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.
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).
Why?
Social Security provided insurance for you for decades in case you became disabled or died prematurely. Exactly why should you be entitled to get back every penny (plus interest) in insurance premiums that you paid for all those years?
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).
Quote:
Originally Posted by dothetwist
"Social Security" when taken out of your paycheck, is labelled FICA. FICA stands for Federal INSURANCE Contributions Act. It's a required insurance program into which everyone must pay.
This ill-conceived idea by Christie (who I could have considered voting for, up until today) of means-testing would be like paying your car insurance premiums, having a fender-bender and allowing the Insurance Company to look at your income and say, ya know what....you can afford to pay for those damages out of pocket.
As long as people pay their premiums (payroll withholding taxes) into Social Security, no politician should be allowed to deny them their benefits for any reason.
Can we have someone that runs for President that can do away with Social Security? I would prefer to have that money to invest into my own retirement account and not pay for those that did not plan for retirement.
Christies and similar proposals would hit pensioners the most. Pensions are fixed and without annual flexibility. Example if you have a $80K pension you would be at the threshold. If your income was based on retirement account draw downs equaling 80K a year you could withdraw 280K worth in one year and have little or no income for three years. You would avoid
SS taxes for two years, Medicare payments for 2 years and get your full SS for two years. How to crunch the numbers would be easy if you just let your CPA do it. Once again the wealthy would be impacted not as intended and those of lesser resources and no accountant more. Remember 100K in a retirement account is not worth anywhere near what 100K in a taxable account is worth. Millionaires would still get there SS and others making far less wouldn't especially if they are pensioners.
10.6% of income up to $113,000 is paid into the Social Security program, half from the employer and half from the employee. The money is paid out on the spot to those that are allready retired. Up untill 2010 you would have received more from Social Security than you paid in. As of 2010, if you retire today, you will not get what you put into the program.
If I had been allowed to invest my 10.6% of money during my working life, I could have built a very nice retirement for myself and my wife. Placing the money in a 401K or 403B account for the 40 or so working years of my life and I would have built a net worth of maybe $1million to $3million. Place jsut $2,000 a year into a plan and the average over a 40 year time frame would create a net worth of at least $1million. (In fact if you check with your local financial planner you will find that if you were to place just $2,000 a year from age 20 to age 26 and stop investing but let it ride you would have been able to build a net worth of over $1million. That would be your money and not anyone elses.
I say we scrap the system or make it available to those that want to opt out. In fact maybe that is a way we could do it, you get to invest your money but opt out of the "benefit" that they would pay you if you had remained.
Christie doesn't hold ownership of being a bad gov for NJ. He's the latest in a long line. I don't like him I think he's a phony. The taxpayers are paying for his security while he jets around campaigning for prez.
That said if things keep on going in the current direction there will be some type of means testing for SS.
10.6% of income up to $113,000 is paid into the Social Security program, half from the employer and half from the employee. The money is paid out on the spot to those that are allready retired. Up untill 2010 you would have received more from Social Security than you paid in. As of 2010, if you retire today, you will not get what you put into the program.
If I had been allowed to invest my 10.6% of money during my working life, I could have built a very nice retirement for myself and my wife. Placing the money in a 401K or 403B account for the 40 or so working years of my life and I would have built a net worth of maybe $1million to $3million. Place jsut $2,000 a year into a plan and the average over a 40 year time frame would create a net worth of at least $1million. (In fact if you check with your local financial planner you will find that if you were to place just $2,000 a year from age 20 to age 26 and stop investing but let it ride you would have been able to build a net worth of over $1million. That would be your money and not anyone elses.
I say we scrap the system or make it available to those that want to opt out. In fact maybe that is a way we could do it, you get to invest your money but opt out of the "benefit" that they would pay you if you had remained.
The Republican is set to deliver a speech Tuesday in New Hampshire outlining his ideas on reforming Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and other so-called "entitlement" programs.
Christie will propose phasing out Social Security payments for those making more than $80,000 in other income, and eliminating them for those making $200,000 or more a year.
Christie's political action committee released excerpts before the speech. It's part of an effort to frame Christie as a politician who's unafraid to share "hard truths."
Hmm so is that 80k individual or 80k couple?
What are your thoughts on this specific proposal?
How is this "hard"? I mean, I am sure the rich will complain- they outdo welfare mothers by light years in that regard. "BUT OUR HOUSE IN THE HAMPTONS NEEDS SILKWORM UNDERWEAR FOR THE HUMMINGBIRDS WHO USE OUR SOLID GOLD FEEDER,THIS ISN'T AMERICAN!"
If you can't survive on 80,000 a year there is something alot more wrong with you than this post can address. I could live on that the rest of my life. With some to spare for the hummingbirds even.
^^^^^^^^
Try being one of the many individuals who have pensions and MRD's exceeding 80k and who have paid into SS all their lives and live in a high COLA area. Try being someone who takes money out of their retirement savings to pay for a new roof or a car and as a result has a reduction in SS benefits.
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.
