Zone1 Let's fix retirement, and incentivize the workforce by doing so.

[initforme]

Our workforce and employers desperately need their workers retiring EARLIER than 55, not lol after than 55.

 

[otto105]

So the federal government must wear the badge of dishonor, because if true what you say, then they have stolen the people's money without care. Yet isn't it funny how they found all that money for COVID relief, and are able to just go out back to the money tree, and find billion's for a war we have no business being a part of ?? Yes, drop leaflets, negotiate for peace, drop food rations and such, but send them weapon's of war that is getting their country destroyed, and getting their infrastructure wiped out ???? Makes absolutely no sense, and it flies straight back into the citizen's faces who gave it their all in this country.

Holy fuck, did you not attend school for English?

 

[beagle9]

Our workforce and employers desperately need their workers retiring EARLIER than 55, not lol after than 55.

If you serve your country in the military from 18 to 37 years young, then guess what ? He or she can retire from the military, and then draw his or her earned military retirement benefits of 20 years service. Then the retired military vet gets all kinds of perks in the private sector for being military when they purchase product's and such. Next if they chose, they can get a job in the private sector, and it doesn't effect their military retirement benefits.

Most retirees under the High-36 Plan will receive 50% of their base pay at 20 years, which would equal the following amounts: E-7 Monthly: $2,616.23. E-7 Annually: $31,394.76. O-5 Monthly: $5,040.515.Nov 15, 2022
Ok, so the government makes no money of it's own, so I and every other military member and working class civilian paying taxes gives the government it's budgets. So why would a 40 year worker be tremendously mistreated in the system, otherwise in comparison to the military soldier ??

Ok I respect the soldier for choosing to lay down his or her life for this country, but don't we all do the same when we get up to go to our American job's that could take our lives in an instant just as well.

Example: My job was a very dangerous job that was very tasking on the body, and even so I've also completed another career after finishing the 1st one. Is that not an honorable and worthy thing to have served my country also, otherwise instead of me and other's like me being mis-treated in the systematic scheme of thing's ????

 

[beagle9]

Holy fuck, did you not attend school for English?

If you struggle with what I wrote, then it's you who needs a few more courses in comprehension. But I don't think it's that, I just think that you couldn't refute or deal with the post, so you attempt to use bull crap to cover your lack of rebuttal up.

 

[otto105]

If you struggle with what I wrote, then it's you who needs a few more courses in comprehension. But I don't think it's that, I just think that you couldn't refute or deal with the post, so you attempt to use bull crap to cover your lack of rebuttal up.

Look old white retired dude, I’m going to need better white grievance complaining or just better English.


Judy sayin

 

[beagle9]

Look old white retired dude, I’m going to need better white grievance complaining or just better English.


Judy sayin

Whose Judy ???

 

[beagle9]

Ok, so a person decides to draw SS after working and paying in for 40 year's long let's say, and the person will get over 18,000 dollars a year earned income credit in SS at the age of 62, but the person can still work and make up to 21,000 dollars a year on top of that if he or she wants too. However anything above the 21,000 dollar's made for working and paying taxes on that income also, the government then takes a dollar for every two dollars earned over the 21,000 dollars as a penalty for working onward if one chooses to do so ???

Ok, so how does the government justify stealing a dollar of every two dollars earned above 21,000 dollar's ?? This is money that is being taxed also while working to earn it, otherwise to make extra income above and beyond the 21,000 dollar figure undoubtedly that was just conjured up to put in as a limit when drawing what is deserved after 40 year's or working and paying in to begin with ?

So we have an income that is afforded recipients when drawing SS at the earned amount of let's say 18,000+ a year, otherwise (I'm guessing) for paying in for 40 year's for that benefit to be received at 62 years of age, but then the government is placing limit's or penalties on any added incomes earned just because it can ?? So the scam is to make it hard on people who gave it there all, otherwise forcing them into a predicament because the person isn't allowed to make an income beyond the SS amount that is owed the person anyway, otherwise if he or she decides to apply for what should be owed them when reach the age of 62.

Where am I wrong on my thinking about such things ?

