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 have often heard people talking about means testing for SS and Medicare. Do you think this should be based on income or net worth? If net worth, what do you consider to be net worth that a person should be disallowed from collecting?
Means testing is usually brought up for Medicare, not SS. I am perfectly ok with using means testing to come up with graduated Medicare benefits, probably using income (not assets) as the "test" (ie, draws from an IRA or 401k would be counted but the total value wouldn't be).
Off the cuff, I'd probably stage it close to the tax brackets:
High retirment incomes over $250k get no/very little Medicare benefits (maybe limited to prescriptions only?)
"Upper- middle" incomes between, say, $125-250k get 25% of total benefit
"Middle" incomes of $75-125k get 50% of benefit
"Average/ high average" incomes of $45-75k get 75% of benefit,
"Low" incomes below $45k (which I'm betting is the VAST majority of retirees) get 100% benefits.
I thnik that social security should be left based on contributions. We need to get offf the dependent system that means too mnay dependent on too few. That is the only way forwaqrd in a competitive wolrd we exist in. Otehrwsie we are greece in a few years.
I have often heard people talking about means testing for SS and Medicare. Do you think this should be based on income or net worth? If net worth, what do you consider to be net worth that a person should be disallowed from collecting?
Absolutely and it should be based on income. People who are working at 65 and making decent money and have a health insurance plan at work should not be getting a check from the government. SS and Medicare were set up as RETIREMENT security programs and should be ran that way.
Means testing is usually brought up for Medicare, not SS. I am perfectly ok with using means testing to come up with graduated Medicare benefits, probably using income (not assets) as the "test" (ie, draws from an IRA or 401k would be counted but the total value wouldn't be).
Off the cuff, I'd probably stage it close to the tax brackets:
High retirment incomes over $250k get no/very little Medicare benefits (maybe limited to prescriptions only?)
"Upper- middle" incomes between, say, $125-250k get 25% of total benefit
"Middle" incomes of $75-125k get 50% of benefit
"Average/ high average" incomes of $45-75k get 75% of benefit,
"Low" incomes below $45k (which I'm betting is the VAST majority of retirees) get 100% benefits.
I have often heard people talking about means testing for SS and Medicare. Do you think this should be based on income or net worth? If net worth, what do you consider to be net worth that a person should be disallowed from collecting?
I guess we'll need to do something drastic like this, since the Trust Fund is already spent and long gone, and there's no way 2.1 workers in America's future economy can support one retiree. And I must say I do resent some early retirees in our extended family living the high life with dual fat pensions AND SS and Medicare, when my generation, just 20 years behind, will get NONE of these goodies--let alone the early retirement.
It's hard to comprehend how much our nation has degraded in such a short time. The previous generation (early Baby Boomers), without college educations and only working 40 hours a week, got luxury retirements at age 62. My generation (very end of the Baby Boom and after) pays for college and often grad school, works 80 hours a week, and since we get no pensions can't afford to retire until the pitiful Social Security kicks in at age 67. Plus, we paid a lot more in Social Security and Medicare taxes.
By introducing means testing, we are also accepting that this is no longer a forced retirement plan--it is yet another welfare program. So let's allow future victims of the failed Ponzi Scam to opt out--and make up the difference by taking the taxes that otherwise would go to multiple foreign wars. We don't need ONE senseless foreign war, let alone three or more. Let Halliburton go bankrupt; I'm sick of being forced to subsidize a Death Industry.
I guess we'll need to do something drastic like this, since the Trust Fund is already spent and long gone, and there's no way 2.1 workers in America's future economy can support one retiree. And I must say I do resent some early retirees in our extended family living the high life with dual fat pensions AND SS and Medicare, when my generation, just 20 years behind, will get NONE of these goodies--let alone the early retirement.
It's hard to comprehend how much our nation has degraded in such a short time. The previous generation (early Baby Boomers), without college educations and only working 40 hours a week, got luxury retirements at age 62. My generation (very end of the Baby Boom and after) pays for college and often grad school, works 80 hours a week, and since we get no pensions can't afford to retire until the pitiful Social Security kicks in at age 67. Plus, we paid a lot more in Social Security and Medicare taxes.
By introducing means testing, we are also accepting that this is no longer a forced retirement plan--it is yet another welfare program. So let's allow future victims of the failed Ponzi Scam to opt out--and make up the difference by taking the taxes that otherwise would go to multiple foreign wars. We don't
need ONE senseless foreign war, let alone three or more. Let Halliburton go bankrupt; I'm sick of being forced to subsidize a Death Industry.
I think you are a little off on your figures. I am actually a very late pre-boomer and was not eligible for full benefit until 66. I worked and paid into SS for ~45 years, have no pension although I also went to grad school (have an MS in chem). My generation actually paid the most because we paid ALL our working life. Your generation p***** and moans about a ponzi scheme while my generation just accepted that we would be supported by the "3 legged stool" when we got old enough to retire. The only ones who actually paid in less than they got back were my parents generation, who were the first to collect. If SS had been left as originally set up, it probably would have worked as designed. However, over the years it was broadened to pay benefits beyond the original plan and to cover people who had never paid in. But the biggest failing was when the fund was robbed by LBJ mixing it with the general fund to pay for wars, etc.
Last edited by marysally; 08-11-2011 at 10:49 PM..
The LAST thing we need to do in this country is to penalize the people who do save for their retirement.
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.
