User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:26:21 AM EDT
[#1]
How about civil disobedience and stop paying anyways?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:26:37 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As someone who's paid into it for 30 years I'd want some sort of fair renumeration for my 'investment'. I'd also want a commensurate raise from my employer equal to the share they pay to assist in my own private retirement savings. Same boat here and I would be willing to sacrifice my SS if it meant future generations would not have to endure this horrible system. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:27:19 AM EDT
[#3]
People are too stupid to take care of themselves.
Sorry, but that's the case. Get rid of SS and you're going to have thousands of homeless seniors within a few years. No amount of weaning or education will change this. Here's an idea: how about we stop pretending that SS/Medicare are somehow separate from the general fund? Simply add the FICA rate to the general income tax rate, remove the FICA cap, and stop pretending that SS/Medicare funds are anything other than just money in the general fund. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:27:55 AM EDT
[#4]
Nothing to add except my rant about the lost Social Security Surplus.
I remember watching TV News coverage in 1968 about Congress voting to dump the "Social Security Trust Fund Surplus" into Johnson's "Unified Budget" to help trim the defect. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:29:44 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
People are too stupid to take care of themselves. Sorry, but that's the case. Get rid of SS and you're going to have thousands of homeless seniors within a few years. No amount of weaning or education will change this. Here's an idea: how about we stop pretending that SS/Medicare are somehow separate from the general fund? Simply add the FICA rate to the general income tax rate, remove the FICA cap, and stop pretending that SS/Medicare funds are anything other than just money in the general fund. Big government has made people big stupid. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:30:04 AM EDT
[#6]
I'd be happy to simply stop paying into it.
I've never regarded that money as anything other than a tax. My generation will never see a red fucking cent of it anyway. The baby boomers thru disco generations can squabble over the corpse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:30:26 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
TODAY: Those 55 and up continue as planned except the age to begin collecting is set at 65. Those 45-54 will receive 80% of their projected monthly ammount and the age to begin collecting is set at 67. Those 40-44 will receive 60% of their projected monthly amount and the age to begin collecting is set at 69. Those 35-39 will receive an option to opt out instantly and no longer pay into the system OR collect 35% of the projected monthly amount and the age to begin collecting will be 71. Those 34 and younger are opted out and will not pay into the system. I'm 47 and I would be happy to sign on to that. I'd be perfectly OK with cutting SS off cold turkey tomorrow too as long as I could put what I pay into the current system into a 401k or IRA tax free. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:32:28 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd be happy to simply stop paying into it. I've never regarded that money as anything other than a tax. My generation will never see a red fucking cent of it anyway. The baby boomers thru disco generations can squabble over the corpse. This. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:33:25 AM EDT
[#9]
they can keep the money i have paid in and i will stop participating going forward.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:33:44 AM EDT
[#10]
I'm willing to exchange the Social Security "credits" that were robbed from me against my will, for land illegally claimed by the Federal Government in my State of Utah.
For every dollar I paid into SS that I won't see anyway, I'll accept an acre of land. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:35:07 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. Expect people to act like people. I'm not going to say I'm an expert on human nature, but from my observations the vast majority of people do things because they have to or are forced to. That's why we have laws and police to enforce them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What do you think? 
I think the taper would have to be much slower than that, say 4% per year. So it would go 96%, 92%, 88%, 84%, etc. That would do it over a 25 year period. The replacement would be a mandated by law 401K system where the 4%, 8%, 12%, etc. would go into a 401K plan that could not be borrowed or touched in any other way. So the first year, 96% of the SS tax would go to SS and 4% into the 401K plan. We would have to rename the plan 401K-B to distinguish it from a regular 401K plan. People are procrastinators and most will wait until the last minute to save or not save at all. Then they still become a burden. If you don't force people to save, then they will not do so. So this way the person controls their money more directly and it is less of a pyramid scheme. I would pass a law that if you died, the 401K-B money would be inherited by your heirs but be taxed. If the heir transferred it into their own 401K-B plan, it would transfer tax free. It would promote savings. I would also create a 401K-H health savings plan where pre-tax dollars could be put into a fund to use for health care and slowly eliminate Medicare. Medicaid would remain in some form but I have plans for that as well.
