Who here is collecting retirement social security??

[Lakhota]

So should the FEDS mandate that we get a living wage also?
If everyone is getting 15 bucks an hour, where does that leave us retirees?
Doesn't that move the economy past us? We didn't even get a cola this year.
Down the road this doesn't help the 65 and old crowd

I agree!

 

[tyroneweaver]

So should the FEDS mandate that we get a living wage also?
If everyone is getting 15 bucks an hour, where does that leave us retirees?
Doesn't that move the economy past us? We didn't even get a cola this year.
Down the road this doesn't help the 65 and old crowd

Me.

And no, I won't pay your rent.

Why is this in Politics?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you know how asinine this response is?

 

[tyroneweaver]

It's money for everyone that could be creating a problem for seniors.

Why?

How?

If the economy moves forward at a much faster rate than those on fixed income can keep up; what would be the result?

 

[BlueGin]

I'm not worried about retirement but the op makes a certain amount of sense.
Why should the gov promise burger flippers a living wage when they dont want to do the same for someone who's paid into the system all their life?

And when they pay folks on unemployment less than 9.00 an hr.

 

[MikeK]

You can fix SS in a minute...maybe 50 seconds. Anybody still making over say....$60K a year at retirement age gets means-tested out. If that changes they get back in. The message would read: "Congratulations! You've achieved the American Dream, done well, and don't need government assistance at this time".

I agree.

If Social Security ever falls seriously into the red that type of means test, along with some other adjustments, will kick it right into the black and no one will be seriously harmed. Because only those who are living well and really do not need a monthly check will be affected.

 

[MikeK]

Then it becomes yet another welfare program. No thanks.

How did you work that out?

Please be specific.

 

[tyroneweaver]

I'm not worried about retirement but the op makes a certain amount of sense.
Why should the gov promise burger flippers a living wage when they dont want to do the same for someone who's paid into the system all their life?

I've been collecting SS since I hit 62....figured I'd get what I could while I could.

It's rather scary that you may depend on other countries owning your ss debt.

 

[MikeK]

So once again, those who achieve, those who work hard and those who put the most money into SS are the ones who get punished.

Punishment implies the imposition of pain. Poverty is pain. Moderate financial inconvenience is not painful. It is inconvenient. And in many cases it isn't even noticeable.

No wonder so many are dropping out and not working, why bother if you are just going to get to the same place in the end?

How does that work out? One just decides to "drop out" and not work and the same amount of income they've been generating just continues -- like magic?

NO, a system was set up with promises made.

What promise was made. Please be specific. And specify what the promise was -- not what you think it was.

If there is a problem then fix the problem. Right now the problem is that too many are going on SS disability if even that is a problem.

The suggestion was to apply a means test if and when a problem with Social Security arises. So far there is and has been no problem. Social Security has been faithfully mailing out checks for about eighty years now and has thus been able to fulfill its promise to enable seniors to evade poverty and to live out their lives in relative dignity.

The real problem is too many people are forced onto welfare or forced to take SS disability.

Who is "forced onto welfare or forced to take SS disability?" Do you mean these hypotheticals don't want the welfare or the disability payments?

If a private company sold an annuity and then when you went to collect in your old age told you sorry, you make to much to collect, they would go to jail or should. But in the world we live today I doubt everything.

Do you know of a private annuity that paid the kind of dividends Social Security does?

I've been collecting Social Security for fifteen years. So far I've collected well over quarter million dollars and my doctor says I probably will be around for awhile. I don't know how long that "awhile" will be but however long it is Social Security will keep dropping that money into my checking account. Would some private annuity do that once they pay out a fixed amount?

No!

 

[MikeK]

It's rather scary that you may depend on other countries owning your ss debt.

It's even more scary that some other country might wipe us out with a nuclear or biological attack.

Think it can't happen?

 

[MikeK]

Then it becomes yet another welfare program. No thanks.

Yes. WTF?

 

[Zander]

Then it becomes yet another welfare program. No thanks.

How did you work that out?

Please be specific.

Social Security as it currently exists is not a welfare program. It is an insurance system (the actual name of the program is Old Age and Survivors Insurance -OASI) . Anyone who pays into the system for more than the minimum numbers of quarters (40 eligible quarters) is eligible for benefits when they reach retirement age. It doesn't matter if you earned the minimum amount or were paid millions of dollars per year. If you paid into the system and live long enough - you get your benefits. It doesn't matter if you are a billionaire, or a pauper.

When you add "means testing" it is no longer a retirement program, then it becomes a wealth transfer program that "taxes" one group (the successful) to support another group (the unsuccessful).

 

[OKTexas]

I'm not worried about retirement but the op makes a certain amount of sense.
Why should the gov promise burger flippers a living wage when they dont want to do the same for someone who's paid into the system all their life?

They need more taxes form the burger flippers just to keep the current system going.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Dont worry you can make up the shortfall this way

 

[MikeK]

Social Security as it currently exists is not a welfare program. It is an insurance system (the actual name of the program is Old Age and Survivors Insurance -OASI) . Anyone who pays into the system for more than the minimum numbers of quarters (40 eligible quarters) is eligible for benefits when they reach retirement age. It doesn't matter if you earned the minimum amount or were paid millions of dollars per year. If you paid into the system and live long enough - you get your benefits. It doesn't matter if you are a billionaire, or a pauper.

When you add "means testing" it is no longer a retirement program, then it becomes a wealth transfer program that "taxes" one group (the successful) to support another group (the unsuccessful).

You're quite right in that Social Security is not an investment program. It is a compulsory form of federal insurance the singular purpose of which is prevention of abject poverty during a worker's retirement years. The FICA (Federal Income Contributions Act) paycheck deduction is commonly referred to as a tax, which for most participants turns out to be a windfall because the eventual payout usually far exceeds the amount paid in.

