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.
Meanwhile inflation chips away at the whole mess and rising property taxes attack the fixed income retiree. One hand gives a little while the other reaches around and grabs the whole wallet
The last few years my elderly mother lived in her home before I put her in a condo I avoided improving a few things around the home because of property taxes. You need permits which triggers a reassessment. Translation: hold onto your wallet.
I couldn't stand the thought of paying more property taxes but as time went on it bothered me that the house wasn't as nice as it could be for her.
Government: do the right thing, try to live a quality life = you get punished.
Guess who is going to legislate, implement, and regulate the "solution" to this problem?
*Both of us look over as Uncle Sam walks thru the door. We immediately put our wallets on the table and sigh in exasperation.
Since Uncle Sam is the administrator, yeah, he would be the one to handle the problem. While a third party might be better, do it more efficiently at a much cheaper cost, that's not likely to happen, which is insane in itself. As an example, most of the budgeted dollars for welfare goes toward administrative costs. We don't do better because we don't want to.
I just want someone....anyone...to get the scammers off welfare and disability.
Since Uncle Sam is the administrator, yeah, he would be the one to handle the problem. While a third party might be better, do it more efficiently at a much cheaper cost, that's not likely to happen, which is insane in itself. As an example, most of the budgeted dollars for welfare goes toward administrative costs. We don't do better because we don't want to.
I just want someone....anyone...to get the scammers off welfare and disability.
No, thieves (Sammy) don't like competition. Scratch that third party talk. You're lucky you didn't get swatted as you typed that.
Sure the "administrative costs" are the bulk of the budget. Ever deal with welfare or disability? My sister has been legitimately mentally disabled since birth. Over the years when I was living close to her I would take her downtown to hash out one of their errors (which occurred every 1.2 nano seconds).
Brother, you're funding a bloated, totally unmanageable, and completely ass-backwards operation. Up is down. Day is night. Black is white (excuse me as this is probably racist).
Bottom line: They don't want scammers off the rolls. They need them to justify their budgets. They need them so they can continue to hide your money in their "administrative costs".
There's a solution to this: Means testing and raise the age of eligibility.
Congratulations. You just ruined your economy and are spending even more money on State and federal unemployment benefits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by movedintime
Original design of Social Security was to help control the present situation regarding homeless & poor.
No, it was not, but thanks for fantasizing just the same.
The original design of Social Security by a Republican governor and Republican Statelegislature was to benefit the Middle Class and Lower Class.
That particular State did not have dozens of publicly-traded corporations employing 1,000s of workers and it wouldn't matter if they did, because union pension plans did not exist at that time.
In fact, I don't believe there were any at all, except maybe Kresge had few stores there.
It was all farmers, Mom & Pop shops and small to medium-size manufacturing and trades.
The legislature was very forward-thinking and saw societal changes that necessitated a social security program.
More than two dozen States followed suit.
Then, in 1928 when FDR was elected governor of New York, he directed the legislature to formulate a social security plan as did several other States.
By 1935, there were 35 States with social security programs, 7 States with pending legislation and 6 States, mostly the least populated States, had appointed commissions to study social security programs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenCopeland
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.
So, you're a Millionaire. Who would have guessed.
Why don't you want to address the moral and ethical issues of investing?
What they are talking about when SS becomes insolvent, payment won't stop, but they will no longer be able to pay out at 100%. So either we significantly raise taxes, or recipients will receive less per month. I've heard the Democrats, like Pelosi, and they just say that recipients will receive 80% of previous payments. Congress doesn't care, because they are on a different system, and they will always get their retirement money.
I care if I receive less than promised, because I'm close to retirement. We need a different system for the younger generations, SS is not a good system for the 21st century.
All you need is a 1.8%-2.2% FICA tax increase and Social Security is solvent for the next 400 years without the need for any future tax increases.
Congratulations. You just ruined your economy and are spending even more money on State and federal unemployment benefits.
No, it was not, but thanks for fantasizing just the same.
The original design of Social Security by a Republican governor and Republican Statelegislature was to benefit the Middle Class and Lower Class.
That particular State did not have dozens of publicly-traded corporations employing 1,000s of workers and it wouldn't matter if they did, because union pension plans did not exist at that time.
In fact, I don't believe there were any at all, except maybe Kresge had few stores there.
It was all farmers, Mom & Pop shops and small to medium-size manufacturing and trades.
The legislature was very forward-thinking and saw societal changes that necessitated a social security program.
More than two dozen States followed suit.
Then, in 1928 when FDR was elected governor of New York, he directed the legislature to formulate a social security plan as did several other States.
By 1935, there were 35 States with social security programs, 7 States with pending legislation and 6 States, mostly the least populated States, had appointed commissions to study social security programs.
So, you're a Millionaire. Who would have guessed.
Why don't you want to address the moral and ethical issues of investing?
All you need is a 1.8%-2.2% FICA tax increase and Social Security is solvent for the next 400 years without the need for any future tax increases.
Please do yourself a favor and go to Google, type in 'Purpose of social security act'. It clearly nullifies your thoughts regarding SS & could help you with future posts on the subject.
no thanks, I can do better things with my money and much sooner. So can many others.
Quit thinking only of yourself. SS has kept millions out of poverty. The program needs fixing and it needs cuts in payouts to rich people and some tax increases.
Quit thinking only of yourself. SS has kept millions out of poverty. The program needs fixing and it needs cuts in payouts to rich people and some tax increases.
Why should rich people take a cut? They're contributing just like most of us.
We should all be demanding that our wonderful government stop sending trillions to other countries and put it toward Americans, rich or otherwise, for once.
Why should rich people take a cut? They're contributing just like most of us.
We should all be demanding that our wonderful government stop sending trillions to other countries and put it toward Americans, rich or otherwise, for once.
Because SS was never meant to allow retired people to live like kings & queens. SS will be fixed long before Medicare will be by the way. SS is an easy fix compared to anyone ever figuring out our healthcare system.
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.
We can continue to think of Social Security as an imposed savings plan that benefits anyone who pays into it, or we can treat it more like other government programs that are directed to the needy. The problem with the first idea is that it's a really lousy investment for most people, as it turns out. And both the fund and the tax contain the word "insurance", suggesting that the original concept was to protect people if something went wrong and they needed money.
Use the Social Security Administration's Calculators, and get this firmly into your head: seven percent of our GDP is not enough money to keep you comfortable when you stop working due to age or disability. Will the trust fund ever be completely depleted? I think not. But will we all continue to receive the benefits now built into the system? No.
In the 1970s my parents realized SS would be tapped into and vanish
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.
