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.
Raise the amount of income that can be taxed. Currently called the cap. If you remove the cap entirely this opens up billions of dollars in earnings that were off limits before.
When social security was created, the life expectancy for both men and women was actually younger than 65. It was 59 for men, and 63 for women. It is now 76 for men and 81 for women. The retirement age has only gone up to 67 in all that time.
It's not about how long people live, but about how long they can work in their professions. For some, that is beyond 67, but for many if not most, the extension of life comes along with medical advances for dealing with chronic conditions. Those conditions render many older people incapable of working any more. Not only that, but elderly workers face considerable headwinds. Their skills are more frequently displaced by progress and competition from younger workers who can do more for less. We can't just wave our wands (or pass bills) to fix those heart problems, knee issues, back issues, or lack of skills in demand. 65 or so is still the point where workers are no longer competitive or capable in large numbers regardless of how much longer they may live.
Raise the amount of income that can be taxed. Currently called the cap. If you remove the cap entirely this opens up billions of dollars in earnings that were off limits before.
Rob your neighbor so you can sit in a rocking chair on your front porch. And you complain about the greed of others
The poll needs a "let's get the govt out of the retirement business" option.
None of the above. The only moral system would be a voluntary system. Let those who want the abysmal return on their "investment" in the government program have at it. Let those who want to invest in say the stock market that will make them millionaires by retirement age with the same investment percentage of their income.
Raising maximum income to be taxed and years out (15-20 years until it takes effect), raising the retirement income are the logical, most widely based and equitable fixes. Both have been done in the last 30-35 years giving the best results. Suggestions:
* Increase max income to $150-$175K
* Increase FRA to age; age 68 for those born 1970 or later and age 69 for those born 1980 or later.
Increasing the tax on the wealthy is too narrow of a solution. Besides, it not equitable.
Raise the amount of income that can be taxed. Currently called the cap. If you remove the cap entirely this opens up billions of dollars in earnings that were off limits before.
Legally, that would require raising the benefit cap, as well, putting us right back to where we started... not enough funding.
Eh. I disagree. Social security will be an increasing percentage of federal outlays for the foreseeable future. It does need a trust fund. And said trust fund will deplete while plenty of boomers are still drawing benefits if nothing changes.
I do think SS needs to be sustainable outside of the normal budget, which is rife with insanity.
Social Security is outside the normal budget. This is a great country. You have the right to be wrong.
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.
