Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-28-2010, 09:30 AM
 
Location: US, California - federalist
2,794 posts, read 3,669,530 times
Reputation: 484

Advertisements

We could simplify our social safety nets to unemployment compensation, that also solves for official poverty in our republic. Unemployment compensation is more market friendly and is already a brick and mortar institution in most States. We have been paying for a War on Poverty for over thirty years. We could be lowering our tax burden by simplifying Government instead of wasting those monies on a generational basis.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-28-2010, 09:30 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,579 posts, read 86,610,587 times
Reputation: 36642
As a SS retireee myself, I would say the maximum benefit is too high. The maximum monthly benefit is currently over $2,300. Any single retiree can live comfortably on half of that, and the maximum should be lmuch lower. For a retired couple, the max is $4,700, which is more than the median income for a working American household.

A retiree who lives in a place where the cost of living is outrageous can move to a more modest community. A worker who was in an income/contribution bracket that allowed for the maximum benefit should have saved some of his high earnings in a retirement fund. A retiree has no right to expect that his social security will continue to make the mortgage payments on a $450K house which a retiree no longer needs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2010, 09:34 AM
 
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
17,531 posts, read 24,603,746 times
Reputation: 9975
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
As a SS retireee myself, I would say the maximum benefit is too high. The maximum monthly benefit is currently over $2,300. Any single retiree can live comfortably on half of that, and the maximum should be lmuch lower. For a retired couple, the max is $4,700, which is more than the median income for a working American household.

A retiree who lives in a place where the cost of living is outrageous can move to a more modest community. A worker who was in an income/contribution bracket that allowed for the maximum benefit should have saved some of his high earnings in a retirement fund. A retiree has no right to expect that his social security will continue to make the mortgage payments on a $450K house which a retiree no longer needs.
I guess that depends on where you live. There are parts of the country where $450K won't buy a shack
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2010, 09:35 AM
 
Location: US, California - federalist
2,794 posts, read 3,669,530 times
Reputation: 484
In my opinion, our obligation ends at official poverty. Why should we have to support a government more wasteful than that? If no one were in official poverty, would we need more government or less government? A more fiscally responsible position would advocate lowering our tax burden through Just causes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2010, 10:16 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,579 posts, read 86,610,587 times
Reputation: 36642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boompa View Post
I guess that depends on where you live. There are parts of the country where $450K won't buy a shack
Then I guess retirees can't afford to live there. Neither can a lot of other people. Unless under house arrest, a retiree can move to where his new income is enough to live on. Which is about 95% of the country. If all you have is your SS and didn't create a private retirement plan, maybe you can't afford to stay in your villa overlooking the ocean in Santa Barbara or your Connecticut horse farm.

A careful reading of my post will reveal that I already accounted for that, suggesting that retirees on social security can choose a more modest place to call home. SS benefits alone should not be expected to maintain the same lifestlye that 6-figure workers have become accustomed to after squandering all their earnings as if there were no tomorrow.

The purpose of SS was to provide for the basic needs of people who had little to squander and none to save from their take home pay. They can get by fine on $1500 a month, although many don't even get that.

Last edited by jtur88; 02-28-2010 at 10:25 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2010, 11:05 AM
 
Location: US, California - federalist
2,794 posts, read 3,669,530 times
Reputation: 484
There would be nothing preventing any individual(s) from renting or leasing that hopefully, mostly paid off residence, while living somewhere else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2010, 12:06 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,100 posts, read 39,135,339 times
Reputation: 4937
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
As a SS retireee myself, I would say the maximum benefit is too high. The maximum monthly benefit is currently over $2,300. Any single retiree can live comfortably on half of that, and the maximum should be lmuch lower. For a retired couple, the max is $4,700, which is more than the median income for a working American household.
Rent on decent housing can easily exceed $1,000 @ month so I'm not sure how you came up with someone being able to "live comfortably" on $1,150 @ month. Unlike you, most people would prefer to have a life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2010, 12:21 PM
 
Location: South Jordan, Utah
8,182 posts, read 9,168,154 times
Reputation: 3632
Quote:
Originally Posted by mango23 View Post
Then just throw in one, (1) illness paid for by Medicare. That could move the number to possibly the first month they are on SS when they will have exhausted everything they have contributed. Either way they are welfare cases paid for by the rest of the working people. Their SS is not a right they have paid for it is just a safety net and not retirement. If it has to be adjusted for the well-being of the rest of the nation, so be it.
These old people are delusional about what is owed to them and act like they don't even appreciate what they are getting, as in the next breath they would like to deny it for others. There in lies the problem.
I agree but I feel the boomers will be the ones to change their attitude, it is the older "Greedy Geezer' generations that are the problem. John Stossel did an interview of some of them, it was scary.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2010, 12:56 PM
 
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
17,531 posts, read 24,603,746 times
Reputation: 9975
Quote:
Originally Posted by hilgi View Post
I agree but I feel the boomers will be the ones to change their attitude, it is the older "Greedy Geezer' generations that are the problem. John Stossel did an interview of some of them, it was scary.
John Stossels """Reports""" were paid for by freedomworks acting as a Lobbyist for the Insurance Companies. That was why ABC Fired him
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2010, 01:05 PM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,232 posts, read 46,517,452 times
Reputation: 11081
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Then I guess retirees can't afford to live there. Neither can a lot of other people. Unless under house arrest, a retiree can move to where his new income is enough to live on. Which is about 95% of the country. If all you have is your SS and didn't create a private retirement plan, maybe you can't afford to stay in your villa overlooking the ocean in Santa Barbara or your Connecticut horse farm.

A careful reading of my post will reveal that I already accounted for that, suggesting that retirees on social security can choose a more modest place to call home. SS benefits alone should not be expected to maintain the same lifestlye that 6-figure workers have become accustomed to after squandering all their earnings as if there were no tomorrow.

The purpose of SS was to provide for the basic needs of people who had little to squander and none to save from their take home pay. They can get by fine on $1500 a month, although many don't even get that.
It often takes money to move.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top