 

[sartre play]

Better idea is to eliminate the cap on SS contributions. If you make less than (I think it's $131,000 a year) you pay a SS tax on every dollar you make. If you Make more than $131,000 a year, you stop paying on dollar $131,001. Simply not fair.

We shouldn't have seniors and others living in squalor because they were not as fortunate as some. And, yes, there will be some who were simply irresponsible with their earnings through their lifetimes.

Usually the first people to reject this fairness principle are the right wing loons--the "let them die" crowd. Unimaginably cruel...but that is their thing. They get some joy out of causing as much misery as possible for people whom they never met. What is bizarre about their stance is that they are also the first to swear that seniors are being screwed because of inflation. In one voice they are saying "Inflation is gutting the seniors" and in the next breath they state, "Well, gramps, you should have planned for this."

Agree on eliminate the cap.
Life is not even handed and fair,
people may work hard & be responsible until a negative happens, Could be health issues, extreme health issues with childern. bad marriages, unforeseen investments that went south, dumb government moves. Old enough to be drafted with no deferments. Born poor in bad environment. The list is endless.

 

[beagle9]

Agree on eliminate the cap.
Life is not even handed and fair,
people may work hard & be responsible until a negative happens, Could be health issues, extreme health issues with childern. bad marriages, unforeseen investments that went south, dumb government moves. Old enough to be drafted with no deferments. Born poor in bad environment. The list is endless.

Candycorn said all that, and attacked the republican's, but yet can't figure out why the damned thing has never been resolved/fixed even when the Democrat's hold the power in all three branches at various times also.

The bottom line is that some thing's in government have a bipartisan agreement going on with both sides of the isle on some issue's, and undoubtedly this issue is one of them.

There is no excuse for they way the thing is set up, and how it punishes people like it does after they gave it their all.

Meanwhile the government can pump billion's into another COUNTRY, and put our national security at the highest risk ever, but we are just supposed to think to ourselves that hey it's all good, nothing to see here folk's. The corruption is off the chain in this country. We can do better -MAGA.

 

[otto105]

Candycorn said all that, and attacked the republican's, but yet can't figure out why the damned thing has never been resolved/fixed even when the Democrat's hold the power in all three branches at various times also.

The bottom line is that some thing's in government have a bipartisan agreement going on with both sides of the isle on some issue's, and undoubtedly this issue is one of them.

There is no excuse for they way the thing is set up, and how it punishes people like it does after they gave it their all.

Meanwhile the government can pump billion's into another COUNTRY, and put our national security at the highest risk ever, but we are just supposed to think to ourselves that hey it's all good, nothing to see here folk's. The corruption is off the chain in this country. We can do better -MAGA.

WTF do you expect a world power to do?

 

[beagle9]

WTF do you expect a world power to do?

Huh ?

 

[otto105]

Huh ?

Are you hiding under your table now from Ghina? Or Russia?

 

[beagle9]

Are you hiding under your table now from Ghina? Or Russia?

If you have some sort of preconceived notion that this ole boy is hiding from anything, then you have lost your Cotton picking mind.. lol.

 

[beagle9]

It seems to me as if this plan is very much geared toward consistent 40-hour-week workers, and would have a hard time applying to others.

For example, the system seems to mean that the self-employed would never reach retirement age. Same with those with long-term disabilities, stay-at-home parents, personal caregivers and, presumably, anyone who spends part of their life in another country. The end result would be a lot of people over the current retirement age who aren't eligible for any assistance, which would create an entire class of the aged poor, which is what we had before Medicare, Social Security, and so on.

On the other hand, every industry would lose a lot of workers age 58-65, especially if you allowed double time to count for double years, or something. For many places, that would be their most experienced workers.

It's always a best practice to stretch your imagination and come up with new ideas, even if they don't work out, but I think this one would have piles of unintended consequences that would do more harm than good.

Yes there's always the unintended, but we can work through it all in order to tweak the system, and therefore make it better. Like anything, just allowing the status quo to never be challenged or worked on, then we end up being unfair to those we should have strived to do better for. Once generation's pass, and the new generation's see the disrespect given those that came before them, then we end up with a rebellious generation that could give a dam less about helping to keep a system going that they already know is bull shite. Probably why we got the mess we got going on with the new generation's we are dealing with today.

