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.
I was able to "opt out" of both socialist programs a very long time ago - as a result, I can NEVER get benefits from either program. Nor have I "contributed" to either program.
I understand but why do you want me to have paid for over 60 years and still paying not be able to get any of what had been promised me at the beginning of that 60 years?
When did I say it should be killed. There are plenty others who would like to see that, however. Meanwhile, enjoy your socialist health care plan.
I am generally against Socialist programs but you picked the two I would keep. I would have been against Social Security from the start but now that so many people have paid into the system all their lives it would be extremely wrong and unethical not to give them anything in return.. If/when the system goes broke and nobody get's benefits every person who paid in and got nothing back should have raging hatred towards Socialism.
I don't have a problem with Medicare.. Many old people are not able bodied. It's Medicaid that I oppose.. Young able bodied people should not get free medical care. Like many welfare programs, it rewards and encourages the worst in human behavior. I would love to see huge, drastic cuts in medicaid if not a complete elimination of the program. Too bad we are going in the opposite direction.
How are they socialist when you pay in and then get back YOUR own money ?
Let me opt out..gimme back all I put in and interest over the years at a decent amount and I'll go off and invest it myself.
How can you even honestly make such a silly argument???
The amount in terms of taxes that have come out your paycheck from social security were extremely low in the 1960's and 1970's. The tax amount was not upped significantly until the 1980's and then again in the 1990's.
It is a dishonest lie to ask for all the money you put in, considering, if you live long enough you'll get far more out of the program than you ever dreamed of putting into the program.
It's a ponzi scheme and is an unfair tax on the younger working population to support the older population.
To correct your mis-information a lot of elderly women who make up the biggest group of social security recipients never worked a day in their life and if they did they didn't work long enough to contribute enough to the program. (not singling out women, but due to laws, low paying jobs, discrimination, and other things it would have been pretty hard for "most" women to have saved enough of what they get back from SS even if they did work)
The programs is just wrong on so many levels.
1. Government is coercing individuals into paying into the system
You're basically net positive whatever you put in if you can live past 10 years into social security.
25k a year for 10 years = 250k you'd reap from SS
there is no way even with compounded interest the small amount that you would have contributed via taxes during 30 years of work, would have funded, that sort of retirement for most individuals on the plan.
1. Taxes on OASDI were extremely low for almost 3 decades
2. Taxes on OASDI were not 6.5% until 1990
3. Most Americans don't earn enough over 40 years of work to put away the kind of money SS pays out, should you live long enough to reap a hell of a return with other peoples money.
Having lived in Europe for many years, I can tell you that the quality of life there is significantly better than in the US. They live longer they we do. They eat better food. They are thinner and exercise more. They have beautiful public spaces for everyone to enjoy. The environment is less contaminated. And there are far fewer human tragedies with people living on the street or in shelters.
And, guess what, socialism is one of the major reasons why life is better over there.
The only ones who should fear socialism are those 1 percent that are truly wealthy. The rest would end up being better off and enjoying more piece of mind when it comes to job security and health care.
It's sad that so many middle class people are conned into thinking that socialism would actually make them worse off.
Not only would everyone be better off, but socialism is also more ethical. While the free market does a decent job of rewarding people for their labor and talents in some cases, socialism is a necessary way of correcting a system where 1. people are often not afforded an equal opportunity to be productive and 2. a few people own more vastly more wealth than they contribute to society.
At an abstract level, pure capitalism is a system where one group of people are allowed monopolize and consume natural resources while polluting the environment at the expense of others who are denied or given only limited access.
Look at what is happening in the Gulf . The planet belongs to all of us, but some of you want to allow a few greedy capitalists wreak havoc on our planet in the name of a "free market."
Again, this kind environmental tragedy would not happen in Europe. Why? Because they have regulations that stop a powerful few from destroying an environment that we all depend on.
The concept of a "free market" is an absurd oxymoron. Freedom for an elite group to dominate our political system by buying off politicians and deluging the public with paid propaganda (US Chamber of Commerce in the health care debate) is not freedom. It is thuggery.
How can you even honestly make such a silly argument???
