SSI Reductions Begin Next Month (Sacramento: home, bankruptcy, college) - California (CA) - Page 5 - City-Data Forum

nmnita · 06-09-2009, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Synergy1

I think all those that will get reduced monthly payments should move.....Move to Florida because our govenor CARES.....It appears that California is becoming just like Philly. A city that does not care about the senior citizens or disabled....What's next? Taxes to be applied on current taxes so the average senior citizen must do something else to survive.....

California is in a calamity, a crisis, a tight spot, in a corner or whatever else we can think about saying that equals a real mess.........Californians can thank the "Terminator".......

I am truly sorry for your problems and while we are retired living in Florida on $8.5k a month is just OK. I understand that California has a higher cost of living so then some of you good guys must be able to move to the East coast. Weather is great..... C.O.L. is lower than California..... Florida shows a lot of respect for Veterans too....

.....

and you are being funny of course!!!

Nita

SOON2BNSURPRISE · 06-09-2009, 07:38 PM

Why is their this idea that people are entitled to anything? It amazes me that many believe that they are entitled to any benefit. Life is not always perfect. Things happen to people all the time. Why should I pay for someone that didn't plan better for retirement?

NewToCA · 06-09-2009, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

Why is their this idea that people are entitled to anything? It amazes me that many believe that they are entitled to any benefit. Life is not always perfect. Things happen to people all the time. Why should I pay for someone that didn't plan better for retirement?

What does this have to do with being born severely "limited" mentally or physically? Why do you believe that they don't deserve to have some reasonable support or assistance?

What on earth does SSI supplemental income have to do with retirement planning?

Den Mathias · 06-09-2009, 08:35 PM

I am truly sorry for your problems and while we are retired living in Florida on $8.5k a month is just OK. I understand that California has a higher cost of living so then some of you good guys must be able to move to the East coast. Weather is great..... C.O.L. is lower than California..... Florida shows a lot of respect for Veterans too....

.....[/quote]
Wow! If i read your post correctly you are retired on $8,500/month? Or are you saying $850/month?

I can easily live on $8.5K/month!!! Even in California!

NewToCA · 06-10-2009, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Den Mathias

I am truly sorry for your problems and while we are retired living in Florida on $8.5k a month is just OK. I understand that California has a higher cost of living so then some of you good guys must be able to move to the East coast. Weather is great..... C.O.L. is lower than California..... Florida shows a lot of respect for Veterans too....

.....

Wow! If i read your post correctly you are retired on $8,500/month? Or are you saying $850/month?

I can easily live on $8.5K/month!!! Even in California!

[/quote]

They have lowered the monthly SSI payment to $850 per month starting next month, and are proposing to lower it to $830 beginning late summer.

SOON2BNSURPRISE · 06-10-2009, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewToCA

What does this have to do with being born severely "limited" mentally or physically? Why do you believe that they don't deserve to have some reasonable support or assistance?

What on earth does SSI supplemental income have to do with retirement planning?

Social Security was originally designed for those that did not save the money that they needed to retire. The time frame for recieving benefits was set as a lifespan situation, meaning that when the program started the majority of people would not live the length of time to see the benefits. Over time this program was expanded to include those individuals that could not do for themselves. We have children on the program that have never worked before. For them a parent died and they now get benefits. You and I pay for those benefits. If you have a child that was born with a handicap they get benefits. The program was never intended for that. What will happen eventually is that the system will go bankrupt and no one will have any benefits. It is not possible to support this system. In the old days you had many workers supporting a few people. Now you have many people getting bennefits and few people supporting the program. Works good when you have 20 to 1 odds. When you have 4 to 1 odds it is not so good. (That is 20 workers to one entitled person.)

nmnita · 06-10-2009, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

Social Security was originally designed for those that did not save the money that they needed to retire. The time frame for recieving benefits was set as a lifespan situation, meaning that when the program started the majority of people would not live the length of time to see the benefits. Over time this program was expanded to include those individuals that could not do for themselves. We have children on the program that have never worked before. For them a parent died and they now get benefits. You and I pay for those benefits. If you have a child that was born with a handicap they get benefits. The program was never intended for that. What will happen eventually is that the system will go bankrupt and no one will have any benefits. It is not possible to support this system. In the old days you had many workers supporting a few people. Now you have many people getting bennefits and few people supporting the program. Works good when you have 20 to 1 odds. When you have 4 to 1 odds it is not so good. (That is 20 workers to one entitled person.)

I only disagree with you on one thing: I do think we will always have some form of Social Security, the politicians won't touch that sacred cow. What form, I do not know, and how much it will cost the average wage owner is another thing, but it will be there..

Nita

Ceece · 06-10-2009, 09:42 AM

When times are good we bend over backwards to provide services and $$ to the neediest among us. That results in more needy people unfortunately. But when times are bad, like now, the $$ just aren't there. It's not a matter of "not caring" but we just CAN NOT continue to support people at the levels we have been. Trying to do so will only result in EVERYONE going down and you will be left with nothing but people who need support while everyone else bails.

Curmudgeon · 06-10-2009, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ceece

When times are good we bend over backwards to provide services and $$ to the neediest among us. That results in more needy people unfortunately. But when times are bad, like now, the $$ just aren't there. It's not a matter of "not caring" but we just CAN NOT continue to support people at the levels we have been. Trying to do so will only result in EVERYONE going down and you will be left with nothing but people who need support while everyone else bails.

The biggest problem is the difference between "benefits" and "entitlements." The former are provided when the budget permits. The latter must be provided regardless. Over the course of several decades, self-serving politicians have pandered to spoecial interest groups by turning benefits into entitlements and the end result has been economic decay; especially as those same politicians lack the strength of will to reverse any of the giveaways. They're only interested in winning their next election or the next higher office. The "good of the people" is no longer a prime consideration; nor is the good of the country.

Having said all that, I wish to thank all of you who will continue to prop up Social Security. I am now a recipient and my wife will join that status next year. I dare say, however, I will not likely live long enough to draw out as much as I have put into the system over the course of 45 working years. Feel free to equitably disburse my overage!

NewToCA · 06-10-2009, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ceece

When times are good we bend over backwards to provide services and $$ to the neediest among us. That results in more needy people unfortunately. But when times are bad, like now, the $$ just aren't there. It's not a matter of "not caring" but we just CAN NOT continue to support people at the levels we have been. Trying to do so will only result in EVERYONE going down and you will be left with nothing but people who need support while everyone else bails.

I have no problem agreeing with you here, but California was only paying $233 per month as their share of the social security supplement, the federal part is unchanged.

This reduction brings the monthly amount down from $233 to $156 per month, a reduction of 33%. Still pretty disgusting to me!