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.
No one likes the idea of having retirement or any other benefit that we expect in life postponed. However, postponement is a preferable alternative to losing the benefit entirely which is what will eventually happen if steps like these are not taken to guarantee the future solvency of social security.
If history is any guide, the current situation with respect to unemployment will change and our economy will at least return to levels of 6% to 7% unemployment (which is still higher than what we have been used too). At this point, most people will be back to work. The business cycle (with periods of prosperity and recession) is part of living in a capitalist economic system. People can't expect things will always be rosey.
I am not accusing you of anything, so please don't take this personally. However, it is my observation when I read some posts by seniors and others about the problems with social security and retirement that there is a certain of amount of unjustified paranoia. When I hear talk about "them" or what "they" are doing to "us", I get a little confused. We elect our leaders in this country and we can vote them out of office. The President selects the head of the Social Security Administration and he can fire him. In short, WE are the government in this country.
I agree there is a problem with social security. The fund is spending more than it is taking in. Its not because of stealing by politicians though. Its US, its the people in this country. We provide benefits for retirement, we allow early retirement at 62, we pay disability pensions, we pay SSI to those who haven't contributed the system, and we insist on having Medicare. We live to very ripe old ages now and no one could have forseen that problem back in 1934, when the system was established.
Ever heard the old saying that "We have met the enemy and he is us"?
I agree with everything except-------the fund is spending more than it's taking in- part.
Still tons of money owed the SS trust fund from IOU's when the Federal govt borrowed it during the surplus years.
Let's do an analogy between a retired individual and the SS trust fund.
If a retired individual invested all his extra money in savings bonds for 40 years, would you state he is -----spending more money than he is taking in----before he starts to redeem those bonds ?
If in his " surplus" years he bought savings bonds to cash in when his income didn't equal his living expense, would you state he is-----spending more money than he is taking in-- once he started to cash them in according to his plan ?
No different than the surplus being owed the SS trust fund that the government borrowed.
Time for the govt to pay back to the SS trust fund the surplus money they borrowed-------with interest.
Yes, many of those years the govt borrowed the SS trust fund surplus, interest rates on US savings bonds were a whole lot better than today.
Time for the US govt to pay the piper ( aka SS trust fund )
I'm trying to figure out what you mean. Are you saying that you earn more than $106,800 per year, but that you are so committed to the solvency of Social Security that since "Other taxes that I pay go to Welfare,....Why not another one?" Or are you saying that in this case you would be on the receiving end of the welfare, so "Fairness be damned" for those who would be paying for you? Please clarify.
I'm trying to figure out why you're trying to put words in my mouth. It's not just those 2 choices.
I want to see people like Buffett and Gates and Walton and Dell and Allen, over-paid entertainers, over-paid sports figures, over-paid CEO's, and politicians from the city of Bell CA pay past the point of $106,800.
Just to name a few.
I really don't care if someone yells that it's not *fair*.
But you trouble is that you want them to pay by far the most taxes,now want more then wnat them tp pay for mpore SS taxes and of course want thewm to provide jobs. it isn't gonig to happen bascailly;any more than they are going to divide the frust fund so taht everyone gets a eqaul share of what ids out in.
Removing the tax cap would mean that someone earning $106,800 would pay $6,621 and someone earning $25 Million would pay $1,550,000 and the employer would also have to contribute $1,550,000 and that would have a tendency to end the stupidity and drive the outrageously overly excessive salaries downward.
High salaries are only "outrageously overly excessive" to those who do not make them.
And suppose you are correct and removing the tax cap drove salaries down...that would just mean less tax money going into the fund.
Exactly, what he said........
Want to fix S.S.?? Raise the wage cap...Why is it that after you make 100k a year you don't have to pay anymore S.S.tax ????
Just tax all the money a middle class family makes, but give the rich a break...Screw that...Raise the cap to 500k or a mill
How many times does this have to be pointed out? SS is a raw deal for anyone under 50, because we won't ever get out what we put into it.
