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 don't know what subject you taught in school, Escort Rider, but I would like to have been in your class! You explain things well and use a lot of common sense. I might not always agree with you (though I do often) but you make me think. That can't be bad!
I don't know what subject you taught in school, Escort Rider, but I would like to have been in your class! You explain things well and use a lot of common sense. I might not always agree with you (though I do often) but you make me think. That can't be bad!
Thank you - I appreciate the kind words. I can refer you to a few people who see it differently, one in this very thread, but that goes with the territory.
I'm changing the subject, or am I getting back on track? Anyway, the whole idea of not paying what we put into Social Security is ridiculous. If this was the get-go from day one & we had a choice, fine. But do not tell us after many years, Thanks for the money, tough we're not going to give it back. Hmmmm, does not sound good.
And when I hear talk about disability, I cringe. I was disabled 3 years ago in a car accident but it took 2 1/2 years to prove it. In the meantime, I received all of $200 a month from welfare - after I used up all monies (I actually received it for 2-3 months), so much for my savings.
I will soon be 62 so was not that short of applying anyway, but I will feel more comfortable when I am that age, due to comments about disability, even though I wear a brace and have to use a cane.
If I were to lose Social Security, I would not be able to live.
I agree with you and #6 should include raising the early retirement age for anyone not yet retired. Also eliminate file and suspend. What I like about the four options that you selected is that everyone has to make a sacrifice - the high income earners and the average guy, younger workers and the retired and the soon to be retired. High income earners and retirees should not be solely responsible for bailing out social security.
eliminating file and suspend would increase the deficit in ss.
that is the one perk that has many delaying their own benefit , taking a much smaller one and dying before they collect a penny of that larger check.
many folks would just grab their own benefit day one instead of that small token one . the demands on ss to pay out all those heavy payments would increase as well as not have as many die before collecting.
for the ss fund , restricted application and file and suspend are the two biggest money savers for them.
in effect they force you to make a bet on your own longevity which is stacked in their favor by age 70., getting you to delay saves the medicare fund money. you have zero protection against the full amount of the hikes in medicare and some have been very high. the hold harmless law while collecting ss on your own record says your premium can never go up by more than the cola adjustment.
Last edited by mathjak107; 04-18-2015 at 03:19 AM..
People who have PAID into Social Security and Medicare should get back at least what they paid into it with appropriate interest (or, at the VERY least, be able to voluntarily "donate" it back to the government and then claim it as a tax deduction).
There is NO such thing: Since it's Inception one has NEVER been 'guaranteed' ANYTHING in SS.
Hence, the reason they are looking for ways to boost its income and cut its outgo!
ANdD/OR one may:
1} get LESS back than one paid in, or
2} oneMay Get MORE back than one paid in
THINK for a minute: when SS first started, many Seniors were immediately on SS, and NEVER paid A DIME into it in their lives!
Others will draw down FAR MORE than they ever paid in {example: started on SS disability at age 30, changing to regular SS as a Senior and collecting until age 95/100+} OR: {started collecting at 55 and living to age 95/100+, example}
A couple of you have put some ideas out there. Kudo's.
Many of the rest of these posts, which I have admittedly skimmed, don't seem to say much more than, "I better get back my money"
My plan:
* Gradually begin raising earnings cap to $250,000 for full collection of SS taxes. A No Brainer here. The cap has to go up!
* Modify Chris Christie's plan a little so that once you reach $100,000 in earnings, you begin to get back less $$, and do it on a sliding scale.
* For those born after 1975, the age to begin collecting SS is now 62.5 with full collections at 68
* For those born after 1985, the age to begin collecting SS is now 63 with full collections at 68
* For those born after 1995, the age to begin collecting SS is now 63.5 with full collections at 68
* Crack down on FRAUD in the SS disabilities program. Hire more investigators and get tough on these payments. Give the investigators some INCENTIVES to find fraud. Tell some of these leeches to get a JOB and that the gravy train has ended.
IMO, lots of people confuse SS as an investment, when it is actually insurance. An investment would eventually stop paying out if you lived too long. An annuity would keep paying because it is also insurance. Might not be packaged that way but at least part of the cost is to ensure a perpetual payout. Anyway, some people get more out than they put in; yes that is what happens when you share risk. The risk being shared is that you and/or dependents will outlive other sources of income. SS makes sure you at least have something. Once people run out of other sources, which is the day of the first payment if they have no other sources, SS needs to provide enough income for bare necessities even if that makes it highly likely the payout will exceed the taxes the individual payed in to help fund the program.
As galaxyhi pointed out, the first recipients didn't pay the tax for the program at all because the tax wasn't collected while they were working. It was really obvious at that time that it was an insurance program. Along the way, we have lost sight of that. People want all their money back. That's not how it works. This is a social program; you pay in based on ability to help fund it and you take out based on how long you live (or in some cases what is paid out to your dependents). I say this as a wage earner who has paid the cap every year for quite some time; I have likely paid more than I will see but that's okay. Unless there is a crisis that affects my personal finances, I should be fine.
BearGreek - I am against having any cap at this point. That's driven because of a couple of things. One is it immediately solves the funding gap forever. The other is that we have to start chipping away at income inequality wherever we can. It blows my mind that some people don't think there will be a crisis at some point if we don't. I would be affected by an increase. Yes, for only 10 years but I am saving I believe it is necessary and that I am willing to pay to back that belief up.
It isn't just what works to fix SS. It is also what works and doesn't create other unintended consequences. Government programs and policy including SS already have unintended consequences some SS related that it is suggested be done away with. Human behavior is just that and it will overwhelmingly be those with the most acting in their own self interest when it comes to money.
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.
