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.
That is what is really frustrating. If the money had been left alone there would be no need to revamp the system. The government literally stole our retirement money. "Borrowing" would have been fine but they're not paying it back. That's not "borrowing".
No it didn't steal it, it's how it was designed. You just believed the nonsense they sold you when told your contributions would be set aside for you.
Well even if true...how is your neighbors retirement any of your business or responsibility?
One way or the other those who do not prepare become a burden on society. You can either address that up front which is what SS was designed to do or pretend there is no problem until there is a HUGE problem. Society will deal with this one way or the other. SS was the proactive way to deal with it. Unfortunately, the government did not take care of the money so now we have the problem but don't have the money we put aside to deal with it.
One way or the other those who do not prepare become a burden on society. You can either address that up front which is what SS was designed to do or pretend there is no problem until there is a HUGE problem. Society will deal with this one way or the other. SS was the proactive way to deal with it. Unfortunately, the government did not take care of the money so now we have the problem but don't have the money we put aside to deal with it.
They are a burden on society because all your welfare schemes are linked together (and all are insolvent or on there way to being so). Stop making everyone poorer for the few irresponsible ones. Your cause is not moral, it's theft and redistribution.
No it didn't steal it, it's how it was designed. You just believed the nonsense they sold you when told your contributions would be set aside for you.
If the money isn't there to be used for what it was contributed for it was stolen. They didn't do what they said they'd do. They lied. They used the money for other things and now it's not there for its intended purpose. How is that not stealing money from us?
They are a burden on society because all your welfare schemes are linked together (and all are insolvent or on there way to being so). Stop making everyone poorer for the few irresponsible ones. Your cause is not moral, it's theft and redistribution.
MY welfare schemes??? Would you care to inform me as to what MY welfare schemes are?
How am *I* making everyone else poorer? What cause of MINE is not moral? Who am *I* stealing from?
Now you have multiple marriages and old men with trophy wives and young children, all who can now qualify and receive money from one single person.
Divorce wasn't taboo. Because of the laws back then it was relatively rare. I'm glad they have changed to become more liberal. Is a woman supposed to stay in an abusive marriage? They used to. Now they don't have to.
Multiple marriages don't change anything. One can choose half their ex-spouses SS or their own, whichever is more. If three trophy wives marry the same man, they can only collect half his SS if they do not remarry. If they don't remarry, one can assume they are working. Some may be on welfare, but that only lasts for five years (I think). In any case, there is no more 'welfare for life'. So, if these hypothetical women receive half of one ex-spouses SS, they still have contributed to SS through their jobs.
BESIDES, there is a cap on SS benefits:
The maximum monthly Social Security benefit payment for a person retiring in 2016 at full retirement age is $2,639.
Young people should be able to opt out and then the scheme should be ended. It cannot and should not be reformed.
Who thinks politicians and govt bureaucrats are good stewards of your money?
Absolutely not. Your individual situation places you in a very small minority of those who can do without SS. Allowing people to opt out of SS weakens SS further.
Social Security obligates companies to cough up an amount equal to the amount that you are putting into SS. If they write a law that permits you to opt out don't think that the corporations are not going to take advantage and opt out of putting their obligated percentage into a 401K for you. They are going to make sure that the law is written so that they can opt out too. Don't trust them to do the right thing.
Corporations are reneging on pensions left and right through bankruptcy solutions, not because they can't pay, but because they don't want to. The last figures that I've heard is that the percentage of companies that offer pensions as part of compensation are down from 60% to 28%. People that are already on pensions are facing cut backs in medical and direct compensation.
You will someday be old enough to know that you are going to need several streams of income when you can no longer get up at 6 AM and work until 8 PM. Social Security will be the foundation and the most important of those streams of income.
To believe that will not have setbacks that cause you raid your savings is naive.
Some of the things that can happen include a serious illness, divorce, and long term unemployment. Each of these can be financially devastating, and often happen. What do you do then? Some of you already have the burden of student debt putting stress on your ability to save. But if Social Security is there, it will still be there as long as you don't let them lie you into giving it up.
As I said, absolutely not to Mr. Deforest's solution.
One way or the other those who do not prepare become a burden on society. You can either address that up front which is what SS was designed to do or pretend there is no problem until there is a HUGE problem. Society will deal with this one way or the other. SS was the proactive way to deal with it. Unfortunately, the government did not take care of the money so now we have the problem but don't have the money we put aside to deal with it.
Over 50% of all babies born in the US are on medicaid. Their chances are pretty high they will grow up and live in poverty themselves.
That 50% number should scare the pants off anyone.
Multiple marriages don't change anything. One can choose half their ex-spouses SS or their own, whichever is more. If three trophy wives marry the same man, they can only collect half his SS if they do not remarry. If they don't remarry, one can assume they are working. Some may be on welfare, but that only lasts for five years (I think). In any case, there is no more 'welfare for life'. So, if these hypothetical women receive half of one ex-spouses SS, they still have contributed to SS through their jobs.
[/i]
When the bread winner dies they get full benefit. A divorced spouse who collects survivor benefits at full retirement age would be entitled to assistance equal to 100% of the deceased ex-husband or ex-wife's benefits.
And I wouldn't assume the exes are working after divorce if they weren't working during the marriage, just find themselves another sugar daddy or sugar mama.
Last edited by seaduced; 02-28-2016 at 09:29 AM..
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.
Short sighted
