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.
Those with higher incomes vote more regularly and make more campaign contributions. They are the ones the politicians listen to. Means testing is a sneaky way to reduce Social Security and either eliminate it or make it a welfare subsistence program.
rather than insult them, maybe we should try to include some kind of home finance in basic public education. we should also give people enough respect to expect them to act like responsible adults.
I didn't mean to insult anyone. The fact is our education system is producing people who can't read or do simple arithmetic. They will tell you they can't afford to save for retirement. These people will be dependent on Social Security when they are eligible.
A course in home finance would be nice. Also a class in health so they understand concepts like diabetes, heart disease, obesity and pre-natal care.
Means testing as a way to keep Social Security solvent has been suggested time and again and my fear is that this will be instituted. Mostly it will be an asset test but it may also take into account income over the years and what the government expects you should have saved and what you should get. Do you think means testing is fair to people who have payed into the system yet get nothing in return but instead they socialize others who may have not necessarily worked hard to further themselves.
On one hand, fortunately, Social Security tracks earnings history. On the other hand, unfortunately, Social Security does not track the quantity of work.
I have long believed that W-2 forms should be required to include the number of hours worked. If it were up to me, a person earning N dollars working X hours should get a lower Social Security benefit than a person earning N dollars working 2X hours.
How do you determine whether one person has "worked hard to further themselves"? I've worked menial dead-end jobs without advancement opportunities, and cannot afford to go to school to gain marketable skills. Grunt workers at the bottom of the economy often work harder than comfortable middle class office workers. Is some government bureaucrat (or Congress) going to decide who has (or has not) worked hard to further themselves?
It's nice to say that people should have the responsibility to plan and save for their own retirement but you need to get out and meet some of the common people walking through the aisles at Walmart. There is a huge segment of the population that is living paycheck to paycheck or unemployed. Many of these people are not smart enough to think about retirement or have no idea how much they should have saved. There is a large chunk of the population that doesn't even have enough understanding of arithmetic to start to plan for retirement.
Consider a smart burger flipper earning minimum wage, how much CAN he realistically save for retirement?
On one hand, fortunately, Social Security tracks earnings history. On the other hand, unfortunately, Social Security does not track the quantity of work.
I have long believed that W-2 forms should be required to include the number of hours worked. If it were up to me, a person earning N dollars working X hours should get a lower Social Security benefit than a person earning N dollars working 2X hours.
How do you determine whether one person has "worked hard to further themselves"? I've worked menial dead-end jobs without advancement opportunities, and cannot afford to go to school to gain marketable skills. Grunt workers at the bottom of the economy often work harder than comfortable middle class office workers. Is some government bureaucrat (or Congress) going to decide who has (or has not) worked hard to further themselves?
why would the hours you work make any difference? you believe social security is supposed to be some kind of reward for working many hours?
Personally, I would be willing to give up my Social Security entirely if I felt it would contribute to the long-term solvency of the system. My SS retirement benefit is small - $149 per month gross and $49 per month net (after they take out the Medicare Part B premium. I would never miss the net payment, and I would never notice the difference paying the Medicare premium out-of-pocket.
However, there is a reason I bolded the word "personally", and that is because there is a difference between what I as an individual would be willing to do and what I think would be good public policy. Public policy is forced on everyone and has various consequences. I question whether Social Security should be turned into a pure welfare system, and that is why I voted "no" in the poll. Turn it into a welfare system today, and see it gutted and endangered tomorrow. It already has welfarish aspects, and that should be enough.
At one time I was at the $49 dollar net. A couple of years later I was back to $180 per month net. I got my benefit letter last week which said I was to receive 1.7 percent increase but my net still shows $180 per month. I called into their 800 number and after answering the automatic questions was told that all their operators were busy and to call back. Anyone have an answer to where the 1.7 increase went? I will continue reading this thread, maybe someone has already answered. Thanks in advance.
Personally I would like to get enough back for the 39 years I paid in. My deceased wife didn't get much of hers back.
At one time I was at the $49 dollar net. A couple of years later I was back to $180 per month net. I got my benefit letter last week which said I was to receive 1.7 percent increase but my net still shows $180 per month. I called into their 800 number and after answering the automatic questions was told that all their operators were busy and to call back. Anyone have an answer to where the 1.7 increase went? I will continue reading this thread, maybe someone has already answered. Thanks in advance.
Personally I would like to get enough back for the 39 years I paid in. My deceased wife didn't get much of hers back.
Are you paying a Medicate Part B premium? That also went up and might have wiped out your 1.7 percent increase.
Are you paying a Medicate Part B premium? That also went up and might have wiped out your 1.7 percent increase.
They have taken $99.90 twice to pay for Medicare in the 15 years I have been drawing social security.
As late as 1960 I was working for $1.50 to $1.75 per hour on two jobs I was working. The other two jobs I had at the same time was contract jobs and no social security was held out for those two jobs.
Are you paying a Medicate Part B premium? That also went up and might have wiped out your 1.7 percent increase.
Sorry, just realized I didn't answer your question. Since my wife signed me up, I am not sure what I have. I do know she signed me for a prescription suppliment which I was going to drop because of the $62 per month premium and was told by the Humana people that Obamacare had a penalty I would have to pay for not having the part D. As far as I know I olny have the basic Medicare. I don't usually do doctors so I have only used my Medicare card once, but I was sent to three places to get the problem fixed.
I think my wife signed me up for Medicare when I turned 65. My dad drew SS for one year and died so I thought I might be like him so I started drawing at 62 also.
Wife is deceased.
Thanks for any help freemkt.
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.