I believe you are wrong. Expect people act like adults they may just do that. We have thousands of years of history of most people acting like adults. Some will not save, probably same people who don't have jobs today. Frankly I don't give a shit if we pile them up at the landfill and make tasty green wafers out of them. No. Expect people to act like people. I'm not going to say I'm an expert on human nature, but from my observations the vast majority of people do things because they have to or are forced to. That's why we have laws and police to enforce them. I was unclear in my statement. Starvation is a greater force than mothering (even with a gun). Given a choice between sinking and swimming people will usually swim. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:37:06 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As someone who's paid into it for 30 years I'd want some sort of fair renumeration for my 'investment'. I'd also want a commensurate raise from my employer equal to the share they pay to assist in my own private retirement savings. You paid a tax, you continued to elect politicians that continued SS. There is no investment for you to retrieve 'fair renumeration' |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:40:37 AM EDT
[#13]
I may get blasted for this, but I'm not entirely opposed to Social Security.
"A big program would have to be put in place to teach people the importance of investing the money that would have paid into the SS system into some sort of retirement plan, mutual funds, etc." - The root of my support for SS. This assumes the masses are capable of being educated, and would save enough to retire at some point, or at least support themselves when their capability is diminished by age. I'm not very educated on Social Security, I admit, it's something I keep promising to learn more about, but never get around to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:41:14 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
1. Stop the gathering of funds for SS from paychecks. 2. Money that does exist in SS, send out one time checks to everyone that paid into it, and base the check amount on the amount they earned and the time they've worked. 3. People can take that check, and do with it what they want, put it into a 401k, IRA, stocks, cocaine, whatever they want. 4. End the program in it's entirety. well said I agree |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:42:08 AM EDT
[#15]
I agree that just ending it won't fly, but in addition to weaning people off of it slowly, we also allow voluntary surrender as in let people opt out.
For example, I have paid very little into SS as a result of my .gov employment. I have paid in some, but I don't think I'll ever see it and I don't care. So SS can keep what I have paid in, and I'll never make a claim just so long as I get to stop paying into it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:42:49 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: well said I agree Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 1. Stop the gathering of funds for SS from paychecks. 2. Money that does exist in SS, send out one time checks to everyone that paid into it, and base the check amount on the amount they earned and the time they've worked. 3. People can take that check, and do with it what they want, put it into a 401k, IRA, stocks, cocaine, whatever they want. 4. End the program in it's entirety. well said I agree There is no money in SS. It's all part of the general fund and has been for years. The very notion of a Social Security Lock Box is a joke. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:42:53 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I may get blasted for this, but I'm not entirely opposed to Social Security. "A big program would have to be put in place to teach people the importance of investing the money that would have paid into the SS system into some sort of retirement plan, mutual funds, etc." - The root of my support for SS. This assumes the masses are capable of being educated, and would save enough to retire at some point, or at least support themselves when their capability is diminished by age. I'm not very educated on Social Security, I admit, it's something I keep promising to learn more about, but never get around to. People would learn to invest, Families would take care of their old folks and charity would help the rest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:46:38 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: People would learn to invest, Families would take care of their old folks and charity would help the rest. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I may get blasted for this, but I'm not entirely opposed to Social Security. "A big program would have to be put in place to teach people the importance of investing the money that would have paid into the SS system into some sort of retirement plan, mutual funds, etc." - The root of my support for SS. This assumes the masses are capable of being educated, and would save enough to retire at some point, or at least support themselves when their capability is diminished by age. I'm not very educated on Social Security, I admit, it's something I keep promising to learn more about, but never get around to. People would learn to invest, Families would take care of their old folks and charity would help the rest. That kind of optimism is rare for a reason. