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.
thank you: it wasn't never intended to be our sole means of support and I am one who receive my check each month. Do I depend on it? you damn well better believe I do, did hubby and I do a poor job of planing?
Yes we did, but that is not the governments problem: that is ours. Now, do I think we will ever see a cut in benefits? Of course not. But the system does have to be tweeked in some way.
If you did a poor job of planning, rest assured you are not alone. If anything you may be in the majority. If I were you the real question I would ask myself: have you at least achieved a sustainable lifestyle with what you have now?
As far as "tweaked," yes of course it has to be tweaked. Again rest assured, from the situation you presented in your post, they won't touch your SS benefit at all. Any tweaking to current recipients will be means testing, and if you have no means other than SS benefits then they have nothing to trim from you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita
That is the biggest bunch of BULL I have heard in a long time: against it, probably but they are not attempting to kill it. I have to ask you, how much do you think the SS benefits went up under Obama? Check it. As for an assurance against poverty: it isn't the governments place to support us if we have not made an effort to protect ourselves as we age.
I don't have to look it up, I'm on SS benefits. The increases have all been zero or the trivial increase was ate up by a corresponding increase in Medicare deductions (costs). We retirees got NOTHING under Obama. NOTHING!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonyafd
One must understand that in recent years the Republican party was at the vanguard in the effort to privatize Social Security. Privatizing SS means putting funds into private accounts and denying those funds to the SS trust fund. This undermines the ability to pay the massive amounts needed to current SS recipients. By espousing this philosophy of privatization, no one could attribute Republican attempts at privatization to altruism.
I believe at some point in recent years the employee contribution to SS was reduced "in order to stimulate the economy." Or, was that done to cripple the SS program? Maybe both?
In any case both parties should be working on discovering the ways in which the SS system can be made sustainable. There is nothing wrong with that. The only wrong thing is that they did nothing. In fact IMO they are clueless!
As far as privatization, there is nothing inherently wrong with that BUT depending on how it is accomplished. The devil is always in the details. In any case there can be no flag cutting ceremony like they have when a new bridge is inaugurated and then the old bridge is blown up. Any meaningful change in our retirement system must take place over the span of a normal working career: about 50 years. In that respect I suggest that if any new system is put in place that the transition should be made at the rate of 2% per year, where for the next 50 years new recipients will receive benefits in part from both systems, depending on how long they worked under each. After 50 years it could be arbitrated and any remaining recipients under the old system could be grandfathered in to the new system. This would likely be a small percentage of the full number of recipients.
But we can't even begin until somebody proposes a new system that has any chance of being workable. I have seen exactly zero progress, and unless something changes there is no other solution except propping up the existing SS system.
And there is going to be hell to pay if there is any reduction in SS benefits for anybody other than the rich SS recipients.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maat55
The current system is not sustainable and if the program were to begin means testing, would make it an abomination to liberty. The proper solution is to transition to a mandated private system, while having three generations slowly reconcile the theft by congress.
Which would you prefer then? You said the current system is not sustainable. Why not reduce SS benefits for say some recipient who makes $250K in other income? It may be cheating the contract we already have with government, but that's better than just cutting everybody's benefits. My main concern is those who receive no income other than Social Security. None.
And a transition to a mandated private system? Our government often has long winded arguments even over continuing to fund the US government or shut it down.
I'm all in favor of a new system provided it will work and provided that the changeover is designed to be a sufficiently long enough time that there are no dislocations or disruptions in retirees lives caused by the transition. I sure hope somebody figures this out quickly. Every 'nother year with no solution is another year of the problem getting worse.
Which would you prefer then? You said the current system is not sustainable. Why not reduce SS benefits for say some recipient who makes $250K in other income? It may be cheating the contract we already have with government, but that's better than just cutting everybody's benefits. My main concern is those who receive no income other than Social Security. None.
And a transition to a mandated private system? Our government often has long winded arguments even over continuing to fund the US government or shut it down.
I'm all in favor of a new system provided it will work and provided that the changeover is designed to be a sufficiently long enough time that there are no dislocations or disruptions in retirees lives caused by the transition. I sure hope somebody figures this out quickly. Every 'nother year with no solution is another year of the problem getting worse.
I would like to see a fair transition from the government plan to a privatized system. It would have to fairly spread the pain(theft by congress) to three generations. Additionally, there should be voluntary foregoing of benefits and eventually means testing to get to a mandated private system.
There is no painless way out. What is not acceptable is continuing down the same path that allows government pilfering, higher taxes generation to generation and the promotion of government dependency.
Honestly, it doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell. So personally, my hope is the system collapses instead of further degradation to a socialist cesspool. Legally, no one is entitled to SS/Medicare.
I don't consider spreading the pain to be an optimal solution. I'd rather think of spreading the gain.
I believe the concept of the original Social Security system was based upon the fact that if left to voluntary participation, invariably there those who did not participate, and ended up being a burden on the government, the taxpayers and the public.
There is certainly no way out unless and until somebody (government?) starts working on a plan. Doing nothing but hoping is not a plan. Waiting for the present plan to collapse is merely inviting disaster, misery and dislocation of society—and mostly on the backs of those too old to carry the weight.
I do have some reservations against a private system (private as in businesses?) although I consider myself a fiscal conservative. Just exactly which businesses will benefit from privatization? And who picks them?
Perhaps an ideal plan would resemble the insurance model where companies can freely compete (unlike now) and offer competitive plans to guarantee their insureds will not run out of money in old age. It would be even better if you could purchase a mixed bag of various plans.
However I still do not see how a voluntary plan would work. I mean I want voluntary plans, but it is just human nature to avoid problems until they become critical, and while old age is inevitable if you live long enough it seems that too many people just want to avoid thinking about it and planning for it.
I'm damned glad I'm not one of them! However I did miss out on a lot of life because I was busy burying acorns like some sort of demented chipmunk!
Currently SS payments are based on what is put in. Removing the caps by itself will do nothing.
Removing the caps will bring in new revenue much greater than the increase in payouts, because only (something like) 10 percent of the new revenue will be paid out to the high earners. Removing the cap is like a card liberals have up their sleeve to fix SS but once they use it they are out of cards to play.
Removing the caps will bring in new revenue much greater than the increase in payouts, because only (something like) 10 percent of the new revenue will be paid out to the high earners. Removing the cap is like a card liberals have up their sleeve to fix SS but once they use it they are out of cards to play.
What about removing the caps plus means testing during payout years?
Currently SS payments are based on what is put in. Removing the caps by itself will do nothing.
You seem confused. Removing the cap will infuse millions into the system.
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.