The amount in terms of taxes that have come out your paycheck from social security were extremely low in the 1960's and 1970's. The tax amount was not upped significantly until the 1980's and then again in the 1990's.
It is a dishonest lie to ask for all the money you put in, considering, if you live long enough you'll get far more out of the program than you ever dreamed of putting into the program.
It's a ponzi scheme and is an unfair tax on the younger working population to support the older population.
To correct your mis-information a lot of elderly women who make up the biggest group of social security recipients never worked a day in their life and if they did they didn't work long enough to contribute enough to the program. (not singling out women, but due to laws, low paying jobs, discrimination, and other things it would have been pretty hard for "most" women to have saved enough of what they get back from SS even if they did work)
The programs is just wrong on so many levels.
1. Government is coercing individuals into paying into the system
You're basically net positive whatever you put in if you can live past 10 years into social security.
25k a year for 10 years = 250k you'd reap from SS
there is no way even with compounded interest the small amount that you would have contributed via taxes during 30 years of work, would have funded, that sort of retirement for most individuals on the plan.
1. Taxes on OASDI were extremely low for almost 3 decades
2. Taxes on OASDI were not 6.5% until 1990
3. Most Americans don't earn enough over 40 years of work to put away the kind of money SS pays out, should you live long enough to reap a hell of a return with other peoples money.
Where do you get "25K a year" as SS benefits?
Average SS benefit is roughly HALF that.
How can you even honestly make such a silly argument???
The amount in terms of taxes that have come out your paycheck from social security were extremely low in the 1960's and 1970's. The tax amount was not upped significantly until the 1980's and then again in the 1990's.
It is a dishonest lie to ask for all the money you put in, considering, if you live long enough you'll get far more out of the program than you ever dreamed of putting into the program.
It's a ponzi scheme and is an unfair tax on the younger working population to support the older population.
To correct your mis-information a lot of elderly women who make up the biggest group of social security recipients never worked a day in their life and if they did they didn't work long enough to contribute enough to the program. (not singling out women, but due to laws, low paying jobs, discrimination, and other things it would have been pretty hard for "most" women to have saved enough of what they get back from SS even if they did work)
The programs is just wrong on so many levels.
1. Government is coercing individuals into paying into the system
You're basically net positive whatever you put in if you can live past 10 years into social security.
25k a year for 10 years = 250k you'd reap from SS
there is no way even with compounded interest the small amount that you would have contributed via taxes during 30 years of work, would have funded, that sort of retirement for most individuals on the plan.
1. Taxes on OASDI were extremely low for almost 3 decades
2. Taxes on OASDI were not 6.5% until 1990
3. Most Americans don't earn enough over 40 years of work to put away the kind of money SS pays out, should you live long enough to reap a hell of a return with other peoples money.
Other people spent the money that I and all others my age paid into SS for about 50 years before I started taking mine back. The system would have worked for years beyond what it will now if the Congress hadn't spent what was left every year from about 1950 up to now. They just couldn't stand to see all that money lying around and not being spent.
Your example of how much one would spend over a period of 10 years was created from ignorance of the system. I collected just over $800 per month the first 6 or so years and have just got over $1000 and I have been collecting for 15 years. I think that your $25000 per year was a bit high. Yes, younger people will collect far more than I do but they paid in a lot more also. I think you need to study the system a bit better. I get about half of what you proposed and haven't been at that rate very long.
Other people spent the money that I and all others my age paid into SS for about 50 years before I started taking mine back. The system would have worked for years beyond what it will now if the Congress hadn't spent what was left every year from about 1950 up to now. They just couldn't stand to see all that money lying around and not being spent.
Your example of how much one would spend over a period of 10 years was created from ignorance of the system. I collected just over $800 per month the first 6 or so years and have just got over $1000 and I have been collecting for 15 years. I think that your $25000 per year was a bit high. Yes, younger people will collect far more than I do but they paid in a lot more also. I think you need to study the system a bit better. I get about half of what you proposed and haven't been at that rate very long.
Social Security is "our" money they take out and use then give back to us at least those who live long enough to collect it.
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.
Americans don't understand socialism
