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 like that thinking. I received mine the rest of you are screwed. I have been paying into social security for 30 years, but I would not be entitled to the same benefits that you receive. Fine, pay me what I put in and stop taking money out of my check to pay for your benefits.
you know I don't mean it that way. What could work, though this is a simplfied plan and I don't have the answers: 1-postpone retirement age (which will probably happen) because people are living longer and healthier all the time. SS was never meant to be used as one only form of income after retirement age nor could anyone guess how many people would live into their 80s and 90s. 2-by revamping the program (I didn't say do away with it) for people under middle age, they would have time to adjust and would not have invested so much into the plan. Whether this is cut benefits, increase contibutions or better yet, allow workers to decide if they would like to privatize a small portion of their contribution. I certainly never said scrub the program....
you know I don't mean it that way. What could work, though this is a simplfied plan and I don't have the answers: 1-postpone retirement age (which will probably happen) because people are living longer and healthier all the time. SS was never meant to be used as one only form of income after retirement age nor could anyone guess how many people would live into their 80s and 90s. 2-by revamping the program (I didn't say do away with it) for people under middle age, they would have time to adjust and would not have invested so much into the plan. Whether this is cut benefits, increase contibutions or better yet, allow workers to decide if they would like to privatize a small portion of their contribution. I certainly never said scrub the program....
Nita
The only Republican plans would apply to people under 50. Me. This is the way to try to get people close to retirement age from getting scared. Guess what? People are not buying it. Privatization of SS is a political killer. Everytime Perry talks about SS, Ponzi scheme. He is just putting another nail in his political campaign. You can talk about it after you are elected, but please Mr. Perry continue to talk about it. The hole gets deeper and deeper and the heels on your cowboy boots are not high enough to get you out.
Governor Perry is dead on. the definition of a ponzi scheme is using the next new person's money to pay off someone who joined the scheme before them.
Governor Perry, whether you agree with him, or not, like him, or not, is frightened or energized by him, is certainly reminiscent of , "There you go again.", Ronald Reagan.
^^^The irony is that a lot of people that would get hit hard by that are actually east and west coast blue staters that already hate the AMTI. Look at all the people out in DC, Virginia etc. where you need 2 incomes totalling 200k+ in order to afford those "average" 600k homes.
Could you provide a link to a source crunching the numbers and showing the above?
My search is not exhaustive but I did find this:
Quote:
One of the options in the recent congressional report on Social Security is to raise the wage base cap. Having it cover all earned income, for instance, would eliminate the unfunded liability. Since 94 percent of all workers earn less than the $106,800 wage base cap, it is not surprising that most people think raising the cap is a great idea.
Governor Perry is dead on. the definition of a ponzi scheme is using the next new person's money to pay off someone who joined the scheme before them.
Governor Perry, whether you agree with him, or not, like him, or not, is frightened or energized by him, is certainly reminiscent of , "There you go again.", Ronald Reagan.
Some people actually need a diagram to understand. So here you go.
I find it courious that the author of the article would say that "[s]ince 94 percent of all workers earn less than the $106,800 wage base cap, it is not surprising that most people think raising the cap is a great idea."
If people are only entitled to what they contribute to Social Security, why would anyone care what contributions are being made by others? They would still only be entitled to what they contributed and nothing more.
Regardless of whether people think raising the cap is a "great idea" or not, do you really think that 6% of the population will suddenly make Social Security solvent? All of those extra revenues will continue to go into the General Fund, and Congress will continue to spend Social Security revenues on discretionary spending. So it obviously would not solve the problem.
LOL educated ppl wouldn;t have voted Bush to 2 terms in office would they? So much for the educated theory huh?
There are not enough educated people in the U.S. to make up a majority to elect anyone. Bush proved that.
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.
