Should the Social Security and Medicare Age be Raised

[beagle9]

My dad is 76 and became a millionaire sometime in his 40s. He worked to 72.

I make just shy of $200k

To ripe for corruption and placating segments. Work has become less strenuous on the body (even in construction). People live longer and healthier. Medicine and surgical procedures make life easier. I say move it to 75 (and incentivize 80 if with larger paymentand privatize it (much like Chile).

You can always retire earlier if you save better.

SS should be a safety when most can’t work at the end of their life.

You disregard (even if only a small percentage of those still working very labor intensive job's), that do bring about enormous amounts of physical ailments upon those individuals when working the categories of job's that have these factor's involved ??

Why is it so important to keep social security retirement as a "socialist styled program", that which attempts to put all job titles equally into the same aged suggested retiring category, otherwise having seemingly the same rules without consideration of, even though individuals in many careers desire to retire early @62 if their job has wrought pain and suffering upon their physical well being in life, otherwise when they reach that age all considering ???

Yes, something they paid into, and of course by doing so they paid their dues while other's were working the more easier chosen job's in life that yes extended their lives a lot longer as you say, but they are worn out earlier in life because it takes all to make the world go round, and it is that they gave their all before others did.

People should have career category retirement, otherwise in which by this it incentivizes the career category to be sought after by those interested in such work, and this would be all due to the incentives given when entering the Fields or categories chosen or given sacrifice in their lives for...........

 

[beagle9]

I have the mother of one of my tenants that moved in with her. She took care of her disabled son until he reached his 30's and finally died. He was a vegetable (no disrespect) but no other way to put it.

She used his disability benefits to take care of him, but of course after he passed away, the payments stopped. Now in her 60's, she has no SS savings of her own since she took care of him full time and couldn't work. She could have said to hell with it and let the state figure out how to care for him, but she did it on her own. But because she took care of him on her own, she saved the state millions of dollars and now has nothing for herself to live the rest of her life. Now living with her daughter and working part-time at a nursing home, she has no place to go.

For people like her, she should have some help from government even though she didn't pay into the system because she couldn't.

Unique story, and yes she should qualify for something for her sacrifice for another.

 

[Flopper]

Unique story, and yes she should qualify for something for her sacrifice for another.

But it won't happen. Just like insurance companies the federal government has no heart. It rules on rules based on laws. Her best bet is to contact the state dept. of human services. These are people that know the ins and outs of the social welfare system. If there is any help these people should be able to find the programs that can help.

There is also go fund me and appeals to local organizations for help

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

But it won't happen. Just like insurance companies the federal government has no heart. It rules on rules based on laws. Her best bet is to contact the state dept. of human services. These are people that know the ins and outs of the social welfare system. If there is any help these people should be able to find the programs that can help.

There is also go fund me and appeals to local organizations for help

No. I think there should be programs already setup for such people. With my permission, she was able to move in with her daughter. But what would have happened to her if that was her only child that passed away? She could never afford her own apartment or house without her late sons disability. And in the long run, she actually saved the taxpayers money.

 

[sealybobo]

This is true. What they pay for disability is what I would get for retirement if I was at retirement age when I was accepted so I really had no choice. In the long run I made out better because I was going to retire at 62 anyway at the discounted amount which was 75% of full benefits. Now I just get the full benefit.

As for my sister she screwed herself. She had a nice house my father built for her which I'm pretty sure was paid off or just about paid off. In any case she had to move to a better community which of course costs much more money. Now she's going to have a mortgage likely the rest of her life which is why she needs to work until 67. I could have done the same but I don't like living paycheck to paycheck, or having to be forced to work until I drop dead. I used to love working when I was younger, but once I got in the 50 year old range, I hated waking up every morning to go to work.

The damned thing is I've been out of work nearly 2.5 years, and I dream about working almost every Fn night.

Just remember this when republicans suggest people are living longer so we should raise retirement to 70

 

[sealybobo]

I have the mother of one of my tenants that moved in with her. She took care of her disabled son until he reached his 30's and finally died. He was a vegetable (no disrespect) but no other way to put it.

She used his disability benefits to take care of him, but of course after he passed away, the payments stopped. Now in her 60's, she has no SS savings of her own since she took care of him full time and couldn't work. She could have said to hell with it and let the state figure out how to care for him, but she did it on her own. But because she took care of him on her own, she saved the state millions of dollars and now has nothing for herself to live the rest of her life. Now living with her daughter and working part-time at a nursing home, she has no place to go.

For people like her, she should have some help from government even though she didn't pay into the system because she couldn't.

She should get the minimum. I would hope that’s at least $700 a month plus Medicare. Then taks out $300 for Medicare which leaves $400 a month.

