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.
Which would you rather.
Pay into social security
Or
Take what you would have paid into social security, put it aside and/or invest that money either in tangible or interest/dividend paying markets?
I understand the premise behind social security.
Fact is... this isn't dust bowl 1919-great depression 1929.
There are more ways to invest money now, than there was 100 years ago.
Next reasonable question. Who here aside from me, puts a portion of the paycheck in their safe and does not touch it?
10 dollars?
20 dollars?
50 dollars?
100 dollars?
1,000 dollars?
Every week. Money right off the top of the paycheck set aside not to be touched.
I've been doing this since I was a kid with allowance money. I pay myself first before anyone or before any purchases are made. And when I've had to dip into that money? I paid it back and then some.
Why aren't their parents teaching them how to be financially responsible or was that another 'oh don't worry about it they'll cover that in school' deals?
There's quite an incentive to save and invest... opposed to spending like a drunken sailor at a brothel for Facebook likes...
You could go and interview all of the parents to find out and instruct them what to do.
You know, as with many CD topics, it becomes that some expect everyone to function exactly the same as them, having their lives go the same as theirs. People and situations vary. There is something to be said about personality differences, such as with MBTI 16 personality categories. Then there are emotional and physical issues. What should be universal despite anything else is having good character traits.
Your Social Security benefit depends on how much has been paid into it. Not everyone gets the same amount. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
I think both programs should be means tested. If you can afford private health insurance and have investments you can live on you should leave Social Security and Medicare for those who don't have the money for that.
My understanding is that once you hit 65, the only way you can have private health insurance rather than Medicare (with or without a supplement), is if you have health insurance through work.
One doctor who posts on CD wrote that he may continue to work part time after he turns 65 partly in order to have private insurance rather than Medicare because he knows firsthand that in particular situations, it might be preferable to be a 'private insurance patient' rather than a 'Medicare patient'.
Both of those are paid into over time by working Americans. Have been for a while now.
Today's Socialists are on a whole different wavelength.
1. Not true - they spend more than they take in.....
2. No different wavelength. Democratic Socialists like myself actually want MORE responsibility - that is, we want people to pay their taxes equal to the amount we spend (a balanced budget or nearly do).
The ultimate socialism of a "bad" type is tax cuts from debt and deficit. That's way off the rails - to already be far in debt and then add to it by taking money from unnamed people in the future.
In any case, despite the comments - Medicare and SS are full blown Socialism...as the Right defines it. Of course, that's not the real definition of socialism, but since the Right doesn't care about truth, honesty, ethics, fair play, etc. they certainly don't care about improper use of a word.
My understanding is that once you hit 65, the only way you can have private health insurance rather than Medicare (with or without a supplement), is if you have health insurance through work.
One doctor who posts on CD wrote that he may continue to work part time after he turns 65 partly in order to have private insurance rather than Medicare because he knows firsthand that in particular situations, it might be preferable to be a 'private insurance patient' rather than a 'Medicare patient'.
If we ever get up off our arses and make medicare for all, a vast separate business could be done in "luxe" medicine for those who desire.
This is the case in some other countries with universal health care.
One thing realists have to consider tho. A book I read by a UK Surgeon described patients coming to him on their deathbed because they had operations done a the "pay to play" private hospitals. In this case, the patient had went to him and he told the patient it was hopeless, so so surgery. Private hospital says "hey, put your money on the line and we will operate anyway".
You always have to watch out for profit motive drive healthcare. Of course it would want to spend an extra couple hundred thousand on hopeless cases...instead of using science and statistics. More money in it.
If it weren't for all the taxes and FICA contributions that the majority of people have been required to pay, we wouldn't have a government or a country. There would be no dollars nor any way to protect whatever assets people have. All this money you imagine you'd have, if it hadn't been "forcibly confiscated", would not exist.
This seems like such a simple principle of society and civilization, but you and so many like you, don't seem able to grasp it. Or maybe you're just spouting the Libertarian party line, which exists outside of all rational thinking.
We had a government before either program existed.
SS is not an insurance program, and I dont think Medicare is either.
SS is not required by law to make payments to anyone. Its definitely not an insurance program. I know what an insurance program is. It doesn't qualify.
Medicare MIGHT be an insurance program, although I have never seen a Dec sheet for it....so I doubt its truly one either despite taking on some of the functions of insurance programs. I also don't think there is any legal requirement for Medicare to make payments or cover any particular thing. Real insurance policies exist under policy terms and insurance law. Medicare....bit harder to say but very little evidence exists to support the claim that it is truly an insurance policy or an insurance program based on insurance policies.
Yeah I'm not aware of any insurance co that can make you buy a policy at gunpoint
Last edited by Frank DeForrest; 03-17-2019 at 07:51 PM..
When we were in some of Prime earning years there were no self-funded retirement plans like 401(k)s or IRAs. We did save when they became available. No pension either thanks to Reagan who emboldened my husband’s employer to cut wages then move the business out of town (when he then bankrupted it). We stumbled upon a homebased business that adds about ¼ to ⅓ of our SSA. Savings are used to pay for the big stuff like a new roof, water storage tanks, other big ticket items.
So, no, we don’t want SSA nor Medicare dissolved now. Perhaps in the future people may decide it is antiquated or unsustainable. But, that is for them to decide. But, for now, with people not saving as they should and pensions being less an option, we need these programs.
A for instance is my sister who has always worked minimum wage jobs and has been married and divorced 3 times. She has to work until she is 70 when she will receive about $1200 a month SSA. She has about $3000 in savings. What would she do without these programs?
The question fails to address the law.
Under current law, those programs are based on VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION IN FICA.
As long as one can WITHDRAW from FICA, there is no need to abolish them.
“The Social Security Act does not require an individual to have a Social Security Number (SSN) to live and work within the United States, nor does it require an SSN simply for the purpose of having one...”
- - - The Social Security Administration
If we ever get up off our arses and make medicare for all, a vast separate business could be done in "luxe" medicine for those who desire.
That's already happening. Many medical practices won't accept Medicare patients unless they first pay an annual concierge (membership) fee of thousands of dollars per person (That fee isn't covered by medicare, it's out of pocket). That's much more prevalent in locations that have a high percentage of seniors. Think golf course heavy retirement locations.
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.
