U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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 Yesterday, 02:31 PM
 
16,429 posts, read 4,322,324 times
Reputation: 11526

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by movedintime View Post
[/b]

I seldom agree with you, but you are correct in your last paragraph. People either don't know this or are unwilling to accept it when they learn it.

Original design of Social Security was to help control the present situation regarding homeless & poor.

It was meant for the elderly, disabled etc. that were otherwise unable to support themselves.

NOT as an extra monthly check for those who could already support themselves.

It is a social insurance. Not a personal insurance you get back someday.
I'd fine with that and with medicare means testing and more......

But I cannot tell you how many times I've heard here and elsewhere "I've paid in and heck if I'm not going to take out everything that is coming to me".....

Whenever I am given the choice (in a debate) of whether to increase the act of wages subject to SS taxes....or, to cut the payments (means testing and other such things), I'd always take the later.

I know I have it good. I don't deserve anything more then I already have.

The truth is, tho, they already are headed down that path as my SS is fully taxed and there are high Medicare deducts and so on. But more needs to be done. The very idea that a 90 year old with 10 million in the bank has to pay almost nothing for $100K worth of medical care...is ridiculous. All that ends up being accomplished is that the treasury is bare and his two children get 5 million each instead of 4.95 million.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 02:33 PM
 
Location: SGV
25,494 posts, read 9,908,417 times
Reputation: 9873
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPowering1 View Post
Yeah, if they raise the age of eligibility to 90 they'll probably have more money than they need!

Had I taken the amount they took and invested it, I would have been able to retire by now and I'm not at retirement age yet.
Had you invested it extremely conservatively you could have retired..if I had to guess.

Don't ever go back and look at your yearly deductions and compare it to growth in the most basic ho-hum conservative investment plan.

You'll blow your head off.

Then you'll get taxed for it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:35 PM
 
Location: SGV
25,494 posts, read 9,908,417 times
Reputation: 9873
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post
I'd fine with that and with medicare means testing and more......

But I cannot tell you how many times I've heard here and elsewhere "I've paid in and heck if I'm not going to take out everything that is coming to me".....

Whenever I am given the choice (in a debate) of whether to increase the act of wages subject to SS taxes....or, to cut the payments (means testing and other such things), I'd always take the later.

I know I have it good. I don't deserve anything more then I already have.

The truth is, tho, they already are headed down that path as my SS is fully taxed and there are high Medicare deducts and so on. But more needs to be done. The very idea that a 90 year old with 10 million in the bank has to pay almost nothing for $100K worth of medical care...is ridiculous. All that ends up being accomplished is that the treasury is bare and his two children get 5 million each instead of 4.95 million.
You deserve what you earned. If you earned a penny, you deserve a penny. If you earned a billion dollars, you deserve a billion dollars.

Are we really going to bend over backwards this much to justify the ponzi scheme?

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:37 PM
 
475 posts, read 213,001 times
Reputation: 596
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post
I'd fine with that and with medicare means testing and more......

But I cannot tell you how many times I've heard here and elsewhere "I've paid in and heck if I'm not going to take out everything that is coming to me".....

Whenever I am given the choice (in a debate) of whether to increase the act of wages subject to SS taxes....or, to cut the payments (means testing and other such things), I'd always take the later.

I know I have it good. I don't deserve anything more then I already have.

The truth is, tho, they already are headed down that path as my SS is fully taxed and there are high Medicare deducts and so on. But more needs to be done. The very idea that a 90 year old with 10 million in the bank has to pay almost nothing for $100K worth of medical care...is ridiculous. All that ends up being accomplished is that the treasury is bare and his two children get 5 million each instead of 4.95 million.

