Concerning socialized retirement, under the social security plan..

Discussion in 'Politics' started by beagle9, Mar 3, 2012.

  1. beagle9
    Offline

    beagle9 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Messages:
    9,178
    Thanks Received:
    734
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +2,845
    :cuckoo: Why is it that the government figures that everyone in this nation, can somehow retire or be required to retire at the same age, that is found within the social security plan, and then worse the age is now being considerd to be moved up even farther by these government people, but why?

    I know I think....Is it in hopes that people will die before they draw on it, and for what, maybe then to pay down the debt with it when this happens is their plan ? They claim all the time that it (SSI) is broke or going broke, even though we for whom have since worked all of our lives hard, and had paid into the darn thing, have to hear this sort of garbage spewing out of their mouths all the time now.

    Does anyone think that a person working behind a desk most of their life, needs to be in the same boat as a person who climbed 250' tree's out in Organ most of their life? I think not, where as the two should be looked at seperately in a more progressive system of retirement, where as the one should be able to retire if he can at 55, and this from such a job as climbing, rigging, logging, and other super hard physical labor jobs or careers, that were highly strainuious on a human being during their life time, and maybe the other whom worked behind the desk could retire at 62..

    Having this all lumped together like it is, (IMHO) is just evidence to me, that the game government plays in all of this, is that it hopes that by playing it on us in this way, well maybe we will die before reaching the age of retirement found in their little numbers game, then they will take it and pay down the debt maybe or do something else with it maybe? Who knows !

    What say you all ? Should everyone be looked at, as if they can retire at the same time as another can in this nation, and that for which is found in the governments eyes, or should it all be categorized in the proper way ? :eusa_angel:
     
  2. regent
    Offline

    regent Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2012
    Messages:
    7,891
    Thanks Received:
    871
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,760
    Social Security is an insurance plan.
     
  3. francoHFW
    Online

    francoHFW Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Messages:
    33,378
    Thanks Received:
    2,172
    Trophy Points:
    1,115
    Location:
    NY 26th FINALLY DEM!
    Ratings:
    +5,579
    AARP says SS going broke is THE biggest myth going...Pub dupes!! Pffft!
     
  4. Listening
    Offline

    Listening Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2011
    Messages:
    14,989
    Thanks Received:
    1,642
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +2,045
    What they say is that a "modest" 2% adjustement to the payroll tax will make it whole.

    After you butt-nugget Carter "fixed it" for 30 years....it was in danger of going under eighteen months later. Reagan had to raise taxes to get it solvent on the short term.

    2% ? You pissbuckets can't fathom a 2% income tax on the poor, but you are O.K. with a 2% SS tax that will put an additional burden on businesses.

    Whose been duped.....

    Moron.
     
  5. Listening
    Offline

    Listening Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2011
    Messages:
    14,989
    Thanks Received:
    1,642
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +2,045
    Was an insurance program....now it is a retirement program.
     
  6. Listening
    Offline

    Listening Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2011
    Messages:
    14,989
    Thanks Received:
    1,642
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +2,045
    A desk job can be just as taxing.

    But, what needs to be done is that inputs need to be semi-privatized so that people can make their own retirement decisons.
     
  7. beagle9
    Offline

    beagle9 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Messages:
    9,178
    Thanks Received:
    734
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +2,845
    Ok, so why shouldn't a person qualify to draw on that plan earlier than say a dentist or other maybe, if a person had a job that destroyed their body to a certain degree in their life, as with the tree logger/climber in which I mentioned ? Hec, how about a pro-rated partial drawing on it if qualify, where as a person would or could still work a job that is more suitable for him or her at that stage (maybe part time), if one needs to after having an extreme job for most of ones life? The help of the early draw in percentage of, could give a person leadway to find a more suitable job (cross train), after they had done the same extreme job for most of their life. All I know, is that what is going on now in the current set up (or) has gone on in the set up, seems corrupt as to the way it is worked out with this 62 years of age for all number, where as it apears that the hope is that a person dies before they draw on their benefit for to long (or) even if they reach that benefit at all in their life, as I think many don't in many cases for the way that it is set up now (but it is going broke you see).

