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.
Term Life is insurance. If you stay alive while insured, your estate does not collect.
Social Security is insurance. If you die before reaching retirement age, your estate ( assumes no dependents) does not collect.
Christie 's concept:
Reduce benefits to those who earn more than $80,000 in non Social Security income a year while drawing Social Security ( estimated by WSJ to be 5-11% of people drawing Social Security).
The Social Security benefit would be phased out for those earning $200,000 or more in non Social Security income a year ( estimated by WSJ to be 0.7- 2% of people drawing Social Security).
Entitlement Programs and debt servicing is 71% of the Federal budget.
I would rather hear fresh ideas to save Social Security/Medicare for the majority than the GOP competitors standing around blasting Obama/Liberals. Regardless of what a presidential hopeful pitches, it will be up to Congress to act, or not.
The Entitlement can has been kicked by Congress for 30 years.
This is just the start of the war against social security. Means testing is always the first step to the ultimate goal of abolishing this vital lifeline for millions upon millions of vulnerable Americans. Social Security serves no purpose for the billionaire class who fund these politicians. Campaigning for Bernie Sanders for president can ensure that SS is not only preserved but expanded. America is the wealthiest country in the world and the wealth should be used for human needs, not the demands of the greedy who can never get enough.
Nice to hear at least one politician admitting there is a problem with social security, so let the millionaires keep their SS. I would love to hear one politician propose reform, either increase pay in, cut benefits or increase the age, it will be bankrupt in a few years.
It's a relief to hear someone talking about real issues instead of "feelings" about SSM or flags or bashing Obama.
Is $80,000 the best cut-off for reduced benefits? I don't know.
How much would a benefit be reduced?
Will not receiving Social Security impact the quality of life for fill in the blank with the name of your favorite $ super millionaire- billionaire ?
Regardless of what a wannabee pitches, Congress has the final say.
I've known for awhile this was coming. I may have to hurry up and buy a bunch of crap so I don't get penalized for working hard, being frugal and saving.
You would need to have a liquid nest egg of about $4 million to get an annual investment income of $200,000 assuming a conservative 5% ROI.
The average retired person has about $175,000 in assets and it's not all cash.
There would be no impact on 89-95% of those drawing Social Security.
Simple way to solve the problem. Let people control their own destinies and save. I do agree that it's wrong to punish savers.but the truth is people get much more from SS than they ever pay in.
This may be true when one adds in surviving spouse and dependent benefits.
What death benefits? Your family gets a whole two hundred and fifty dollars.
There are spousal and dependent benefits.
Social Security is going broke because for way too long the government has borrowed from the S.S. fund instead of letting it accumulate interest and grow the way it was intended to do. They've bled money off to put in the general fund.
When you park you money at a bank they pay you interest because they have used your funds to loan to someone willing to pay a higher rate of interest.
How the heck would a balance earn interest if the funds were not invested in something?
By law, the trust fund balance must be invested in government securities on a daily basis.
The government pays interest ( debt servicing) on those notes and uses the money for other purposes.
Of course you're right, but that idea has been floated around by eggheads in both parties for decades and, more recently, by the AARP.
It's a means test, and we can chuck that $4-5 million and $250K annual income right now, too. If enacted, some bureaucratic beancounter would lower both of those figures in no time.
They'd have a war on their hands because the entire SS retirement system is based on workers contributing because they expect to "get theirs" when the time comes.
And, again, it's the seniors getting blamed for everything when the fund was ultimately used for other than what it was intended to be used for.
This is just the start of the war against social security. Means testing is always the first step to the ultimate goal of abolishing this vital lifeline for millions upon millions of vulnerable Americans. Social Security serves no purpose for the billionaire class who fund these politicians. Campaigning for Bernie Sanders for president can ensure that SS is not only preserved but expanded. America is the wealthiest country in the world and the wealth should be used for human needs, not the demands of the greedy who can never get enough.
81-95% of those drawing Social Security are not earning $200,000 a year, independent of their Social Security.
Of course you're right, but that idea has been floated around by eggheads in both parties for decades and, more recently, by the AARP.
It's a means test, and we can chuck that $4-5 million and $250K annual income right now, too. If enacted, some bureaucratic beancounter would lower both of those figures in no time.
They'd have a war on their hands because the entire SS retirement system is based on workers contributing because they expect to "get theirs" when the time comes.
And, again, it's the seniors getting blamed for everything when the fund was ultimately used for other than what it was intended to be used for.
The fund by law must be invested in overnight treasury securities. If it were not invested, the fund would not earn interest. Sounds intentional to me.
AARP is one of if not the largest lobbies in DC and at the state level.
If not means tested, then what? Full retirement age at 80? And no, a lump sum pay- out is not a reasonable option.
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.