She didnt work even 15 years? Doesn’t a wiDow of a guy who got the minimum get anything?

 

[sealybobo]

The point is it's not a Republican agenda. You may find people here or there that are against all social programs, but they are so few their opinion doesn't even count.

Your party is across the board against all social programs.

Every republican here doesn’t like being forced to fund Medicaid. It’s unconstitutional. Do you disagree?

Youre just justifying your hypocrisy. It’s ok you take benefits. It’s not ok you vote Republican

 

[sealybobo]

My dad is 76 and became a millionaire sometime in his 40s. He worked to 72.

I make just shy of $200k

To ripe for corruption and placating segments. Work has become less strenuous on the body (even in construction). People live longer and healthier. Medicine and surgical procedures make life easier. I say move it to 75 (and incentivize 80 if with larger paymentand privatize it (much like Chile).

You can always retire earlier if you save better.

SS should be a safety when most can’t work at the end of their life.

People who are financially secure tend to like working. When you work because you have to, not as much.

I make $100k. I say I’m retiring at 62 but I bet I won’t when I get there. But it will be nice to know I can stop whenever I want.

I want fuck you money. I’m not there yet. You know what fu money is? It means at any moment for any reason you can tell your boss to fuck off and you go home, never looking back again. And if you take a new job it’s because you want it not need it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Doesn’t a wiDow of a guy who got the minimum get anything?

Yes, the widow of a social security eligible individual can draw SS based on the spouses wages. My wife works and gets her own SS, however she makes less that I do. If I pass first she will draw her SS and the difference of mine bringing her total up to what mine will be. For for sample if I draw $2800 a month and she will draw $2000 a month. If I pass she will draw her $2000 + $800 from mine totaling $2800. At least that is the way I understand it.

However reading Ray's post he didn't indicate if she was married and if her spouse was eligible. If she was never married, then there is no spouse to draw from. If there was a divorce, I can only see it being more complicated.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

I want fuck you money. I’m not there yet. You know what fu money is? It means at any moment for any reason you can tell your boss to fuck off and you go home, never looking back again. And if you take a new job it’s because you want it not need it.

I'm pretty much at the FU stage, but I wouldn't do that to my Boss. She's been very good to me and I like what I do. I'm kind of a unique position and she knows to give the the limitations and the desired outcomes and then basically get out of the way. We have really good relationship, I get the freedom to do what I need to do, I keep her updated on progress, and she lets me worry about the details.

She's an Executive Director and won't be going any higher in the organization and is fine with that, I'm her behind the scenes guy and I'm find with that because then I don't have to put up with political bullshit.

WW

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, the widow of a social security eligible individual can draw SS based on the spouses wages. My wife works and gets her own SS, however she makes less that I do. If I pass first she will draw her SS and the difference of mine bringing her total up to what mine will be. For for sample if I draw $2800 a month and she will draw $2000 a month. If I pass she will draw her $2000 + $800 from mine totaling $2800. At least that is the way I understand it.

However reading Ray's post he didn't indicate if she was married and if her spouse was eligible. If she was never married, then there is no spouse to draw from. If there was a divorce, I can only see it being more complicated.

WW

Yes, she got a divorce many years ago but I don't know if he was the father of her son. I didn't get that personal about it with her.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Your party is across the board against all social programs.

Every republican here doesn’t like being forced to fund Medicaid. It’s unconstitutional. Do you disagree?

Youre just justifying your hypocrisy. It’s ok you take benefits. It’s not ok you vote Republican

No because of the fact disability is funded through your FICA taxes which I paid plenty into when I was working. Medicaid is funded out of income taxes by the fed and however your state funds their part since Medicaid is a fed/ state shared benefit. So there is no hypocrisy there if I was against Medicaid but collect disability because I paid FICA and income taxes during my working life. It's no less a hypocrisy than it is collecting SS retirement when you reach retirement age. You paid for it, you deserve to get it.

No matter what the government decides to fund I don't see it as unconstitutional because the Constitution does not say what can't be funded by the government, it only states what has to be funded by the government. And no, not everybody on my side is against all social programs, only the ones that are abused like SNAP's.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

She should get the minimum. I would hope that’s at least $700 a month plus Medicare. Then taks out $300 for Medicare which leaves $400 a month.

She didnt work even 15 years? Doesn’t a wiDow of a guy who got the minimum get anything?

He was in his 30's when he passed away a few years ago so if she did work before he was born, I have no idea for how long. Whatever she made I'm sure didn't contribute much into her SS account. She's just a blue collar person.

 

[Flopper]

No. I think there should be programs already setup for such people. With my permission, she was able to move in with her daughter. But what would have happened to her if that was her only child that passed away? She could never afford her own apartment or house without her late sons disability. And in the long run, she actually saved the taxpayers money.