No matter how much you make, the benefits max out. Get it? What you receive every month is maxed out!
So when you have reached the "cap" -- you have put in more than enough to cover your benefits. It was marketed as a forced retirement plan, not just another welfare program! If you want it to be a welfare program, then roll it into welfare, save some administration costs, and see how that flies politically.
Every penny my family loses to SS and Medicare OVER the cap is basically more money burned by the psycho crooks in Washington. They already confiscate over half our income. What's left goes to heating and cost of living (we don't even have a mortgage, but the property taxes more than make up for that). We'd like to retire someday but we've got nothing left over after taxes and cost of living. And we basically live paupers, at that.
Raising the cap just gives more cash for the crooks in Washington to steal from the (hypothetical) Social Security Trust Fund. It hits WAGE EARNERS--not "the rich" you're all so rabid about. And it is more money sent to Washington with absolutely NO BENEFIT to the person it is confiscated from, thus depriving the local economy of money that might be spent locally.
Sending more money to Washington, after how corrupt and irresponsible it has proven itself to be, is the height of economic suicide. We're in trouble enough--let's let a few dollars stay in the hands of the people who earn it, so they can spend it locally and help Americans instead of their corrupt, ultra-rich Government Representatives.
Raising the retirement age will have no effect. If you look at the history of Social Security, the retirement age was raised from 62 to 65, and then to 67, however that was not retroactive. I can retire at 65, but my sister has to wait until 67 because she was born after the law changed.
Some of the people here who are flying off the handle need to consider that it won't be retroactive. Sure, Congress can try to make it retroactive, but that would be political suicide, not to mention it would be challenged in court and struck down.
Raising the retirement age to 70 won't do anything for 70 years, which will be about 50 years too late.
The least painful method of dealing with the future Social Security problems is to eliminate the wage cap on the Social Security Tax. You could leave the cap in place for employers, but I think as a matter of social policy, the cap should be removed for employers as well.
The wage cap is currently $106,800
That means if you earn $106,800 your Social Security Tax is $6,621
It also means that if you earn $25 Million your Social Security Tax $6,621
In both cases the employer would also contribute $6,621
Removing the tax cap would mean that someone earning $106,800 would pay $6,621 and someone earning $25 Million would pay $1,550,000 and the employer would also have to contribute $1,550,000 and that would have a tendency to end the stupidity and drive the outrageously overly excessive salaries downward.
Or cause them to lay off lower paid workers who are not as financially productive for the company? Or the additional costs for SS could be passed on to consumers that has happened before. Hey if they are sport or entertainment figures they can just raise ticket prices.
How many times does this have to be pointed out? SS is a raw deal for anyone under 50, because we won't ever get out what we put into it.
No matter how much you make, the benefits max out. Get it? What you receive every month is maxed out!
So when you have reached the "cap" -- you have put in more than enough to cover your benefits. It was marketed as a forced retirement plan, not just another welfare program! If you want it to be a welfare program, then roll it into welfare, save some administration costs, and see how that flies politically.
Every penny my family loses to SS and Medicare OVER the cap is basically more money burned by the psycho crooks in Washington. They already confiscate over half our income. What's left goes to heating and cost of living (we don't even have a mortgage, but the property taxes more than make up for that). We'd like to retire someday but we've got nothing left over after taxes and cost of living. And we basically live paupers, at that.
Raising the cap just gives more cash for the crooks in Washington to steal from the (hypothetical) Social Security Trust Fund. It hits WAGE EARNERS--not "the rich" you're all so rabid about. And it is more money sent to Washington with absolutely NO BENEFIT to the person it is confiscated from, thus depriving the local economy of money that might be spent locally.
Sending more money to Washington, after how corrupt and irresponsible it has proven itself to be, is the height of economic suicide. We're in trouble enough--let's let a few dollars stay in the hands of the people who earn it, so they can spend it locally and help Americans instead of their corrupt, ultra-rich Government Representatives.
