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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-16-2016, 03:28 PM
 
7,371 posts, read 8,713,284 times
Reputation: 9330

Advertisements

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-16-2016, 04:30 PM
 
29,925 posts, read 34,988,163 times
Reputation: 11823
Quote:
Originally Posted by lenora View Post
Hardly. I should have used the term "rational basis" instead of "rational reason" (duh!) for those who are familiar with Constitutional law. Suffice it to say that 99% of the time, the government entity will win. This describes it perfectly:

"In United States Supreme Court jurisprudence, the nature of the interest at issue determines the level of scrutiny applied by appellate courts. When courts engage in rational basis review, only the most egregious enactments – those not rationally related to a legitimate government interest – are overturned."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review

That said, we all know that Congress will eliminate benefits when donkeys fly.
They don't have to survive in order to pass it. Beware a second term strict conservative President. Especially one who is inclined to go on the gold standard and or tie our currency more to gold and stable value. There is one of those still left. That along with a well financed congress of similar mind set and a fiscal crisis that needed funding and you never know in the future.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/28/ted-c...-standard.html
Quote:
Sen. Ted Cruz said Wednesday night he has "deep concerns" about the Federal Reserve and it should be audited.

"I think the Fed should get out of the business of trying to juice our economy, and simply be focused on sound money and monetary stability, ideally tied to gold," he said during the Republican presidential debate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2016, 07:03 PM
 
Location: Central IL
15,249 posts, read 8,616,755 times
Reputation: 35722
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicet4 View Post
Me to but a cut will never, ever happen unless a politician has a death wish for his political career and I don't see that happening.

From the June 2015 Beneficiary Data the number of Retired workers is 39.5 million and they vote. Get out there with threats to cut their benefits and if they can get out of bed, some even if they can't, will go vote if they have to crawl.
I honestly don't know if that is the case any more. The new cycles are so short, real journalism is dead, and no one remembers anything that happened 6 months before, much less 2, 3, or 4 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2016, 07:39 PM
eok
 
6,684 posts, read 3,188,950 times
Reputation: 8464
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
Beware a second term strict conservative President. Especially one who is inclined to go on the gold standard and or tie our currency more to gold and stable value
A gold standard wouldn't hurt people who depend on SS. The overall effect of a gold standard would be deflation. That would make SS checks more valuable. In deflation, you can buy more with the same amount of money.

In the Great Depression, a lot of seniors were starving, and selling apples on street corners to try to earn enough to live on. But that's because they didn't have enough income to even start to pay their bills. They depended on their children and grandchildren to support them. But those were unemployed, and unable to even support themselves. But now that seniors have decent SS checks, they can survive the worst depression, far better than most other people can. The biggest problem most seniors will have in a new great depression is that their children and grandchildren will move in with them, and expect to be supported by the same SS check. For that reason, the best defense against a great depression, is to predict it, and move 1000 miles away.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2016, 07:41 PM
eok
 
6,684 posts, read 3,188,950 times
Reputation: 8464
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63 View Post
I honestly don't know if that is the case any more. The new cycles are so short, real journalism is dead, and no one remembers anything that happened 6 months before, much less 2, 3, or 4 years.
I vaguely remember some guy named Trump. Or was it some kind of newfangled Trumpet or something?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2016, 08:40 PM
 
29,925 posts, read 34,988,163 times
Reputation: 11823
Quote:
Originally Posted by eok View Post
A gold standard wouldn't hurt people who depend on SS. The overall effect of a gold standard would be deflation. That would make SS checks more valuable. In deflation, you can buy more with the same amount of money.

In the Great Depression, a lot of seniors were starving, and selling apples on street corners to try to earn enough to live on. But that's because they didn't have enough income to even start to pay their bills. They depended on their children and grandchildren to support them. But those were unemployed, and unable to even support themselves. But now that seniors have decent SS checks, they can survive the worst depression, far better than most other people can. The biggest problem most seniors will have in a new great depression is that their children and grandchildren will move in with them, and expect to be supported by the same SS check. For that reason, the best defense against a great depression, is to predict it, and move 1000 miles away.
Basing currency on the amount of gold does a major hammer on spending. With debt service do you really think SS is going to win the budget battle over defense etc?