Caregivers under SSI can be paid about $400 a month in addition to the SSI payment to the disable person of $895 a month. The law could be changed so the government would pay the caregiver's S.S. and Medicare tax thus the caregiver would earn S.S. and Medicare credit.

Trying to create a new program wound be riddled with problems such as determining benefits and eligibility without requiring arbitrary decisions by a social worker.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Just remember this when republicans suggest people are living longer so we should raise retirement to 70

Just Republicans? What news are you watching?

Raising the retirement age would only be good for certain people. However people that do manual labor, not so much. I can't see a 69 year old climbing up three flights of ladder with a 30 lbs bundle of shingles on his shoulders taking it up to the roofers, or a 68 year old guy carrying clamps of bricks to the bricklayers. Many of those people end up not being able to make it to retirement at 67. If they raised the age, it would only put more people on disability since physically intense jobs wears down the body much quicker than a guy who's heaviest lifting is his briefcase a couple times a day.

 

[Flopper]

No because of the fact disability is funded through your FICA taxes which I paid plenty into when I was working. Medicaid is funded out of income taxes by the fed and however your state funds their part since Medicaid is a fed/ state shared benefit. So there is no hypocrisy there if I was against Medicaid but collect disability because I paid FICA and income taxes during my working life. It's no less a hypocrisy than it is collecting SS retirement when you reach retirement age. You paid for it, you deserve to get it.

No matter what the government decides to fund I don't see it as unconstitutional because the Constitution does not say what can't be funded by the government, it only states what has to be funded by the government. And no, not everybody on my side is against all social programs, only the ones that are abused like SNAP's.

You're right there is nothing unconstitutional about social welfare programs and all republicans are not against social welfare programs. IMHO, if you ask every republican legislators state or federal, would they abolish TANF, SNAP, Low cost housing assistance, and Medicaid. I think you would find 95% would say no but qualify it with no illegal immigrants, no one that does not need it, and the need to reduce goverment waste, which is a copout.

SSDI is not the only disability programs. SSI which is available to the blind, or over 65 or those unable to work for at least a year are eligible but they very little income or assets. SSI is funded entirely by the government. A person with no SS credits and over 65 can apply for SSI. However, it is not easy to get any any age as you must have almost no income and assets less than $2,000 with certain exclusions.

 

[Flopper]

You're right there is nothing unconstitutional about social welfare programs and all republicans are not against social welfare programs. IMHO, if you ask every republican legislators state or federal, would they abolish TANF, SNAP, Low cost housing assistance, and Medicaid. I think you would find 95% would say no but qualify it with no illegal immigrants, no one that does not need it, and the need to reduce goverment waste, which is a copout.

SSDI is not the only disability programs. SSI which is available to the blind, or over 65 or those unable to work for at least a year are eligible but there are significant limits on income and assets. SSI is funded entirely by the government. A person with no SS credits and over 65 can apply for SSI. However, it is not easy to get at any any age as you must have almost no income and assets less than $2,000 with certain exclusions.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You're right there is nothing unconstitutional about social welfare programs and all republicans are not against social welfare programs. IMHO, if you ask every republican legislators state or federal, would they abolish TANF, SNAP, Low cost housing assistance, and Medicaid. I think you would find 95% would say no but qualify it with no illegal immigrants, no one that does not need it, and the need to reduce goverment waste, which is a copout.

SSDI is not the only disability programs. SSI which is available to the blind, or over 65 or those unable to work for at least a year are eligible but they very little income or assets. SSI is funded entirely by the government. A person with no SS credits and over 65 can apply for SSI. However, it is not easy to get any any age as you must have almost no income and assets less than $2,000 with certain exclusions.

Correct. You may find a politician or blogger on the right who is against all social programs, but trying to eliminate fraud and misuse is not being against an entire program. Most people on the right would have not voted for such programs when they were introduced, but now that they are part of our society, just generally accept them.

It all goes back to my raccoon theory. Once something is here in the way of benefits, it's impossible to take away, and that's why Republicans don't even try. It would be political suicide. If you are not on Medicare, chances are somebody in your family is, and that's why you would be against the elimination of such a program. But when we see people on SNAP's in front of us at the grocery store checkout line, and they have huge bags of dog food, buy alcohol and cigarettes, have four kids with them, that's when you hear complaints by the right. We are feeding them and their family, and they are using their cash to get drunk and feed their dogs while smoking their carton of cigarettes in front of their big screen.

 

[Flopper]

Correct. You may find a politician or blogger on the right who is against all social programs, but trying to eliminate fraud and misuse is not being against an entire program. Most people on the right would have not voted for such programs when they were introduced, but now that they are part of our society, just generally accept them.