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:47:59 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That kind of optimism is rare for a reason. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I may get blasted for this, but I'm not entirely opposed to Social Security. "A big program would have to be put in place to teach people the importance of investing the money that would have paid into the SS system into some sort of retirement plan, mutual funds, etc." - The root of my support for SS. This assumes the masses are capable of being educated, and would save enough to retire at some point, or at least support themselves when their capability is diminished by age. I'm not very educated on Social Security, I admit, it's something I keep promising to learn more about, but never get around to. People would learn to invest, Families would take care of their old folks and charity would help the rest. That kind of optimism is rare for a reason. People adapt especially in do or die situations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:48:00 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As always, O_P is a wise man. Tapering off is the only way. It "pains" me to agree. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:53:10 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: DKProf's post asking about Libertarianism got me to thinking about SS. We all know that it needs to go. But the American voter is not going to support a "shut it down now" plan for doing that. Please do not post a rant about how "there IS NO MONEY in SS and it is a Ponzi scheme!!!!!" reply. We already know that. But people that were forced to pay into it for all their lives (like myself) were promised that they could one day draw a retirement income from the system. It is not fair, and more importantly, will not be popular with voters, to just shut it down. I was thinking that a possible "tapering off" of the system might win voter approval. On some date, anyone 30 years old (or some age) would pay 90% of the SS tax and would, upon retirement, draw 90% of the SS benefit. The next year, the people reaching that age would pay 80% and would draw 80% of the benefits when they retire. This could be done until it reached zero, and then those after that would not participate in the system at all. A big program would have to be put in place to teach people the importance of investing the money that would have paid into the SS system into some sort of retirement plan, mutual funds, etc. We have to do something that will be supported by the majority of the voters. What do you think? I however understand Americans like you who have paid an entire lifetime will get the ultimate FU if it's just shut down. It's a difficult problem to solve, sadly I don't think it will be solved. They (The Feds) will continued to increase the age to collect SS. Increase the amount people and employers are forced to pay in. Decrease the payments amounts going out. I don't have an answer, I just know it's a shit show all around. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 10:33:07 AM EDT
[#22]
I propose banning individuals for life if they get caught committing fraud against the SS system. That's one less to pay out to. But I also agree that we should start some method in slowly phasing out the system.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 10:33:47 AM EDT
[#23]
The math on SS is doomed.
When you had the baby boomers in their prime (1980s, 1990s, 2000s) paying in and their grandparents and parents receiving benefits, the math made sense. Lots of taxpayers supporting a relatively small number of beneficiaries. Once the baby boomers get onto the receiving end of the equation, you're going to have a small number of taxpayers supporting a large number of beneficiaries. This will not end well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 10:36:10 AM EDT
[#24]
I'm telling you, just offer to pay benefits X 2 in lotto tickets instead of dollars.... so many people would be dumb enough to take it....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 10:36:11 AM EDT
[#25]
So if we get rid of SS, what do we do when all older people with no income go on welfare?
At least SS has tax paid into it. I would get rid of food stamps and other welfare first. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 10:36:47 AM EDT
[#26]
Never happen. Hell people cant take care of themselves now, hence all the welfare, so what makes you think people will start saving for their retirement if we end SSA.
Folks, you all need to realize this socialist utopia is only going to grow. It will not end, inflation be damned. If you doubt me, go to your nearest walmart and walk around. Those people, yes, those people, the dregs of society, will always vote "free shit" because they are scum. They want more and more and more, not less and less. They are entitled after all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 10:50:22 AM EDT
[#27]
I'm 43 and if you let me out, right now (as in, I have to pay in NO MORE) you can KEEP everything I've paid in, no strings attached.
