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.
The problem with privatization is not so much the benefit to Wall Street- because after all there will be low-cost providers available. It is that it makes your retirement safety net just as dependent on the stock market as the REST of the money you have in 401k, etc.
The big thing about SS- you can't lose it with poor investment decisions or bad luck with investment timing.
SS helps keep the streets clear of destitute old people.
If they are denied benefits, why should they pay the payroll tax? That turns it into a welfare system.
Nonsense. If you don't drive on a particular US highway, you don't get a "refund" on the federal taxes that went to pay for repairs and maintenance to that highway.
SS is a TAX. It's not an IRA fund. My dad wasn't nearly wealthy but he had a very good pension - he didn't need the piddling SS check he got each month.
Rich people need to stop whinging about paying taxes. If that's one less cruise per year for you, tough noogies.
If you lose your money, you will pass the means test - and then you will be eligible for benefits.
If you DON'T lose your money, and the means test defines you as ineligible for benefits - thank your lucky stars that you are so well off!
I think cutting SS checks through means testing wouldn't be such a bad idea at all. Rich people don't need that piddling little amount.
It's hard to tell from your comment whether you know that Social Security retirement benefits are already means-tested in two significant ways:
1. The formulas which determine our benefit amounts are weighted heavily towards returning a greater percentage of low income wages as opposed to high income wages. This is not a negligible difference.
2. There is no federal income tax on Social Security benefits for the poor. If one's income is all, or mostly from SS, there is no federal taxation. But if one has a substantial amount of other income, then up to 85% of SS benefits are subject to federal taxation. That is not negligible either, depending on one's tax bracket.
If people advocate means testing beyond that which already exists, they should refer to it as further (or additional) means-testing.
Cuts in the present law are automatic as SS is a stand alone system. Its a pay go system. .Lack of funding to equal out flows means automatic across the boards cuts in the law itself. The trustee reports and the last response reported by presidential commission is available on line. It as was the Breaux commission .IMO; what we are likely to see from past response is shift retirement by age or actual years require work required as France did. Basically kick the can down the road as always.
Chances are the only way they could ever squeak this by would be to leave benefits as they are for those already receiving SS and for those within X years of eligibility. I wonder if that doesn't make it smart to get on the rolls asap instead of waiting for higher payouts?
Chances are the only way they could ever squeak this by would be to leave benefits as they are for those already receiving SS and for those within X years of eligibility. I wonder if that doesn't make it smart to get on the rolls asap instead of waiting for higher payouts?
I agree. They would have to phase this in so people could plan for this.
Then again all this talk of SS changes is just coming from Presidential candidates.
Congress has done nothing regarding SS. SSDI is already operating at a deficit.
I am guessing this topic will get moved but since SS is an important part of retired peoples' income, I thought it would be appropriate to post it here.
The politicians are all chomping at the bit to reduce social security payments. I for one am opposed as I believe many retired people depend on their check to survive. What do we need to do to prevent this from happening?
Cutting peoples amount received is of course political suicide so don't worry about that happening.
AARP is by far the strongest biggest baddest gorilla in the political jungle.
The real threat would be high levels of inflation that would act like a cut, especially since the government has made changes to what counts as "inflation" over the years.
Please note that the biggest problem with OASDI (aka Social Security) is actually the medical portion.
Now what they have done there is reduce what they will reimburse which puts the squeeze on the medical providers.
Long story short, pay attention to what AARP is telling you about the topic. They will give you the real voting history of candidates etc. instead of whatever BS propaganda the candidates and their supporters will spin.
NRA does the same thing. They'll back democrats or republicans, depends on their voting record.
I think they would have done just that like last time plus raised SS tax rate itself. But now days you do not have the numbers of younger workers dropped out of political discussion as then. Political discussion; if you call it that now; has changed.it Its political suicide to mention same as Greece faced in 1990's which has lead to 52% dependent on government pension system and its effects on economy.
Nonsense. If you don't drive on a particular US highway, you don't get a "refund" on the federal taxes that went to pay for repairs and maintenance to that highway.
Not nonsense at all. Who said anything about getting a refund? Do you see a difference between choosing not to drive down a particular highway and being told by the government that you may not? I do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sojj
SS is a TAX. It's not an IRA fund.
Correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sojj
My dad wasn't nearly wealthy but he had a very good pension - he didn't need the piddling SS check he got each month.
Rich people need to stop whinging about paying taxes. If that's one less cruise per year for you, tough noogies.
Now I'm rich? Cool.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sojj
If you lose your money, you will pass the means test - and then you will be eligible for benefits.
If you DON'T lose your money, and the means test defines you as ineligible for benefits - thank your lucky stars that you are so well off!
If I don't pass the means test, the means test is set pretty low.
I'm not certain what any of this has to do with my statement. You seem to have ranted rather than addressed a point.
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.