    Insurance plan, well ok then, but why do I get this paper in the mail, that shows what I have built up over time and years in this plan, in which I guess it is telling me exactly what I have in the plan in order to draw off of which is mine, once I reach the age required?

    I think that an evaluation by a physician upon a worker, who had worked an extreme job in their life, should be able to determin if that person could retire at 55 as opposed to 62 or above as the crooked politicians want to push the number higher and higher for all equally. Maybe even a partial draw out as a subsidie for a person, in so that a person/worker wouldnot have to continue to work in extreme conditions or in an extreme job after the age of 55, and this goes for many workers that work extreme jobs for to long in their life (government making them think that they have to). It's time that the politicians quit looking at playing the numbers game on this, where as they could then take this money and use it for other reason's, once you have died early as a result of being held to the grindstone in an extreme job situation for way to long in ones life, well where does the remainder of your money go ?
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2012
  8. konradv
    Online

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,543
    Thanks Received:
    2,554
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,661
    Lowering ages would drive up costs even higher. People dying young isn't one of the problems of the current system, it's the reverse. There's SSI disability for the kind of things you're talking about.
     
  9. Steelplate
    Offline

    Steelplate Bluesman

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2011
    Messages:
    7,773
    Thanks Received:
    931
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Central PA
    Ratings:
    +932
    I understand what the OP is getting at....However, careers with high levels of mental strain can wreck a person's body as much as a highly physical job.

    There are avenues for early retirement... One, a person can sock away every extra dollar that they earn...however, if that person gets married and has children, preparing those kids to have a financially rewarding career of their own through education gets awful expensive. My wife and I are in this position now. We got our oldest through College, had a one year reprieve and now we are putting our youngest through...it straps you pretty hard.

    Another option(but one you really don't want) is disability SSI. But who in the hell wants to get hurt or so sick that you can't work anymore? Because if you can't work, you can't enjoy your life either.

    The real problem is that today's wage scale isn't keeping up with the cost of living. There was a day when one could have a single income family, buy a house and pay it off rather quickly, have a new car every couple years, take your kids on vacation every Summer, sock enough away for their college education AND have a nice little nestegg for your latter years.

    Because of increased global competition and the ridiculous policy of Supply side economics(Trickle Down), those days are...if not gone, dormant and waiting for a catalyst to reawaken it.

    What Conservatives don't seem to understand is that those "good old days" that I described... WAS the American Dream. The American Dream wasn't necessarily to get rich beyond your wildest dreams... It was to be properly compensated for Working hard and enjoying the fruits of your labors. Today, people are working harder than ever and struggling to survive so that very few can live their "American Dream" of extreme wealth and greed.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. beagle9
    Offline

    beagle9 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Messages:
    9,178
    Thanks Received:
    734
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +2,845

    Yes, I guess it could be, but not as taxing as a logger, trucker and etc.

    I agree with your second quote whole heartedly... Why this is not the case or has been the case, amazes me. I think I know why, and I think I covered it maybe, it is a lucky lottery game for the government, in hopes that many die before they draw or before they draw on it to long. Then the money will be shifted to else where in the system.

    Oh and how generous they are, by allowing a woman or a man, to instead draw their dead spouses retirement, instead of their own, if that retirement was higher than hers or his was, even though they had worked a job equally all of their life as well (two jobs worked, and two inputs paid in).. Why not give them the remainder in a precentage of that dead spouses retirement, as an add on to theirs ( a raise), instead of the mere swapping one for another? :eusa_whistle:

    I listen to a canidate talk of the retirement age needing to be slowly pushed higher and higher over time, and I just wanted to yell to the highest at the TV when I heard that bull crap.

    People, they have their eyes on what you have earned in your life, and they want you to die, as so they can get their hands on it. That is what it seems to me that is going on in the numbers game being played now, especially in all that we are seeing or hearing lately.

    They need to keep their hands off of our retirement, especially in concerning the ones who worked extreme jobs in their lives (beat up badly from them).. They are stealing when they think of all sorts of ways to play the numbers like they are, and that is just as plain an simple as it can get.

    PS. If they would let extreme job workers retire at age 55 (deservingly so), it would open the doors again to all sorts of job positions to open up in America, so why are they not looking at this as a way to create job's, instead of claiming that welfare is a job creator Mrs. Pelosi?
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2012

Share This Page