I'd take that deal in a heartbeat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 11:04:23 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep, I realize that the "average person", if relieved of the SS tax, would use it to but "stuff" and have no savings for retirement. That's why I mentioned the educational aspect of the plan. ... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Weaning off is a good plan. Good luck with the well indoctrinated morons being churned out of,schools now. Yep, I realize that the "average person", if relieved of the SS tax, would use it to but "stuff" and have no savings for retirement. That's why I mentioned the educational aspect of the plan. ... No better learning experience than seeing people have to suffer the consequences of bad choices. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 11:17:19 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Big government has made people big stupid. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
People are too stupid to take care of themselves. Sorry, but that's the case. Get rid of SS and you're going to have thousands of homeless seniors within a few years. No amount of weaning or education will change this. Here's an idea: how about we stop pretending that SS/Medicare are somehow separate from the general fund? Simply add the FICA rate to the general income tax rate, remove the FICA cap, and stop pretending that SS/Medicare funds are anything other than just money in the general fund. Big government has made people big stupid. And the solution is more government. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 11:19:22 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No better learning experience than seeing people have to suffer the consequences of bad choices. That sure used to be the case. Not so sure modern folks are up to allowing nature to take its course.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 11:20:19 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 1. Stop the gathering of funds for SS from paychecks. 2. Money that does exist in SS, send out one time checks to everyone that paid into it, and base the check amount on the amount they earned and the time they've worked. 3. People can take that check, and do with it what they want, put it into a 401k, IRA, stocks, cocaine, whatever they want. 4. End the program in it's entirety. There is no money.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 11:23:17 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That sure used to be the case. Not so sure modern folks are up to allowing nature to take its course.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No better learning experience than seeing people have to suffer the consequences of bad choices. That sure used to be the case. Not so sure modern folks are up to allowing nature to take its course.
At the rate we are going now (spending what we don't have) nature will be teaching us that lesson including a lot of back interest due. Payment is going to be a real bitch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 11:23:30 AM EDT
[#33]
We have to do something that will be supported by the majority of the voters. Go to Walmart at any time of the day (or, for extra fun on Black Friday). Let us know whether it changes your opinion of what would be palatable to a majority of voters. The majority of voters just want shit from the government and have the scruples of a child molester on viagra. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 11:25:32 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
About that part... Yeah... um.... There is no money. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
1. Stop the gathering of funds for SS from paychecks. 2. Money that does exist in SS, send out one time checks to everyone that paid into it, and base the check amount on the amount they earned and the time they've worked. 3. People can take that check, and do with it what they want, put it into a 401k, IRA, stocks, cocaine, whatever they want. 4. End the program in it's entirety. There is no money. Money exists, just not in SS specifically. SS payments are coming from somewhere, dole out checks from that specific source. Repeat remaining steps. As far as getting voter buy-in, tell people they can spend their one time check on big screen TV's, FarmVille, vacations. Do what the IRS does around tax time "hey you're getting a refund of your own money! here's how you can spend it!" and if people are too stupid to invest it, and future earnings in their retirement, then they fail at their own choosing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 11:26:25 AM EDT
[#35]
I have said before and will offer again in this thread:
I am 38 years old. Put me in the bracket that continues to pay in 100% yet will receive 0%. I'll pay until I retire, then happily draw nothing - with the stipulation that my children - 35+ years younger than me - pay nothing and draw nothing. In other words, anyone, say, 65 or older gets 100% benefit, tapering down to my age - 38 - where we get nothing. And everyone my age or older continues to pay in, but below my age, what we pay in tapers down - down through the next lower 30 years or so - until my children don't have to pay. 
That basically rapes me, financially, but frees my children. I'd happily go for this, but I'd want the caveat that anyone who tried to tweak, change, annul, or otherwise change such a deal, once made, would cease to be subject to the protections of state or federal law, and could be shot like vermin. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 11:26:54 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
... Not so sure modern folks are up to allowing nature to take its course.
There would certainly be pain involved and a steep learning curve, but if we had allowed nature to take its course all these years we wouldn't have to end up dealing with that return to equilibrium problem at some point. And at some point, whether we initiate it by choice or whether it imposes itself on us, I'm sure we will have to deal with it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 11:32:14 AM EDT
[#37]
The money was there for SSI, it was used up by congress as discretionary spending & never paid back over 40+ yrs, it was criminal what went on, but has been successfully nuked & glassed over with a new facade of lies.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 11:40:13 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
We have to do something that will be supported by the majority of the voters. What do you think?