 

[otto105]

Yes there's always the unintended, but we can work through it all in order to tweak the system, and therefore make it better. Like anything, just allowing the status quo to never be challenged or worked on, then we end up being unfair to those we should have strived to do better for. Once generation's pass, and the new generation's see the disrespect given those that came before them, then we end up with a rebellious generation that could give a dam less about helping to keep a system going that they already know is bull shite. Probably why we got the mess we got going on with the new generation's we are dealing with today.

Racism is generational, it's the white grievance fuckups that are the new problem.

 

[beagle9]

Another idea - When a citizen puts in his or her time requirement, otherwise to work up to 62 years of age, and yet the person is given let's say a year to live.

I ask should that person only get an SSI check for one year until his or her death and no more ? I say the government should have to cut the person a lump sum check that is based on year's worked, and time served.

Example: 40 year's worked. 62 years old.
One year to live.

So people should figure that somehow a formula should be worked out that would get the person a lump sum for example (just using an example figure), of say $150,000 dollars for time served for 40 year's worked once reach the age of 62 year's of age, and a fatal diagnosis is then unfortunately rendered. Any time before that would be pro-rated in regards to time served, and diagnosis given.


Then his or her SSI would kick in monthly until death occurs as was diagnosed. If the person dies within that year, the lump sum money can be willed or given to a spouse/relative.

If the person doesn't die, then the monthly check would be reduced by 5% until natural death occurs or till the lump sum amount given under the unfortunate circumstances, is then adjusted for the new overall balance est that a person would have received if no diagnosis was given.

Where am I wrong ?

 

[beagle9]

Racism is generational, it's the white grievance fuckups that are the new problem.

Are you never not a racist ?

 

[otto105]

Are you never not a racist ?

?

 

[Red Front]

What about this folks !

Time to fix Social security retirement in this country, and incentivize the workforce in doing so.

Let me explain :

Instead of doing it by maturity dates and/or by one's age, why not just do it by (year's worked in total only), otherwise regardless of the overall ending age and working dates that are set in some sort of weird way (where as the current set up appears to work more for the government in hopes that it won't have to pay out to the retiree their money, and maybe it's all in hopes that the retiree expires before the money is paid out in full) ?????

So let's use 40 year's as the maturity date, and the time set to pay after that 40 year's has been accomplished.

Example: if start work at 16, and work paying into one's social security for 40 year's total, then that person should be able to retire with full benefits at 56 years old. If start @ 20 years old then you retire at 60 years old with full benefits. If start at 25 years old, then you could retire at 65 year's old, but not before then unless take a big cut in those benefit's.

65 will remain the maturity date for anyone joining the workforce after 25 years old, and working for 40 year's paying into social security.

This gives the incentive for the young crowd to do the math, and then get to work on their 40 year time period regardless of their age starting in the workforce (the sooner the better).

Age 65 is required to retire at full retirement benefits through Social security, otherwise if started in the workforce at 25 year's young, and then worked to 65.

Age 65 would remain the ideal date that gives retirement to all worker's regardless of when they enter the work force after 25 year's of age, and attempt to work for 40 years, but a minimum of 15 years must be worked in order to draw anything, and it can't be drawn on until the 65 year's of age requirement is met.

Where am I wrong on this sort of stuff ?

We need to incentivize the young folk's with a long term strategy that makes them see a reward coming if they work hard and do the right thing in life.

The US federal government is not paying Social Security benefits based on the recipient working X amount of years and saving all of that money for the person's retirement. The government has no solvency or liquidity problem when paying any type of entitlement. The purpose of Social Security is to make sure the elderly aren't living in cardboard boxes due to being unemployed. Watch Greenspan the former head of the Fed, educate Paul Ryan, the confused, misinformed right-winger, on the US federal government's ability to ALWAYS pay Social Security and meet its financial obligations:

​

 

[initforme]

We need people retiring easier, not later. It helps the workforce and employers who don't want to retain their best workers.