If a person spends a little time reading 'The Purpose of Social Security' - https://www.ssa.gov › history › 35act

They would see something referring to someone with over 50M or 1 million in annual income. I think in anybody's world 1M annual income would be sufficient. But, there will be those that argue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:40 PM
 
30,273 posts, read 16,685,979 times
Reputation: 14047
Quote:
Originally Posted by movedintime View Post
If a person spends a little time reading 'The Purpose of Social Security' - https://www.ssa.gov › history › 35act

They would see something referring to someone with over 50M or 1 million in annual income. I think in anybody's world 1M annual income would be sufficient. But, there will be those that argue.
but you would still rob them to fund the scheme. The hatred sure runs deep with some.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:43 PM
 
475 posts, read 213,001 times
Reputation: 596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest View Post
but you would still rob them to fund the scheme. The hatred sure runs deep with some.
Not sure what you are talking about. Can you explain what you mean by what you wrote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:45 PM
 
180 posts, read 37,466 times
Reputation: 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by mircea View Post
actually, it's far less than 15 years, but who's counting?

There's nothing preventing you from managing your own retirement. If you're the financial genius you claim to be, it shouldn't be a problem.

Unfortunately, 85% of americans are not financial geniuses like you, and there are issues of morality and ethics related to the purchasing of stocks issued by publicly-traded corporations.

lololol


Just put the equivalent of the SS 12%-13% tax into an S&P 500 index annually starting at age 20, keep working/contributing and you'll be a millionaire by retirement. Doesn't require genius level ability.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:46 PM
 
320 posts, read 37,780 times
Reputation: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenCopeland View Post
Let it go bankrupt and close the books on it... No more socialist programs. I'd prefer to manage my own retirement, thank you.

Like Milton Friedman propsed...All those with accumulated entitlements are issued a bond due at 65 and equal in value to each of their present accumulations under the law, then close the books. done.

REF: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/th..._theo_homepage
That's a myth .
I heard the truth that it is all being safeguarded in a SSI " Lockbox " from the same democrat who gave the truth on climate change .
So you know you can trust him .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:54 PM
 
Location: Florida
22,723 posts, read 9,683,444 times
Reputation: 18606
It will not happen. There are many seniors who would literally be thrown into poverty, who have paid into the system their whole life. Nobody, and especially nobody who has to get elected, is going to go along with it. Can you imagine the homeless population increasing even more due to seniors being on the street? Or dying due to lack of health care?

There are many many other things that could and should be cut first.

How about SSDI? That is where much of the fraud comes from. The government needs to address this first. Then many other budgets can come under the knife before Social Security and Medicare. There is military bloat.

There is Congress. They receive a pension and benefits, which the majority of workers no longer receive. Their benefits will have to be cut before they start taking away the income of senior citizens, and I think they are well aware of this.

Any advisor or official who ever mentioned screwing with SS and Medicare have found out very quickly why it is called the third rail. Even when the Tea Party was starting their Don't Tread on Me stuff and calling Dems socialists due to health care, they were also loudly proclaiming---'Don't touch my Medicare'.

They will find a way. Until all fat is cut from the budget, including farm subsidies, and other forms of income provided by the US taxpayers, nobody is going to touch SS. Trump can bloviate all he wants about cutting it. He is only hurting himself--those republicans who have to get elected and will be sticking around DC, will not support him in this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:59 PM
 
Location: Suburb of Chicago
21,415 posts, read 10,335,820 times
Reputation: 20586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
Keep in mind though that the amount they took went to a variety of things like taking care of those that are enfeebled like the mentally handicapped or to the children of a deceased worker as well as those that become disabled. That's the insurance portion of things so you can't count that as money that should have gone to retirement.

You'd still have a nice sum if you took the rest but it's not nearly as big of a number as you'd think.

Me personally, I'm cool paying it so that I don't have all my relatives that spent every cent and now live mostly on Soc. Sec. after me for food etc. because they're living in a tent down by the river. I'm only joking a little about that.
True and valid points. I do think part of the problem is that a lot of people are on disability that shouldn't be on it, however.

That last paragraph is funny, but also brings up a good point. If the government ever does leave it up to individuals to invest their money instead of payroll deductions for SS, you just know a large part of our population wouldn't put anything aside and have absolutely nothing to live on once they get to retirement age.
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

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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - 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 - Top