Now all you have to do is to figure out how to make your plan the easiest one for members of Congress to adopt. Right now the easiest thing for members of Congress to do is to bank on the Fed creating enough money to pay the nominal benefits while reducing the indexing for the devaluation of the money (begining sometime in the future, naturally). That's the most likely result. The next most likely result is what I've already described combined with a modest payroll tax increase (most of the rubes have never figured out that they pay the entire tax) to SAVE SOCIAL SECURITY!!!!!, or at least to generate more money with which members of Congress can buy votes at the next election. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 11:45:12 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The money was there for SSI, it was used up by congress as discretionary spending & never paid back over 40+ yrs, it was criminal what went on, but has been successfully nuked & glassed over with a new facade of lies. Absolutely. That's what happened. But my question is: How do we get out of this mess? What idea could be sold to the voters? Shutting it down like flipping a light switch isn't going to be supported by voters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 11:46:55 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have said before and will offer again in this thread: I am 38 years old. Put me in the bracket that continues to pay in 100% yet will receive 0%. I'll pay until I retire, then happily draw nothing - with the stipulation that my children - 35+ years younger than me - pay nothing and draw nothing. In other words, anyone, say, 65 or older gets 100% benefit, tapering down to my age - 38 - where we get nothing. And everyone my age or older continues to pay in, but below my age, what we pay in tapers down - down through the next lower 30 years or so - until my children don't have to pay.
That basically rapes me, financially, but frees my children. I'd happily go for this, but I'd want the caveat that anyone who tried to tweak, change, annul, or otherwise change such a deal, once made, would cease to be subject to the protections of state or federal law, and could be shot like vermin. I fear you are in the minority. Most voters would not be willing to pay in and never get any returns. Most voters are very short sighted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 11:49:14 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
.SS payments are coming from somewhere, dole out checks from that specific source. 
You're suggesting that the Federal government should borrow enough money to make one time lump sum payments to all those who have paid Social Security taxes? From where, the Federal Reserve? By the time the Federal Reserve was done creating all those dollars, no one would bother to pick up a $100 bill lying in the street. It wouldn't be worth the effort. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 11:49:49 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm 43 and if you let me out, right now (as in, I have to pay in NO MORE) you can KEEP everything I've paid in, no strings attached. I'd take that deal in a heartbeat. This assumes that the money you paid is yours; that you have some ownership claim. You don't. You have a better taxpayer standing claim on the anchor of the USS Nimitz than "your" SS bucks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 11:50:58 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
By the time the Federal Reserve was done creating all those dollars, no one would bother to pick up a $100 bill lying in the street. It wouldn't be worth the effort. Q_ALITATIVE EASING. I'll let you buy a vowel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 11:51:43 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The money was there for SSI, it was used up by congress as discretionary spending & never paid back over 40+ yrs, it was criminal what went on, but has been successfully nuked & glassed over with a new facade of lies. The original Social Security Act required the SSA to "invest" all surplus funds in government bonds. The "trust fund" NEVER existed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 11:52:51 AM EDT
[#45]
I'm going to pay more, you're going to receive less.
Or some variation on that theme. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 11:58:20 AM EDT
[#46]
<-- Libertarian.