I suppose you think an alternative to this is let everyone under fifty stop paying for social security and just take care of their own retirement? If you do think that I wonder if you have read anything that has been posted here.
I'll just try to summarize. The gist of it is this:
1. Social security came into being because just the minority of people who back in 1934 lived past age 65, generally failed to save enough for retirement. Now, imagine what that would be like today when the average life expectancy is around age 80? You'd literally have millions of people living in the street. It would make for a very unstable country besides creating a humanitarian crisis.
2. Private savings plans (or defined contribution plans) like 401K accounts are extremely unreliable. After fifteen years of effort, never taking a dime out of the account, and following all the standard advice the experts have given us, my wife and I have less than $100,000 in our 401K account. Honestly, I'm looking at the stock market this morning (down, down, down) again and I'm really wondering if we ought to keep feeding this thing.
3. So your concern is that your not getting the benefits out of social security your putting in? Well, hell, at least there is a guarantee you'll be getting a defined level of benefits out of the thing which is more than I can say for other retirement plans.
4. Social security is far from perfect, but is an absolute necessity simply because private retirement plans with defined benefits are dying a rapid death. About the only organizations still offering defined benefit plans to employees are federal, state, and local governments. Do people seriously want to eliminate the one last defined benefits plan when they have no idea how long they will live or what the future cost of living will be?
Look, guy, if you don't like social security fine. Do something intelligent. Talk to your congressman about reforming the thing. I've put in 25-30 years of taxes into social security and I don't mind waiting until age 70 (if I have too) to get my benefits back. However, all this crap about abolishing social security and letting people save for their own retirement is a bunch of garbage. Didn't work in 1934 and it won't work now....
How many times does this have to be pointed out? SS is a raw deal for anyone under 50, because we won't ever get out what we put into it.
No matter how much you make, the benefits max out. Get it? What you receive every month is maxed out!
So when you have reached the "cap" -- you have put in more than enough to cover your benefits. It was marketed as a forced retirement plan, not just another welfare program! If you want it to be a welfare program, then roll it into welfare, save some administration costs, and see how that flies politically.
Every penny my family loses to SS and Medicare OVER the cap is basically more money burned by the psycho crooks in Washington. They already confiscate over half our income. What's left goes to heating and cost of living (we don't even have a mortgage, but the property taxes more than make up for that). We'd like to retire someday but we've got nothing left over after taxes and cost of living. And we basically live paupers, at that.
Raising the cap just gives more cash for the crooks in Washington to steal from the (hypothetical) Social Security Trust Fund. It hits WAGE EARNERS--not "the rich" you're all so rabid about. And it is more money sent to Washington with absolutely NO BENEFIT to the person it is confiscated from, thus depriving the local economy of money that might be spent locally.
Sending more money to Washington, after how corrupt and irresponsible it has proven itself to be, is the height of economic suicide. We're in trouble enough--let's let a few dollars stay in the hands of the people who earn it, so they can spend it locally and help Americans instead of their corrupt, ultra-rich Government Representatives.
1. "We won't ever get out what we put into it". (Social Security) You will if you live long enough. Why do you keep posting this absurdity?
2. Losing money to SS "over the cap". You don't seem to understand what is being discussed. Our benefits are capped because our SS payroll taxes are capped. We cannot lose money "over the cap".
3. "They already confiscate over half of our income". This is well nigh impossible. The federal income tax rates stop at something like 33% or 35%, and that's not even on all your income, but only on the taxable portions (after deductions and exemptions) which exceed the other tiered rates. Add in state income tax, sales taxes, and property taxes, and you still won't be at half your income.
4. "And we basically live (like) paupers, at that". This contradicts #3 above. I don't know how you live, but if you pay even 35 or 40% of your income in taxes, then you definitely do not live like paupers, by definition.
There are only two explanations for your continued posts along these same lines: Either you do not have any clue how irrational they are, or they are troll posts which are purposefully beyond the pale in order to get people riled up. In the later case, I have no one to blame but myself for even responding.
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.
Which abrudity to rebut first?
