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.
Yes, people who work longer should see a higher benefit and they should not pay for people who for whatever reason do not work into their 70s. Bernie Sanders agrees with this.
Of course, the problem many faces is that they get laid off in their early 60s and can't find another job. Its not easy. And many people have medical issues too. Its not because they are lazy for the most part. 95% of Americans are not slothful. But for whatever reason, even if it is no fault of their own, it is still reasonable that they get a somewhat lower benefit than people who manage to work longer.
Any person can rest assured that a Sanders presidency will not cut social security benefits for ANY person who are waiting to collect it. In fact, social security will be expanded under his watch. Gradually lifting the income cap on which social security is taxed (the top 5%) will make sure that social security is not only solvent, but can be expanded. No person who has worked their whole life should fear retirement in America. And neither should the sick and disabled. America is the wealthiest country in the world, and creating a secure retirement for every American, just like in other industrialized countries is perfectly achievable.
Millionaires. Even hundred thousand aires do not need social insurance. The poor or as you refer to them as people who didn't save. Didn't prepare. Didn't do the right thing. They are the ones who need societies social insurance.
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.
Not only DO the higher income earners pay the same payroll tax, but in fact, they pay the MAXIMUM amount. How do you not know that?
Currently thats how it is, but it can be changed of course, and that is what the vast majority of Americans want. And shouldn't the lawmakers listen to what the American people want?
They should, but they don't. Does the bailout bill and Obamacare ring a bell? The majority of Americans wanted neither, but lawmakers rammed them down our throats anyway. If you think lawmakers listen to Americans, you're one of the "stupid American voters" Gruber referred to when explaining why the Obama Admin and the Dem Congress lied to Americans about what they KNEW the negative impacts of Obamacare would be. Think very carefully about that...
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.
...Had a choice to stay in school, or drop out. Had a choice to study and learn, or not. Had a choice to abuse alcohol and/or drugs, or not. Had a choice to have a baby in their teens or early adulthood while having insufficient means to support themselves and the child, or not. Etc., etc...
Quote:
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.
Consequences. Exactly. It's extremely hypocritical for liberals to insist on darwinism and evolution but pull a complete opposite when expected to actually allow for the consequences of darwinism in operation.
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.
Time worked does not equal how hard one has worked. Or even the value of that work.
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.
Not everyone. Some of us paid into SS but will never get it because we worked less than 40 weeks under it due to a pension (which we also paid into). Not complaining because my pension is fine but there must be others who get much less of a pension than I'm getting who paid in but won't get any. It's a statement, by the way, not a position on the issue.
If people are not smart with their money and/or not hard working enough, nor live within their means allowing them to create a nest egg when they get old, too bad;
When your given a SS number at birth, pay into a system of which assuming you live to see it actually pay you at SS age is nothing more then a tax. So when you are given a number by your government and force to pay into it, sounds like something not about freedom.
Set a cut off date for SS anyone born on day X going forward IE Janurary 1, 2016 will no longer pay into SS all future generations will have their own responsibility. Let those on SS until they die or opt out of the system all together.
Freedom give it a try.
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.