It all goes back to my raccoon theory. Once something is here in the way of benefits, it's impossible to take away, and that's why Republicans don't even try. It would be political suicide. If you are not on Medicare, chances are somebody in your family is, and that's why you would be against the elimination of such a program. But when we see people on SNAP's in front of us at the grocery store checkout line, and they have huge bags of dog food, buy alcohol and cigarettes, have four kids with them, that's when you hear complaints by the right. We are feeding them and their family, and they are using their cash to get drunk and feed their dogs while smoking their carton of cigarettes in front of their big screen.

There are problems with the typically republican objections, people getting benefits that don't need them, government waste, and illegal immigrants getting them. Let's take a look at these objections.

• People getting benefits they don't need - How do you determine who needs them? Are you going station the SNAP police at all grocery stores to investigate them? Are you going require state social workers to validate citizenship before issuing TANF emergency checks, for food or housing for a mother and 3 kids on the street?
• Government Waste - This of course occurs in business but to a lesser extent. The biggest cost is undoubtable the government employees. However, most of the employee cost is in those determining eligibility and auditing which is required by law.
• Lastly, we have illegal immigrants. Of course you know that it is illegal for illegal immigrants to receive federal benefits. However, what you might not know is that some states are allowed to give benefits to illegal immigrants provided they do not bill the feds. Legal residents are allowed by law to receive benefits and even illegal immigrants that request a hearing to determine status may receive benefits until that status is determined which can take months or years. Children of illegal immigrants born in the US being citizens and are entitled to benefits. Children that are in the country illegally should not receive benefits but practically every state has laws that protect children without regard to immigration status. So legal or not they going to school and they are going to receive benefits. Eliminating illegal immigrant use of benefits would require law changes in almost all states plus congress. Also to enforced the laws it would take more employees checking citizenship status, and auditing applications, and auditing funds received.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There are problems with the typically republican objections, people getting benefits that don't need them, government waste, and illegal immigrants getting them. Let's take a look at these objections.

• People getting benefits they don't need - How do you determine who needs them? Are you going station the SNAP police at all grocery stores to investigate them? Are you going require state social workers to validate citizenship before issuing TANF emergency checks, for food or housing for a mother and 3 kids on the street?
• Government Waste - This of course occurs in business but to a lesser extent. The biggest cost is undoubtable the government employees. However, most of the employee cost is in those determining eligibility and auditing which is required by law.
• Lastly, we have illegal immigrants. Of course you know that it is illegal for illegal immigrants to receive federal benefits. However, what you might not know is that some states are allowed to give benefits to illegal immigrants provided they do not bill the feds. Legal residents are allowed by law to receive benefits and even illegal immigrants that request a hearing to determine status may receive benefits until that status is determined which can take months or years. Children of illegal immigrants born in the US being citizens and are entitled to benefits. Children that are in the country illegally should not receive benefits but practically every state has laws that protect children without regard to immigration status. So legal or not they going to school and they are going to receive benefits. Eliminating illegal immigrant use of benefits would require law changes in almost all states plus congress. Also to enforced the laws it would take more employees checking citizenship status, and auditing applications, and auditing funds received.

The problem with your last claim is that the federal government hands out so much others can benefit as well. I know supervisors in industry. They tell me their food stamp people not only refuse to work more hours when asked, but get together when their new cards are out to determine which ones they keep and which ones they sell. Four people in one household can live off of two cards, so they sell the other two on the street.

When illegal immigrant children get such benefits, it's usually enough to also provide for at least one parent. It's setup that way on purpose.

Years ago when our technology is not what it is today, food stamp people had to stand in line twice, or separate their items on the belt. One set of course was paid by food stamps and the other cash items not covered by SNAP's. Today they put everything on the belt and the register separates food stamp from cash only items. First they swipe the card for their first bill and then whip out cash for their other non-essential items. People who do that should be reported to SNAP's office so they can reduce benefits based on what and how much they are paying in cash. Nobody on SNAP's should be able to own a vehicle less than three years old. I've followed some of these people to their vehicles and they stuff their items in a $35,000 or more SUV, this of course after they leave the head cashier where they purchase a bunch of lottery tickets.

HUD should not be providing housing in suburban areas. First of all they bring their crime with them, secondly is that taxpayers should not be providing suburban housing to so-called poor people. If we have to support them, we should support them in the lower rent areas of a city instead of middle-class. Of course, middle-class areas are more expensive and taxpayers who may be working and living in lower class areas are paying the bill. If government is providing such quality living, what's the point of trying to live a suburban life yourself? Government is giving you such a lifestyle there's no sense in trying to better yourself.