The overall effect of Social Security has thus far been a vast improvement in the general quality of life in America because it has eliminated the shameful kind of impoverished misery that existed before the program commenced. If it becomes necessary to impose a means test on upper income level recipients it will not occur as a total disqualification of all participants above a certain net worth or income level. Rather, there will be measured reductions of payouts based on individual net worth and income level.

For example, I would qualify for a reduction in my monthly allotment -- probably around ten or twenty dollars, which isn't going to "punish" me because I have a generous pension and some savings. If I were worth more my reduction would be proportionately more. If I were a multi-millionaire I would receive nothing from Social Security -- because I wouldn't be negatively affected by a loss that I wouldn't even notice. But the upside of such a means test exercise would be prevention of eliminating Social Security payouts to some less fortunate seniors who can barely afford the bare necessities of life.

Essentially this is a moral issue which is backed by government muscle -- which may be said for a lot of FDR's actions and policies.

So I would need to be a greedy, miserly sonofabitch to oppose the imposition of a Social Security means test if it becomes necessary to sustain the program.

 

[MikeK]

SS has got to be one of the most successful programs the world has ever seen.

I agree.

 

[MikeK]

The parallel between social security and the minimum wage doesn't hold water. You understood the rules going in, that social security was intended to supplement your retirement, not be the sole source of income.
What you're trying to do is change the rules and make the rest of us pay higher taxes to fund your lack of planning. Sorry, it doesn't work that way, but hey, you can always get the benefit of that $15 an hour by getting a job.

Well said.

 

[Zander]

Social Security as it currently exists is not a welfare program. It is an insurance system (the actual name of the program is Old Age and Survivors Insurance -OASI) . Anyone who pays into the system for more than the minimum numbers of quarters (40 eligible quarters) is eligible for benefits when they reach retirement age. It doesn't matter if you earned the minimum amount or were paid millions of dollars per year. If you paid into the system and live long enough - you get your benefits. It doesn't matter if you are a billionaire, or a pauper.

When you add "means testing" it is no longer a retirement program, then it becomes a wealth transfer program that "taxes" one group (the successful) to support another group (the unsuccessful).

You're quite right in that Social Security is not an investment program. It is a compulsory form of federal insurance the singular purpose of which is prevention of abject poverty during a worker's retirement years. The FICA (Federal Income Contributions Act) paycheck deduction is commonly referred to as a tax, which for most participants turns out to be a windfall because the eventual payout usually far exceeds the amount paid in.

The overall effect of Social Security has thus far been a vast improvement in the general quality of life in America because it has eliminated the shameful kind of impoverished misery that existed before the program commenced. If it becomes necessary to impose a means test on upper income level recipients it will not occur as a total disqualification of all participants above a certain net worth or income level. Rather, there will be measured reductions of payouts based on individual net worth and income level.

For example, I would qualify for a reduction in my monthly allotment -- probably around ten or twenty dollars, which isn't going to "punish" me because I have a generous pension and some savings. If I were worth more my reduction would be proportionately more. If I were a multi-millionaire I would receive nothing from Social Security -- because I wouldn't be negatively affected by a loss that I wouldn't even notice. But the upside of such a means test exercise would be prevention of eliminating Social Security payouts to some less fortunate seniors who can barely afford the bare necessities of life.

Essentially this is a moral issue which is backed by government muscle -- which may be said for a lot of FDR's actions and policies.

So I would need to be a greedy, miserly sonofabitch to oppose the imposition of a Social Security means test if it becomes necessary to sustain the program.

Remove the current cap on income (currently at $118,000) and the program is sustainable for another 75 years. There is no reason to "means test" unless your goal is to punish people for being successful. If it is, that makes you far worse than a "miserly sonofabitch", it makes you a damn fool.

 

[MikeK]

Remove the current cap on income (currently at $118,000) and the program is sustainable for another 75 years. There is no reason to "means test" unless your goal is to punish people for being successful. If it is, that makes you far worse than a "miserly sonofabitch", it makes you a damn fool.

My goal is to "punish" no one. My goal would be to prevent the kind of abject misery that would result from termination of the Social Security program.

I've been receiving Social Security allotments for over fifteen years. In addition to that I have a generous civil service pension. I also have a nice stack of U.S. Savings bonds and a modestly comforting bank account. Briefly stated, I am financially comfortable. So if it became necessary to reduce my monthly Social Security allotment by ten or twenty dollars I wouldn't even notice it -- and that minor reduction would, collectively, afford some less fortunate individuals continued access to the bare essentials of life.

So, again, for me to oppose such a minor reduction in my allotment, which would not affect me negatively in the least, I would need to be a greedy, miserly sonofabitch.

Your notion that the imposition of such a relatively benign but critically necessary modification in monthly Social Security allotments is "punishing people for being successful" is rather obnoxious. Sorry but I can't think of a more appropriate word for it. If I wouldn't even notice such a nominal reduction in my allotment, how in the world do you perceive it as "punishment?"

Although I attended Catholic school I've been an atheist for as long as I can remember. But I do believe some of my countrymen can use a little dose of religion in its most basic form.

 

[Dale Smith]

Dont worry you can make up the shortfall this way

Dont worry you can make up the shortfall this way

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Yarddog]

So should the FEDS mandate that we get a living wage also?
If everyone is getting 15 bucks an hour, where does that leave us retirees?
Doesn't that move the economy past us? We didn't even get a cola this year.
Down the road this doesn't help the 65 and old crowd

Yup the price on everything is gonna go up