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.
WHO earns 50K a year in SS??? and if so, I'm positive they have other resources to tap into if there is a reduction.
Also, to lump the entire GOP into this proposed legislative discussion is why many Americans dislike the US media, it's fear mongering.
Last, something has to be done eventually, common sense, of which most Americans are lacking, dictates that we are paying out more than we are taking in. Thus...effective legislatures are at least "discussing" unlike most Dems who prefer to hide their head in the sand.
That must be the 1% of SS recipients. I didn't even know it was possible to get that much.
There are all sorts of logistical wrinkles like these that will make any implementation of cuts, should they pass, slow-going. None of this stuff is going to be implemented overnight.
By the time this ball gets rolling, Republicans may have very well been voted out and the Democrats will just be undoing whatever the current Republican governments.
Some background info. So much is intertwined with years of SS implementation that unwinding could create considerable unintended consequences. Why Aren
That must be the 1% of SS recipients. I didn't even know it was possible to get that much.
Not possible now even at age 70. However it will be soon as benefits naturally rise. The current age 70 max is just over 42K. With a intended future implementation date that 50k is possible. It would be more than 1 percent who would qualify for and in some metro areas a healthy number of. On the other hand in some rural areas very few. Consider what the salary cap on contributions are and how many in some areas of the country make that and more. I can attest that in some areas there are many.
The ignorance and fear mongering in this thread is astounding. Any changes to SS will be and always have been done in a way that it does not effect those already in retirement or within 5 - 10 years of retirement. Those affected by far are the youngest Americans who are still years and decades from retiring.
Everybody get a grip and stop with the lies and false news. You people are ridiculous and seem to thrive with putting seniors who don't know any better into a panic. Shame on you.
I agree. The U.K. Has already changed to age 70 for the younger than 40 crowd.
WHO earns 50K a year in SS??? and if so, I'm positive they have other resources to tap into if there is a reduction.
Couples do. Also, since SS is taxed based on gross income would that cause all of SS to be confiscated in this situation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by krug
Also, to lump the entire GOP into this proposed legislative discussion is why many Americans dislike the US media, it's fear mongering.
Last, something has to be done eventually, common sense, of which most Americans are lacking, dictates that we are paying out more than we are taking in. Thus...effective legislatures are at least "discussing" unlike most Dems who prefer to hide their head in the sand.
Too many of you are labeling this fear mongering. This is no recipe for a fair deal if the republicans are allowed to do this alone. The republican trifecta which will exist in January is only a place where the republicans will dictate terms to the rest of us.
Since you brought the media into this, has anyone seen discussion of this on FOX, CBS, NBC, or ABC?
And that's what I said, 5-10 years. The most drastic changes don't take effect for a couple of decades. People in a panic are people that are now receiving SS or will be in a year or two. That's what's happening with this thread and no one is even trying to set the record straight.
Given that most people will probably live to 80, any one who is 55 or 60 right now should certainly be in a panic over changes that are two decades out.
WHO earns 50K a year in SS??? and if so, I'm positive they have other resources to tap into if there is a reduction.
Also, to lump the entire GOP into this proposed legislative discussion is why many Americans dislike the US media, it's fear mongering.
Last, something has to be done eventually, common sense, of which most Americans are lacking, dictates that we are paying out more than we are taking in. Thus...effective legislatures are at least "discussing" unlike most Dems who prefer to hide their head in the sand.
I am not clear how the 50k in SS benefits got started in this thread, but I don't think that is correct. The discussion of benefit cuts are based on the average lifetime earnings (AIME) This chart, taken from this article might make it a bit easier to understand:
Honestly, I think they should leave everything alone and when the trust fund runs out pay exactly what the trust fund can afford, which is 70-79% of current payment across the board.
I am not clear how the 50k in SS benefits got started in this thread, but I don't think that is correct. The discussion of benefit cuts are based on the average lifetime earnings (AIME) This chart, taken from this article might make it a bit easier to understand:
You have revealed the reality of this plan. It is similar to what activist Progressives have proposed as a way to raise SS benefits for the needy. Thus you could have consensus of the more far out left and right thinkers.
What it is saying is that based on lifetime income you had the opportunity to save yourself
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.
