U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [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)
 
Old 04-18-2015, 08:55 AM
 
Location: Maryland
282 posts, read 305,964 times
Reputation: 338

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by dothetwist View Post

This ill-conceived idea by Christie (who I could have considered voting for, up until today) of means-testing would be like paying your car insurance premiums, having a fender-bender and allowing the Insurance Company to look at your income and say, ya know what....you can afford to pay for those damages out of pocket. .
That is a good comparison.
Personnal, I think SS has changed over the years to an unsustainable mess.
I think it would be better to completely change the system, make it much, much smaller; and allow people to save for themselves rather than pay 6.2% into this crazy system. If somebody needs welfare, they should be on the welfare roles, not an over progressive SS system that is welfare in disguise for some, just right for others, and stealing from the succesful.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-18-2015, 08:58 AM
 
Location: Maryland
282 posts, read 305,964 times
Reputation: 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by lancers View Post
A society can be judged on how they help those who are less fortunate.
People should treat the less fortunate appropriately. One person to another, local community support, etc.
The government shouldn't steal (tax) one group to give to another group (less fortunate or just politically popular voters).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2015, 09:10 AM
 
29,782 posts, read 34,867,277 times
Reputation: 11705
One of the future realities is that once we use means testing for benefits as a tool to sustain the program it will be just as valid to adjust it like we do the age requirement and COLA. Depending on prolonged economic conditions that could be down resulting in a lower inflation adjusted or real time benefits level. How popular will this be when the inflation adjusted amount is 65k in today's dollars. Hmmmmm?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2015, 09:12 AM
 
Location: Durham NC
1,189 posts, read 1,296,908 times
Reputation: 921
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSRSJim View Post
People should treat the less fortunate appropriately. One person to another, local community support, etc.
The government shouldn't steal (tax) one group to give to another group (less fortunate or just politically popular voters).

We're not talking about Southern Europe here where people retire at 55 and try like all heck to not pay taxes as they go along. That is unsustainable we can still save our system if we start now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2015, 09:13 AM
 
Location: NC Piedmont
3,911 posts, read 2,878,614 times
Reputation: 6291
I agree that SS doesn't fit the dictionary definition of insurance, but it is more like insurance than an investment. You pay in with a reasonable expectation that it will take care of a potential problem, the cost of which might exceed what you paid in. It's quite possible you won't get back what you paid in.

The question of whether or not it is good for society to have a safety net is interesting. I think we agree having the net is good, but knowledge of the net does seem to affect society and trying to pay for that net with any degree of fairness is problematic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2015, 09:15 AM
 
29,782 posts, read 34,867,277 times
Reputation: 11705
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarvedTones View Post
I agree that SS doesn't fit the dictionary definition of insurance, but it is more like insurance than an investment. You pay in with a reasonable expectation that it will take care of a potential problem, the cost of which might exceed what you paid in. It's quite possible you won't get back what you paid in.

The question of whether or not it is good for society to have a safety net is interesting. I think we agree having the net is good, but knowledge of the net does seem to affect society and trying to pay for that net with any degree of fairness is problematic.
Sorta like Health Care reform. Where did you transplant from?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2015, 10:39 AM
 
Location: NC Piedmont
3,911 posts, read 2,878,614 times
Reputation: 6291
I have actually been here almost 25 years. The Triangle isn't all red. Believe it or not, I was born and raised further in the Deep South. I am not sure when I started realizing kids are innocent everywhere, but that is what did in my conservative politics. I am a parent, which certainly plays in. I also work with data/logic and I am pretty good at it. There is enough money to go around even with some of us doing much better than others. What's the difference in more than you can spend and more than you can count? In the latter case, you are taking a bunch of money out of the system and making it just a little harder for everyone else without any benefit to yourself. If you start there and and try to make a framework where those who want to get way ahead still can become very rich it would work. The trouble is we are way past that and now to get there means Robin Hood and no one will consider that. Not even me; it could cause scenarios I would hate to even think about. So I propose little adjustments knowing full well it isn't likely to work. It is frustrating to be compassion driven sometimes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2015, 11:54 AM
 
29,782 posts, read 34,867,277 times
Reputation: 11705
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarvedTones View Post
I have actually been here almost 25 years. The Triangle isn't all red. Believe it or not, I was born and raised further in the Deep South. I am not sure when I started realizing kids are innocent everywhere, but that is what did in my conservative politics. I am a parent, which certainly plays in. I also work with data/logic and I am pretty good at it. There is enough money to go around even with some of us doing much better than others. What's the difference in more than you can spend and more than you can count? In the latter case, you are taking a bunch of money out of the system and making it just a little harder for everyone else without any benefit to yourself. If you start there and and try to make a framework where those who want to get way ahead still can become very rich it would work. The trouble is we are way past that and now to get there means Robin Hood and no one will consider that. Not even me; it could cause scenarios I would hate to even think about. So I propose little adjustments knowing full well it isn't likely to work. It is frustrating to be compassion driven sometimes.
Interesting you sound like a lot of us Triangle transplants, reformed Liberals or Conservatives who are striving for a realistic and workable middle ground. Now if we could only find local politicians who are neither one way or the other.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2015, 12:07 PM
 
14,253 posts, read 15,332,749 times
Reputation: 13682
So, let's see .... because I have got myself a good education, worked hard all my life, paid my pension contributions, paid into my 401k and RBAP, paid off my mortgage and generally got myself into a good place for retirement, I should not get the SS that I also contributed tens of thousands of dollars to?

Yep, sounds fair to me
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2015, 12:12 PM
 
Location: RVA
2,165 posts, read 1,266,382 times
Reputation: 4456
Not to belittle anyones contributions, but if youve paid the max in for the last 35 years and are at even 62, you will get everything you put in and your employers match (not including imaginary interest) in like 14 years, IIRC, from an article I read. As mathjak said, delaying it shortens the number of payback years, but still puts the payback date farther out, which benefits SS, but longevity quickly surpasses it. The pay back birthday moves out the you ger you are, and I cant recall what it was assuming living until 90. Something like 1990? Maybe someone that read the same will chime in.
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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

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 > Retirement
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