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 reality was probably" <--- huh?
at least google or wiki for the answer
why is that a "huh?"
like i said, what polticians do often is because of some other motive than what they say publicly. i could probably find some good suggestions on google but definitely not on a government web site.
why should the cap go up? you are going to end up means testing a lot of those people out of the system anyway. there is no logic to it other than social security needs more revenue to be sustainable. which is fine enough logic but i dont think thats what you mean by "it SHOULD go up."
there is a disability and death benefit that is insurance, but the income part isnt really insurance.
I think of it as a safety net too. I see a couple of things.
People with full income pensions collecting ss who don't need it to survive.
I'm not too fond of the invest your own as the sole means of retirement given the extreme losses I've seen in the stock market. Good if it works, bad if it doesn't.
Women who traditionally have made lesser dollars and only have a few hundred dollars in ss to try to survive. Not that unusual.
People who have been handed tens of thousands of dollars in a lump sum after qualifying for disability (which comes from ss dollars) not to mention the $6,000 awarded their necessary attorneys. This is a hidden strain.
When I think about this it comes down to what the purpose of the programs is, and it is my understanding they were designed as a social insurance, a safety net for the elderly, disabled, or survivors. Does a wealthy retiree need a social safety net?
If it was means tested would it be based on income or net worth? How would the limits be set? More importantly, are there enough wealthy people receiving benefits where implementing something like this would make any difference in the programs?
I utterly oppose a penalty for living within ones means and acquiring wealth.
Charge upfront, remove the wage cap etc etc. but to deny benefits is utter BS. Either that or set the back-end means test so high that it won't matter in which case why bother?
Imagine some of the athletes making millions a year getting benefits because they spent it all and some teacher brown bagging it for 30 years and driving beaters getting their SS reduced.
It already pisses me off that when I went to college I had trouble getting student loans etc. because my parents grew thier own veggies, had old cars etc. while my friends with nicer stuff and equal incomes but no savings got aid.
Imagine some of the athletes making millions a year getting benefits because they spent it all and some teacher brown bagging it for 30 years and driving beaters getting their SS reduced.
im reminded of my wife's cousin who came from a wealthy family, inherited a nice sum of money from her father, blew it on expensive living, cars and drugs and now lives on public assistance without a job.
the problem with letting irresponsible people reap what they sow is that you end up with a bunch of seniors who cant afford medication and eat cat food and you feel bad about letting them live so terribly even if it was their fault (not that it is in all instances).
im reminded of my wife's cousin who came from a wealthy family, inherited a nice sum of money from her father, blew it on expensive living, cars and drugs and now lives on public assistance without a job.
the problem with letting irresponsible people reap what they sow is that you end up with a bunch of seniors who cant afford medication and eat cat food and you feel bad about letting them live so terribly even if it was their fault (not that it is in all instances).
This is why I support SS fully, just not reducing it with means testing.
I find it nauseating that we can have healthy, capable people go their whole lives in the US contributing nothing but draining resources from everyone else. (I have an uncle that is 60 and has never worked.)
There is a reason you need to earn 40 quarters or so to get your benefits. SS is a safety net for those that WORK and those too young or incapacitated.
I don't think anyone has proposed destroying the system, it would still serve its purpose to our society.
"Free market alternatives, which offer retirement choices to employees and employers, must be developed and offered to those still in their wage earning years, as the Social Security system is transitioned out.---Sharron Angle
"We're going to have to come to grips with the fact that these programs cannot exist if we want America to be what we want America to be." ---Eric Cantor
i definitely favor scrapping social security and coming up with a new solution. its insane. if you want to keep it in that manner then go to a defined contribution system. if you want it to be welfare for seniors then look at it like welfare for seniors.
i definitely favor scrapping social security and coming up with a new solution. its insane. if you want to keep it in that manner then go to a defined contribution system. if you want it to be welfare for seniors then look at it like welfare for seniors.
I'm guessing that if SS is still around when you hit the magic age, you will not be refusing your "welfare" payments on the basis of your principals. I certainly won't.
After paying various taxes for a lifetime I hope to recoup some of my various contributions. I don't particularly care what loaded terminology anyone cares to apply. I'll take direct deposit, please.
OK. Other countries have old age "pensions".
Would that verbiage suit you better?
Whatever you call it... it still needs to be funded somehow..
Which gets us back to a wage deduction plan of *some* sort.
Happier?
why would that make me happier? i said call it welfare and you chose the word "pensions."
there is nothing about social security that makes me happy. it is a terrible abuse of the american workers. it needs to be changed, not funded. because as it exists, it will bankrupt us. but its all politics and they will maintain social security as the horrible program it is. the least politically dangerous moves, as far as i can tell, are to raise the income limit and to mean test the benefit. so thats what i assume will be done first. in the future, more changes will have to be made.
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.
