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.
a. Who cares what the author thinks?
b. Who cares what the AFL-CIO thinks?
c. Who actually believes that we need to increase payroll taxes in order to increase SS benefits?
This is a place I disagree with Republicans.... they love to call SS an entitlement, however, I damn well feel entitled to something I paid into all my life.... it is something that those recieving have earned
They tend to lump entitlements all together.... welfare fraud and SS are the same to them
That being said, I feel that SS should continue as it is as a supplement to retirement especially since most people are having to work far past 65 anyways to survive
I couldn't agree more A&M. Any money that you paid in should NEVER be called an "entitlement". That is BS pure and simple. It's your money.
If only the govt wouldn't have already spent all of your money...
That's the really bad part, and the REAL reason for the push for Obama Care. They've already depleted every pot of money they've EVER gotten their hands on, and now they need another.
I have to say, however, that when SS began, life expectancy was nowhere near what it is today. Raising the age requirement to 70 isn't as bad as many would seem to think.
By this logic, we should totally eliminate Medicare, since it was never adequately paid for.
You are missing the point entirely.
Logically you are absolutley correct. But we, as a nation, are not cold-hearted enough to totally end social programs for those who truly need help.
There is a difference in welfare, medicare, and all programs in which people draw from a pot they did not contribute to.
Social security is the ONE program, that is unlike the others. When a person reaches retireement age, he/she has generally contributed into that pot for over 40 years. Their money. End of story.
There is a difference in welfare, medicare, and all programs in which people draw from a pot they did not contribute to.
Social security lets people draw from a pot they did not contribute to.
How else do you think the lower-earners get back 3x as much as they paid in? Where do you think that money comes from?
And let's not even talk about the SS disability payments, that are just like welfare.
Quote:
Social security is the ONE program, that is unlike the others. When a person reaches retireement age, he/she has generally contributed into that pot for over 40 years. Their money. End of story.
That only works if you ignore how much they put in, and how much they take out. It only works if you ignore the inherent ponzi-nature of the program, where each succeeding older generation always leaves the program's fiscal condition worse-off than they found it. Americans seem to become strategically innumerate with age.
Social security lets people draw from a pot they did not contribute to.
How else do you think the lower-earners get back 3x as much as they paid in? Where do you think that money comes from?
And let's not even talk about the SS disability payments, that are just like welfare.
That only works if you ignore how much they put in, and how much they take out. It only works if you ignore the inherent ponzi-nature of the program, where each succeeding older generation always leaves the program's fiscal condition worse-off than they found it. Americans seem to become strategically innumerate with age.
I agree with you there. The SS system has definitely morphed into something entirely different than its original design. My contention is those who have contributed into it for 40 years should get every dime back. In fact, I favor some sort of individual account tracking for each contributor. Similar to a 401K with far less risk and far less return, yet each individual should get THEIR money back with a bit of growth.
I agree with you there. The SS system has definitely morphed into something entirely different than its original design. My contention is those who have contributed into it for 40 years should get every dime back.
So let's say after we perform your audit, it comes to light that grandma's SS payments need to be cut down by 75%, and grandma won't be able to pay her property taxes and insurance, and will be forced out of her home and into the street.
Would you still support this? Furthermore, would you still consider this realistic -- can you seriously see ANY politician supporting it?
Quote:
In fact, I favor some sort of individual account tracking for each contributor. Similar to a 401K with far less risk and far less return, yet each individual should get THEIR money back with a bit of growth.
This already exists; it's multiplied by a benefit curve, that increases or decreases your benefits based on how little or how much you earned in your lifetime.
[quote=Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus;23897661]So let's say after we perform your audit, it comes to light that grandma's SS payments need to be cut down by 75%, and grandma won't be able to pay her property taxes and insurance, and will be forced out of her home and into the street. /quote]
Or into her children's house? Or you implying that grandma's reduction in benefits is because she didn't pay much into it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus
Would you still support this? Furthermore, would you still consider this realistic -- can you seriously see ANY politician supporting it?
I doubt many politicians would vote for anything that took less power and money out of their hands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus
This already exists; it's multiplied by a benefit curve, that increases or decreases your benefits based on how little or how much you earned in your lifetime.
My problem with it is we have no choice. They FORCE you to contribute, so IMO you are deserving of every penny put in. I have no problem with a benfit curve, I just think they are shafting person X, who contributed for 50 years to give more to person Y, who didn't contribute anything.
Social Security is a phenomenally successful program that represents the very best in American values and has virtually no waste, no corruption and almost no overhead. The program does have one serious problem, however its benefits are too low. So let's increase social security benefits. Here's the article.
So because the AFL-CIO says so - you accept it as fact?
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.
