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.
It's not a tax and you are right it's not my money, although it should be. I'm too busy for paying for every Tom, Dick, and Harry to be on disability.
You should kiss the ground everyday that you wake up that YOU are NOT on disability. That is your reward for paying for the ~90% of people who really need it.
The number of people who have "saved $4-5 Million" and have a "pension of $200,000" is tiny - but he is correct - these are the people who don't NEED Social Security pay-outs. On the other hand - it's their money. They gave it to the Federal Government because they had no choice. IF I were in that situation, I would "take the deal" - provided that my children had the option right then to Opt OUT of the entire system and not pay a dime more.
That's the KEY - how do you start an OPT-OUT program and end this Pyramid Scheme that will crater at some point? The Gimme-Gimme crowd will never "opt-out", but the providers deserve a method to jump off this runaway train. I would give all that I've paid in to give my kids a chance to escape the madness.
Just let me opt-out like some of the California public employees. If I blow it, it is on me.
Unlimited benefits for the wealthiest 0.1% shouldn't be our priorities when millions of seniors who have worked their whole life are struggling to make ends meet and disabled veterans are hurting greatly on meager social security incomes. Making the wealthiest Americans pay the same payroll tax rate as the average hard working American will make sure that social security benefits can be expanded for seniors and disabled veterans in America. This is what the American people want. Of course, the Koch brothers and Wall Street and the politicians they have on their payroll are vehemently opposed to this.
Pay more and get the same cap or non at all?! Crazy. So the job of the wealthy is to take care of the poor?
Some poor people, yea, but most of the poor people I know, had a choice to work hard or not work hard. Consequences my friend. I guarantee you people would get to work if we cut the entitlement programs....or die; and not have their poor parenting skills and weak genes passed on to their kids....thus make society better.
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.
It shouldn't be used for the people who are sucking this country dry!
If I am greedy and that leads me to financial security, that's my right. You can't tell me what to do with my money.
Pay more and get the same cap or non at all?! Crazy. So the job of the wealthy is to take care of the poor?
Some poor people, yea, but most of the poor people I know, had a choice to work hard or not work hard. Consequences my friend. I guarantee you people would get to work if we cut the entitlement programs....or die; and not have their poor parenting skills and weak genes passed on to their kids....thus make society better.
I am a social Darwinist to a certain point.
That's why at the end of the day, I believe a person who worked 40 hours a week at $8/hr should get a better deal net of taxes and SS than a person who worked 20 hours a week at $16/hr.
SS is a tax. It is NOT your money. It ceased being under your control as soon as it was collected by the IRS. Today's SS is not the same as it was when it was passed in the 1930's. The program was challenged in the Supreme Court and the FDR administration claimed it was a "tax". They won so your contributions are no longer yours.
It shouldn't be used for the people who are sucking this country dry!
If I am greedy and that leads me to financial security, that's my right. You can't tell me what to do with my money.
Seniors who have worked their whole life suck this country dry? Disabled veterans who struggle on their meager social security suck this country dry? The sick and the hungry? These are the people who deserve a better life in their retirement years, and it can be done. The people who have made a stupendous amount of money in America on the backs of its educated workforce can be asked to pay the same rate as everyone else does. They will do just fine in retirement, dont you worry so much about them.
Chris Christie needs to say something stupid real quick to get on Fox so his #'s go up in polls. Needs to make sure he is on first debate stage so he can say more stupid stuff.
Watch the lowest polling guys start to go off the deep end to try and raise their polling.
Yes there is, it's already running deficits and it will grow. It worked fine when there were more younger people paying in than taking out but that is now upside down. They should have addressed this decades ago and the longer they wait the greater the impact.
SS is a tax. It is NOT your money. It ceased being under your control as soon as it was collected by the IRS. Today's SS is not the same as it was when it was passed in the 1930's. The program was challenged in the Supreme Court and the FDR administration claimed it was a "tax". They won so your contributions are no longer yours.
This is the future we face in America.
I am 67 and putting off collecting social security until I am 70, just three years to go, at which time my estimated benefit will be just a tad over $3,000/month. But I am wondering if I will ever get it because there are people who collect only $1,200/month because instead of waiting, and working, to age 70 they decided to collect early, and a lot less $$$, at age 62. There are those that feel this shouldn't be their fault and that we should all get the same amount.
You might find this interesting
Everyone collecting at age 62, 44% of the population, is receiving 25% less than if they had collected at age 66. This is $750 vs $1,000. If this same person had waited to age 70 they would receive 32% more or $1,320 at age 70 vs $1,000 at age 66 vs $750 at age 62.
They got lazy and greedy but now they don't get enough and idiots like Bernie Sanders and Chris Christie are feeling sorry for the idiots and think those that worked harder and longer should pay.
I love social security because when I do collect at 70, as shown by the graphic very few wait that long, My wife and I will be able to retire very, very well (over $1,000/week after taxes which there aren't any taxes) on social security alone. Nothing special on our part because all I had to do is work for it.
Now, is it fair if we receive $4,500 while another couple receives only $1,600? Is that fair? It is a tax after all, is it fair?
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.
