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.
I suggest we limit Social Security payments to anyone making more than the 90th percentile from all their sources
Hey yeah let's establish a government mandated disincentive to accumulating wealth and having personal finance discipline.
We'll just tell people "sorry pal you saved too much money during your life by living under your means, you don't get social security like your friend up the street who always bought nicer cars, houses, and ate out every night."
if someone decided to get rid of social security, liberals would run ads depicting old people starving in the streets. this is honestly what they think would happen if old people didn't get their 500 bucks a month. social security if fraud, plain and simple.
It's hyperbole, but it's not too far from the way things were prior to SS. Ever heard of county "poor farms"? This idyllic idea that in the past, the elders lived with their kids and their families is not entirely true. Prior to medicare, about 50% of elderly did not have health insurance. These insurance companies the RW is so supportive of do not want to insure people who are going to actually use the coverage.
Privatizing SS would be a boon for charlatan financial "advisors". The ones that need the advice the most won't even know they're being fleeced until they retire.
Go back and read my prior posts in this thread. It mentions nothing about 1937 or 1965. Economic progress goes FORWARD not backward.
I'm saying if you look at virtually every major economic power on the planet they provide some social security and medical care for the elderly. A country that doesn't provide those benefits tends to have poorer health outcomes and lower life expectancy. Taking away those benefits is detrimental to a country's overall quality of life. First, without those benefits peoples’ standard of living suffers. Second, without those benefits money that could go into the economy in the form of investment or consumption ends of being saved. As quite as a it's kept saving too much money can be economically detrimental to a nation's economy. Japan experienced that in the 1990's.
Hong Kong,till unification with China (1997)
had no SS,Medicare,Medicaid...
Its 5m pop was one of the richest segments of people on earth...
If you eliminate Social Security, and Medicare then America essentially becomes a third world country. We may be on that trajectory anyway with a inadequate educational system, a growing gap between the rich and poor, poor wage and economic growth and ineffective government.
Agreed.
I think we should all have a guaranteed annual income of $100K. In fact, the best way to do this would be to LIMIT income to $100K annually so that we all have exactly the same amount of money. Everybody should have a free car too and that car should be the same car that everyone else has -- no ands, ifs or buts.
The main point of pro-SS advocates is stability,peace of mind,safety net...
If a gov can create a mandate for individual retirement programs which are equal to SS in its virtues,then we have a winner.
So far the Repubs have not scored by offering a winner...
All nations,even the richest ones,borrow money,run deficeits & carry debts...
Even small paradises,like Brunei,Monaco,Luxemburg...
The terms : deficeit,debt,borrow,lend are not negative...
They are essential factors of economic reality...
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.