Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First 20 years are with parental support
Next 45 years are spent working
Last 20 years are retirement years
Idea #1:
Those that are working are supporting everyone. Why not allow for SS benefits to be paid out irrespective of whether or not someone continues to work at age 65, or 69? Even if someone is making $100,000 in income at 65, that's still a contribution of $6200 from them and $6200 from their employer going into the program for direct SS payments, and the income tax generated will likely, in total, net to a surplus to the government.
Plus, many companies create a lot of value per employee far beyond the cost of the employee. A higher workforce percentage is good for a country.
Finally, people who are active tend to live longer and remain healthier. Sure that means they collect longer, but the longer they produce, the more realistic the program becomes.
1. Social Security economics is so fearsomely complex that it's nearly impossible to comprehend on a Joe Q. Checkbook level. It is complicated in part because the government likes it that way; they'd just as soon we stay out of the discussion because even without the smoke and mirrors, it is a truly complicated arrangement. (It also yields votes for all sides depending on how they present it.)
2. See #1.
3. If you insist, Social Security doesn't really need "fixing" unless you almost wholly misunderstand how it works. See #1.
First 20 years are with parental support
Next 45 years are spent working
Last 20 years are retirement years
Idea #1:
Those that are working are supporting everyone. Why not allow for SS benefits to be paid out irrespective of whether or not someone continues to work at age 65, or 69? Even if someone is making $100,000 in income at 65, that's still a contribution of $6200 from them and $6200 from their employer going into the program for direct SS payments, and the income tax generated will likely, in total, net to a surplus to the government.
How does this help? The person earning 100k is taking a lot more out of the program than 6200 or double that including employer contributions
Quote:
Plus, many companies create a lot of value per employee far beyond the cost of the employee. A higher workforce percentage is good for a country.
How does this help ss? Does this also assume said employee can’t be replaced?
Quote:
Finally, people who are active tend to live longer and remain healthier. Sure that means they collect longer, but the longer they produce, the more realistic the program becomes.
Again how does this play into helping ss? Reduce benefits, extend fra, eliminate wage cap all can help the program but I don’t see anything here that does
Indeed. As cold as it sounds, ss would be helped more if people would just politely keel over and die sooner instead of actively extending their lives.
1. Social Security economics is so fearsomely complex that it's nearly impossible to comprehend on a Joe Q. Checkbook level. It is complicated in part because the government likes it that way; they'd just as soon we stay out of the discussion because even without the smoke and mirrors, it is a truly complicated arrangement. (It also yields votes for all sides depending on how they present it.)
2. See #1.
3. If you insist, Social Security doesn't really need "fixing" unless you almost wholly misunderstand how it works. See #1.
Joe q doesn’t need to understand any of it and then the reality is it’s not all that complicated to address. And by no coincidence you provided no suggestion on fixing the program
Indeed. As cold as it sounds, ss would be helped more if people would just politely keel over and die sooner instead of actively extending their lives.
That’s what existed when the program was created
How to "fix" social Security?
Perhaps a "fix" would be to require Congress to pay back all the money they "borrowed" (stole) from The Social security Trust Fund. Of course, that would require proof that "they" actually stole the money.
good luck.
Signifantly reduce the maximum benefit. There are married couples getting more from SS (over $60,000 a year) than I ever earned in a year of working. They had the income to afford on their own their continued lavish liestyle, it is not what SS was designed to pay for.
Last edited by cebuan; 12-01-2018 at 06:54 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
