actually pretty stupid. Anyone that works on government projects can tell you that is the norm and most companies plan on that inevitability. Also the slow spending of Congress does not equate to the constant doubling of the expected costs.



Not sure how I am missing the point? Did I not say that if we really wanted to fix things we would have to cut mandatory spending? The problem is people keep clamoring about military spending, but it is in fact not as large a part of the budget as people seem to think it is. The biggest problems really lie in the other 84% of the budget where the spending is mandatory. Politicians need to buckle down and really start cutting and revamping the entire domestic spending budget. It needs a complete overhaul. Honestly military spending, because it has been discretionary has been revamped over and over throughout the years. Programs change, grow/shrink/adjust to the times. Mandatory spending programs do not.

The part you're missing is that we should stop bickering about which spending should be cut. We don't have the luxury. We need to cut it all while we still can.

(But if you really want to argue, compared to literally every other country on the planet, we grossly overspend on the military as a percentage of GDP).

 

[NoOther]

The part you're missing is that we should stop bickering about which spending should be cut. We don't have the luxury. We need to cut it all while we still can.

(But if you really want to argue, compared to literally every other country on the planet, we grossly overspend on the military as a percentage of GDP).

I am not sure what you think I am arguing about. I am pointing out what is necessary for real change. As for the part about grossly overspending compared to the rest of the world, that is also vastly overplayed. The reason we do that is because we need to do that. We police most of the world and put ourselves in this position of being the shepherds so to speak for the world. The fact that we don't want to do that, doesn't change the reality. If we just cut military spending drastically now, we would be vulnerable to all kinds of threats, not to mention all the allies we have would now be completely vulnerable. You can't just up and leave and expect everything to work out nicely, even when you plan an expedited departure and delay it, there are still consequences, as Obama found out vividly when he was president.

The budget is a problem, the amount we spend on domestic mandatory spending is a huge and immediate problem. The amount we spend on military is unfortunately a long-term problem until we can cease being the world police. The only thing that isn't a problem in any of this, is decommissioning the ISS.

 

[Todd Walter]

One change to #2. Must be looking for a job they can actually obtain. Right now there is a requirement of needing to send out x number of resumes every so often but the issue is that it can be for anything. So people start applying for jobs as surgeons, CEOs, and any other job they see that they aren't anywhere near qualified for. That way they don't get a job but still meet the requirement. Change that to must apply to x number of jobs during some time frame that you are qualified for or have a reasonable expectation to be able to acquire without proper qualification and you will ensure the people can get hired. You then just have to worry about them getting a job then doing everything possible to get fired to go right back onto unemployment.

I'm surprised they already don't do this. The EI program in Canada will actually put job postings in front of you when you register to collect your benefits for the month that are career specific, with reasonable lateral moves (account->finance, or trade->similar trade, with retraining offered.)

 

[tetris42]

The part you're missing is that we should stop bickering about which spending should be cut. We don't have the luxury. We need to cut it all while we still can.

Oh come on, next you'll be saying we shouldn't massively cut taxes to add 1.5 trillion to the deficit.

 

[sfsuphysics]

I've accepted that I will never see a dime out of SS, or whatever I get will be a pale spectre of what I paid in.

While probably a bit of an exaggeration, unless you happen to be making seriously good money in which case yeah you are unfairly taxed, it is a good mindset to have so that you actually prepare for your retirement, and when you get your SS check it's more of some extra spending cash to help with some bills or allow you one of those old fart cruises across the Pacific or something.

While I have a pension through the state, not knowing what the cost of living will be then is the big question mark, like if I was old enough to retire today then my compensation would be plenty to live off of today because I don't pay rent and there is no mortgage on my house, but that is my largest source of retirement is owning property, and when my parents kick the bucket I'll own their property as well, so unless there's a massive 10.0 earthquake that absolutely levels the SF Bay Area I think I'll be good to go in my old age.

 

[SilverSliver]

While probably a bit of an exaggeration, unless you happen to be making seriously good money in which case yeah you are unfairly taxed, it is a good mindset to have so that you actually prepare for your retirement, and when you get your SS check it's more of some extra spending cash to help with some bills or allow you one of those old fart cruises across the Pacific or something.

While I have a pension through the state, not knowing what the cost of living will be then is the big question mark, like if I was old enough to retire today then my compensation would be plenty to live off of today because I don't pay rent and there is no mortgage on my house, but that is my largest source of retirement is owning property, and when my parents kick the bucket I'll own their property as well, so unless there's a massive 10.0 earthquake that absolutely levels the SF Bay Area I think I'll be good to go in my old age.

Not an exaggeration in the slightest.