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.
I work with agencies that are stretching every possbile dollar to assist the mentally ill, homeless, abused, substance abusers, addicts -- and altho I know there are people "out there" gaming the system, the working poor without health insurance (as Clark mentioned) should be assisted. If my tax dollars are needed to help them, then so be it. My charity dollars certainly go to help those who are struggling. Not everyone is in a tough financial situation b/c they choose to be. Few people would choose to be homeless, for example. Yes, some folks are disordered. But most are decent folks struggling to survive. Not everyone out there has an entitlement attitude.
We have to be realistic. Folks who are struggling during their working years are not going to suddenly have resources at retirement. The social security system has been the best safety net that anyone has devised to assist the working poor in retirement.
Last edited by brokensky; 05-19-2012 at 08:48 PM..
Reason: typo
... We have to be realistic. Folks who are struggling during their working years are not going to suddenly have resources at retirement. The social security system has been the best safety net that anyone has devised to assist the working poor in retirement.
If they pay into their account consistently, [at whatever level they wish to], then after 40-quarters they will have a 'loaded policy'. Even if those 40-quarters were paid in only 1-day.
How much you earn, does not always equate to how much has been paid into S.S.
I worked for the U.S. government for 30 yrs, in the military and for civil service combined and when I applied for my Social Security benefit at age 62, I only received 40% of what was estimated! They said it was because of the "government offset" computation, because I made too much money when I worked for the U.S. government! I still don't understand it, but it's a done deal in their eyes or justification!
I worked for the U.S. government for 30 yrs, in the military and for civil service combined and when I applied for my Social Security benefit at age 62, I only received 40% of what was estimated! They said it was because of the "government offset" computation, because I made too much money when I worked for the U.S. government! I still don't understand it, but it's a done deal in their eyes or justification!
Yeah, I think they call it the "windfall elimination provision." Pretty surprising to learn benefits are decreased, especially when Medicare premiums will come out of that benefit, too.
Yeah, I knew it was something like that! That was a long time ago, but now I'm finally on a fixed income receiving all 4 of my pensions as small as it is, but our lifestyle is affordable here overseas, for now that is!
The COLAs do help a little bit each year and hope it continues within my lifetime since that's the only extra income that comes our way to keep up with inflation and with this dismal global recession!
Unfortunately though I will have to pay out of my pocket for Medicare when I turn 65 in a couple of yrs, but won't be able to use it since I live in Philippines! They say my overseas TRICARE Standard military medical health coverage will pick up my Medicare cost via my TRICARE reimbursement claims after the fact! Oh well, I'll just wait and see when I get to that point in time!
Yeah, I think they call it the "windfall elimination provision." Pretty surprising to learn benefits are decreased, especially when Medicare premiums will come out of that benefit, too.
For a description of the workings of the Windfall Elimination Provision as well as a discussion of its rationale, you can read my post #42 on page five of the thread "Interim retirement solutions for those without pensions" here in the Retirement Forum. Right now that thread is about two-thirds of the way down page one.
<snip> BUT I did take out an insurance policy in the form of children- I managed to raise four wonderful kids..and I still have a close and supportive relationship with my wife - who I do not live with...I guess if it were not for family- I would be living like a starving dog..but they love me- and are loyal> I feel sorry for people who do not have family. The lady in Montana that is mentioned in this thread..seems to be in dire straights..all I can suggest is maybe it's time to go home and be with relatives- but some families are not close- which is a modern shame- where money is more important than blood.
It does seem that way, doesn't it? This was predicted by several sociologists/economists as early as 1940.
Myrdal argued that all pay-as-you-go public pension systems rested on a fundamental contradiction. Before the creation of such systems, parents depended on their own children as their ultimate “safety net,” their true insurance. If other forms of savings and asset accumulation failed, the adult children would be there to provide financial support, shelter, or care. This created a strong incentive for having children.
However, a public pay-as-you-go system reversed the incentives. Pensions were now provided by the government as a right. Children were still needed to make the system work in the future. However, Social Security represented the socialization of the private insurance value of children. Pension benefits were now tied to work and salary; not family size. Childless workers received the same pensions as workers who had spent much of their income to raise large families. This created a perverse incentive: the rational, income-maximizing individual would now have no children at all. As he or she would reason: Let others spend money on raising children who will grow up to be taxed to pay for my retirement. Economists label this the “free rider” problem. Myrdal called this contradiction “the burning core” of the population problem. The Howard Center: The Family In America
I personally find it hard to believe that young Boomers deliberately decided not to have children based on the idea that the government would one day replace the family's former role as a safety net, but we definitely have a problem. Younger generations are more likely to choose childlessness when faced with the economic hardship of providing for themselves while paying increased taxes to support the Boomers.
I think the only solution is to rework Social Security to meet its original goal: Prevent retirees from falling into poverty. Real poverty, as in below the Federal Poverty level. If someone needs more than that, well, he or she needs to figure out how to reach the level of security or lifestyle that suits him or her. Otherwise, be prepared to do without.
The way I look at it is - Youth has endurance- strength and energy....as you age these things slowly fade and you become less able...even when you are in good health..you are "not the man you used to be"..
Looking back on the years where I would spend 18 hours a day working..sometimes for 30 days in a row...and when the film business was at a low...I would travel the back roads in my old Buick..collecting scrap copper...I would go into the back forty with my chain saw and haul fire wood- to keep the wife and the kids warm- I was always a free lancer..knowing how to survive without selling out to the system.
The way I look at things is pretty old fashioned. If I took care of my four children best I could for 18 years------then they can take care of me for 18 years till I am dead...BUT there is a trend..Money has become more important to younger people...They are more desperate and they are not clever enough to wing it as I did...so.
Sometime I fain ill health and scare the kids with the thought that poor old dad is about to die...Yes- I play them a bit...and yes- they do watch out for me- and I still council them if they let me...
Being the last of the mini-patriarchs is difficult in the modern world...but that's all I have...My siblings are very wealthy- They took the safe route..got degrees- married well...and they are set for life...me.............I had better think of something clever soon....Older people can still generate money if they want---as for the adult kids....I really don't want to pressure them more than I really have to.
Sometime I fain ill health and scare the kids with the thought that poor old dad is about to die...Yes- I play them a bit...and yes- they do watch out for me- and I still council them if they let me...
You're kidding, right? You purposely scare your kids by pretending? Wow! Wonder if the kids know they're being played. Where I come from that's called deceit.
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.