I'm also pragmatic. I support a gradual dissolution of the program, even if it means I'll have to pay SS taxes while receiving no benefit myself, if it means my two children will never have to. I had never considered your idea of paying 90% of the benefit, and receiving 90% of the benefit (then 80% and so on). I'll need to ponder that for a bit to see if the math works out, but if it does, I could get behind that. On a related note: I support a negative income tax (Google it if you need to - it was Milton Friedman's idea) for similar pragmatic reasons. It slightly offends my purist libertarian sensibilities, but I think it has a better chance politically than the Fair Tax, and it's a vast improvement over what we're doing now - so much so, that the fact it isn't "ideologically pure" doesn't really bother me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 12:26:42 PM EDT
[#47]
I don't know why there's so much discussion for such a simple problem -- one that has ALREADY been solved:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/da/Logans_run_movie_poster.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 12:35:49 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: <-- Libertarian. I'm also pragmatic. I support a gradual dissolution of the program, even if it means I'll have to pay SS taxes while receiving no benefit myself, if it means my two children will never have to. I had never considered your idea of paying 90% of the benefit, and receiving 90% of the benefit (then 80% and so on). I'll need to ponder that for a bit to see if the math works out, but if it does, I could get behind that. On a related note: I support a negative income tax (Google it if you need to - it was Milton Friedman's idea) for similar pragmatic reasons. It slightly offends my purist libertarian sensibilities, but I think it has a better chance politically than the Fair Tax, and it's a vast improvement over what we're doing now - so much so, that the fact it isn't "ideologically pure" doesn't really bother me. Isn't the negative income tax basically the EIC and similar refundable tax credits that we have in place now? I am generally opposed to welfare by 1040, but if it were in lieu of SS I might be convinced to at least consider it. The program is not going to go away. The voters simply won't stand for it. Any plan for the end of SS, whether gradual or abrupt, is going to meet with more resistance from the electorate than can be overcome. I wish it were not so, but you know what they say about wishes... Here's a plan to fix the SS problem that might actually stand a chance politically. 1. Means test the benefits. We have loads of people in this thread that claim they are willing to continue to pay in and forgo benefits. People who are fortunate and/or hard working enough to reach SS retirement age with assets in the millions don't need $800/month from SS. Set the bar high, but there's probably close to 5% of the retirement age population that could be denied SS benefits without a substantial change in their lifestyles. That's 5% off the top of the SS retirement benefits budget. 2. Apply FICA (SS/Medicare) taxes to all income from all sources without a cap. Could be accomplished two ways - A) as mentioned above, stop pretending that SS taxes are somehow different from other taxes or B) make them truly different from other taxes and keep them separate for real. This would raise revenues to a point where the income might actually match the expense. Adjust the rates as necessary as the population fluctuates - and I mean both tax and benefit rates. 3. Increased enforcement against fraud. SS fraud - disability or otherwise - should be punished with a severity that would discourage all but the most evil of persons. Probably not death, but certainly a hell of a prison term - and a lifetime forfeiture of SS benefits or any government aid. I want these people to die from exposure in their cardboard box under a bridge when they get too old to work. Fuck 'em. If you think SS retirement is ever going to end, you're delusional. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 12:52:38 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have said before and will offer again in this thread: I am 38 years old. Put me in the bracket that continues to pay in 100% yet will receive 0%. I'll pay until I retire, then happily draw nothing - with the stipulation that my children - 35+ years younger than me - pay nothing and draw nothing. In other words, anyone, say, 65 or older gets 100% benefit, tapering down to my age - 38 - where we get nothing. And everyone my age or older continues to pay in, but below my age, what we pay in tapers down - down through the next lower 30 years or so - until my children don't have to pay.
That basically rapes me, financially, but frees my children. I'd happily go for this, but I'd want the caveat that anyone who tried to tweak, change, annul, or otherwise change such a deal, once made, would cease to be subject to the protections of state or federal law, and could be shot like vermin. All that sacrifice is nonsense. You will be ripped off and your children will be slaves. No caveat is worth it's weight unless you have the power and will to enforce it. In truth..........the only thing that will affect change will be when the government simply runs out of money. There will be no planning ahead and turning things around. It will be a painful crash right up until end. We won't even see the brake lights before it hits the wall. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 12:58:55 PM EDT
[#50]
You know how every few weeks a thread pops up titled "What is ARFCOM wrong about" This is one of them. Yeah, yeah I hate the idea itself. Right now though it is waaaay past the point of no return for Soc Sec. If you think you have any chance of changing Social Security, im sure the 30% of Americans getting that check every month will not vote with you then add in the FSA and it's a lost cause. Might as well focus on something you can make a difference about like "Gun Control"
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