Last edited by TuborgP; 04-16-2016 at 09:00 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2016, 03:11 AM
 
2,056 posts, read 2,482,851 times
Reputation: 3803
Actually it's not a mandatory program. Don't work on the books, and you don't pay into it. You also don't get it when you retire, but that's fair. Workers like teachers in 15 states do not participate in social securityl. Check out the link below. It has me concerned, as the wife is hoping to take early retirement soon and has worked in Texas as a teacher in the past. We will have to go down to the local social security office here in Florida and see if that working stint in Texas jeopardized her social security earnings. I am not trying to alarm anyone w/ this info. In fact, I am the one that is nervous after reading some of this, so if someone has worked as a teacher, they had best make sure of their social security retirement standings. There are probably other jobs that fit into this loophole.

Why Aren

Here's more here

http://www.kiplinger.com/article/ret...-benefits.html

Last edited by smarino; 04-17-2016 at 03:20 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2016, 09:06 AM
 
8,155 posts, read 7,365,364 times
Reputation: 6501
"In fiscal year (FY) 2014, mandatory spending accounted for about 60 percent of the federal budget and over 12 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). The two largest mandatory spending programs are Medicare and Social Security, which together account for nearly 40 percent of the federal budget."

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...19745492,d.cWw

Mandatory means the program was already created by a law which authorizes how the program spends it money and collects revenues to fund it.

There are some state pension programs that have exemptions from Social Security. When they fell on hard times, they jacked up the employee contributions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2016, 09:45 AM
 
Location: Loudon, TN
5,880 posts, read 4,896,749 times
Reputation: 19794
Quote:
Originally Posted by smarino View Post
Actually it's not a mandatory program. Don't work on the books, and you don't pay into it. You also don't get it when you retire, but that's fair. Workers like teachers in 15 states do not participate in social securityl. Check out the link below. It has me concerned, as the wife is hoping to take early retirement soon and has worked in Texas as a teacher in the past. We will have to go down to the local social security office here in Florida and see if that working stint in Texas jeopardized her social security earnings. I am not trying to alarm anyone w/ this info. In fact, I am the one that is nervous after reading some of this, so if someone has worked as a teacher, they had best make sure of their social security retirement standings. There are probably other jobs that fit into this loophole.

Why Aren

Here's more here

A Public Pension and Full Social Security Benefits? No Way-Kiplinger
As long has she has 40 quarters of employment where she was contributing, she will be eligible. If she is short a few quarters she can work part or full time until she completes her 40 quarters. You can see the way to determine this in a paragraph of the link you included, which I post below:

"In the meantime, you need to become familiar with the two rules if you ever worked in a job that was not covered by Social Security. While some federal, state and local employees have paid into Social Security, others have not. Most federal employees today are covered by Social Security. Check with your employer or former employer. Also, if your Social Security statement lists $0 for years you worked for a government agency, that's an indication you may be subject to the two rules." (Bolding mine)

Just go to the SS website and look at her statement, if you don't have the one they sent her last year. Any zeroes for years she worked? If the answer is "no", no problem.

Last edited by TheShadow; 04-17-2016 at 09:53 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2016, 02:56 PM
 
Location: Ohio
20,059 posts, read 14,314,168 times
Reputation: 16217
Quote:
Originally Posted by lchoro View Post
"In fiscal year (FY) 2014, mandatory spending accounted for about 60 percent of the federal budget and over 12 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). The two largest mandatory spending programs are Medicare and Social Security, which together account for nearly 40 percent of the federal budget."
Social Security is not part of the federal budget. Only part of Medicare is paid out of the General Fund.
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