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.
What should the "definition" of social security be? I think it should be a program you are eligible at age 65 (no more early withdrawals) that ONLY serves to ensure seniors are at 130% of the poverty level. It's not a retirement income stream, but a poverty prevention program. If we can change our outlook to that, I think Social Security will be sustainable.
What should the "definition" of social security be? I think it should be a program you are eligible at age 65 (no more early withdrawals) that ONLY serves to ensure seniors are at 130% of the poverty level. It's not a retirement income stream, but a poverty prevention program. If we can change our outlook to that, I think Social Security will be sustainable.
I think SS is unconstitutional and should be abolished eventually. Anyone currently on it or close to retirement shouldn't be punished and should be allowed to keep it. However we should be given an option to opt out of it anytime we please and if possible reimbursed for our payments into the system. However if given the option I would opt out without reimbursement just so long as I know I no longer have to keep paying into a program I'll never benefit from. Social Security is a ponzi scheme that is unsustainable and should have never been put into place.
I agree the withdrawal age must be upped. If it must be a tier system, maybe age 70 for reduced benefits, 75 for full benefits.
As far as basing withdrawal on income, that simply wouldn't be fair. It's money that was taken from people for a specific purpose. The government took the money, so just give it back when the time comes. And stop spending it on other crap.
When they upped the age years ago, nobody squawked and screamed and nobody's world came to an end. Just do it!
Social Security was, and should be, an income INSURANCE system. It was designed to insure individuals have a retirement income if their private pension or savings were lost to some form of economic collapse. It was to provide and income stream so the businesses providing good s and services to the elderly could remain in business. It was NOT a federal pension system.
I think the system should return to being an income insurance system. It should be paid for by eliminating the cap on taxable income and made solvent by limiting the payments based on need to something around the 50th percentile maximum total income. This would cover the folks that had their investments destroyed by a market collapse, a bank failure or having their pension funds stolen by Bain Capital.
So even if you "paid into" the system for 40 years you would not get anything back if you had income from other sources over the 50th percentile. It would be similar to car insurance. If you do not have an accident you do not get anything back from your payments.
I agree the withdrawal age must be upped. If it must be a tier system, maybe age 70 for reduced benefits, 75 for full benefits..
Yes, and it needs to be indexed to life expectancy. (Though I think for now 70 for reduced benefits/75 for full benefits would be too high.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Cooper
As far as basing withdrawal on income, that simply wouldn't be fair. It's money that was taken from people for a specific purpose. The government took the money, so just give it back when the time comes. And stop spending it on other crap.
Well, people could be allowed to take the same money and put it elsewhere, but still be required to pay a small amount to help the poor seniors. That would make it a bit more fair.
What should the "definition" of social security be? I think it should be a program you are eligible at age 65 (no more early withdrawals) that ONLY serves to ensure seniors are at 130% of the poverty level. It's not a retirement income stream, but a poverty prevention program. If we can change our outlook to that, I think Social Security will be sustainable.
No problem ... as long as the tax rate remains absolutely flat.
We all know what happens as soon as the "progressive" or "compassionate" element shows up.
So people who paid into it for 40-50 years shouldn't get any unless they're dirt poor?
I agree with your idea in theory, but it would have to be a change for the future.
No. They should be paid whatever is 130% of the povery level. Tough decisions need to be made. If you want to phase out to that point, then fine, but something needs to be done. It also needs to be means tested.
Social Security was, and should be, an income INSURANCE system. It was designed to insure individuals have a retirement income if their private pension or savings were lost to some form of economic collapse. It was to provide and income stream so the businesses providing good s and services to the elderly could remain in business. It was NOT a federal pension system.
I think the system should return to being an income insurance system. It should be paid for by eliminating the cap on taxable income and made solvent by limiting the payments based on need to something around the 50th percentile maximum total income. This would cover the folks that had their investments destroyed by a market collapse, a bank failure or having their pension funds stolen by Bain Capital.
So even if you "paid into" the system for 40 years you would not get anything back if you had income from other sources over the 50th percentile. It would be similar to car insurance. If you do not have an accident you do not get anything back from your payments.
Do you really believe those are the only ways people fall into the 50% percentile? Really? How about those who made like the grasshopper instead of the ant? Are they eligible even though they could have saved for retirement but lived the high life instead?
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.
