Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Older Americans Nix SS Changes In Poll.  
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9089 posts, RR: 11
Posted (12 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1957 times:

http://hosted2.ap.org/RIPRJ/APPoliti...d-63974a22ec624a8fb090b5daa37efa66



This poll shows that people who have paid their dues all their working life, do not want anyone trying to change the game. I agree with them. I paid dearly, on nearly every dime for 42 years. The Cost of living is needed by many millions. The ceiling most certainly should be raised. I remember well that every time I exceeded the ceiling the next year it was raised again. Now we have many who exceed the ceiling in a week, or a month. There should be no ceiling, pay on every dime, like the 99% do.


It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
80 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStuckInCA From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1987 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (12 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1952 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Thread starter):
This poll shows that people who have paid their dues all their working life

What about those of us who also will have paid all of our working life and are almost certain to collect much less relative to the current generation of retirees? Tough luck? If the math doesn't work, it doesn't work.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (12 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1944 times:

That is too bad... I think a really simple fix would be to slowly raise the retirement age. If you are actually old and frail, by all means draw it early, but if you are healthy, continue to work.

I do realize that older citizens have 'paid into the system,' but when SS was originally set up, a great many people paid into the system and never drew from it (since the life expectancy would often nix them before they were able to draw from SS.) It's a good safety net for the old and disabled to not end up on the streets, but I don't see it as something people should live off of for 20 years. I don't want that for myself when I get old... I want to work til I can't and then draw unless I die before

SS is a safety net, not a 401K. JMO, I can see how one's expectations might be different if they viewed SS as something more than just a safety net for their whole lives.



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9089 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (12 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1922 times:

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 1):
What about those of us who also will have paid all of our working life and are almost certain to collect much less relative to the current generation of retirees? Tough luck? If the math doesn't work, it doesn't work.

What would you call it, tough luck? Who would you blame, me? Them who have already paid all their lives, and on every cent they made. I suggest you and others who are now paying blame those who caused this funding problem. Our esteemed congress, and our esteemed corporations who sent the tax paying jobs overseas by the millions. Jobs that paid into that fund. They have been disappearing for about 30 years now. Tell that to your congressman/woman. I know your generation has been asleep, could give a shit less. bought all the cheap shit, supporting the killing off of union jobs. Time to pay the Piper as they say. When you are getting less, blame the people who deserve blaming, look in the mirror also.

[Edited 2013-11-03 20:23:27]


It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13148 posts, RR: 15
Reply 4, posted (12 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1917 times:

For 70% or more Americans and probably more in the next 5-20 years, Social Security (SS) will be the only or an overwhelming majority of their income once they 'retire' or can no longer work. Any affect on the monies from they have assumed and planned for from SS could severely hurt them personally and financially

Many more than expected are now taking SS the moment they turn 62 due to changing financial fortunes. That can include: collapsing incomes as their jobs have gone as obsolete, got laid off, cannot get anything but lower paying jobs, may not be able to work due to their or a spouse's health, never in a pension program or it was destroyed by their employer of the 2008 crash or underfunded; divorced; have to pay huge premiums for health insurance; never able to save in a 401(k)/IRA or lost a lot of their money in the 2008 crash and never caught up. Others say why not take the SS money at 62 as think they may not live to 65/66 to get '100%' base rates or just to have some money to live a little better, pay bills, build up some savings.

Proposals to reduce future payments, raise the age one can get SS at '100%' base rates, use a inflation formula that is lower than the general CPI (the so-called 'chained CPI') that ignores the real inflation of health care, supplemental health care premiums, energy, housing and other costs of living are all very unpopular for good reason.

I do think over the next 10 years or so, there should be a progressive increase, above the rate of inflation of the employment ceiling amount on SS and Medicare taxes are paid on to assure sufficient revenues to make SS payments. At about a certain income point, the % rate of tax could be lower for both the individual and their employer than for those below a certain ceiling level. I also think there should be some need basis to get SS, including denial in full or part of eligible SS benefits if a person gets a substantial pension (like $50K or more as a base for a reduced payment), has a huge IRA/401(k) (like over $ 1 Million in solid assets) or a similar level of annual annuity payments.


User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9089 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (12 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1913 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 2):
That is too bad... I think a really simple fix would be to slowly raise the retirement age. If you are actually old and frail, by all means draw it early, but if you are healthy, continue to work.

One has to remember that the SS system was set up when there were no pensions for the average worker. One also has to be cognizant of the fact that many millions are still out there from that age. One has to recognize that many millions today, and getting worse every year have no pension, no 401 K, nothing but substandard wages to live on. They struggle to survive, never mind retire. As I said before, we should all look in the mirror, and say "We have met the enemy, and they is us".

I believe that with all my heart. I remember the golden age of manufacturing, wages, unions. Not one of those did I have a hand in destroying. Quite the opposite, I fought the good fight, still do. I must say, I saw this collapse coming 30 years ago. I was lucky, I made and my wife made enough to save, and we have pensions. I ask, who should be blamed, the worker? The government? The corporations? I know who I blame, and it is not the worker.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (12 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1908 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 5):

What is to be done, then? The math seems to be against SS. I want it to be adequate to cover those who need it, but only those who need it. I think there are plenty of 65 year olds that are more than capable of staying in the work force



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9089 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (12 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1903 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 4):
For 70% or more Americans and probably more in the next 5-20 years, Social Security (SS) will be the only or an overwhelming majority of their income once they 'retire' or can no longer work. Any affect on the monies from they have assumed and planned for from SS could severely hurt them personally and financially

Absolutely, just think what a disaster we will have then. I for-see us going back to the days of children and parents sharing more and more of daily expenses, living together, because of lower wages, less opportunity. It is already happening. We might be the huddled masses like the words at the Statue of Liberty. Instead of them coming here, they will be here. The wealthy will do all right, they always do because the 99% let them.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9089 posts, RR: 11
Reply 8, posted (12 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1893 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 6):
What is to be done, then? The math seems to be against SS. I want it to be adequate to cover those who need it, but only those who need it. I think there are plenty of 65 year olds that are more than capable of staying in the work force

I believe Hillary proposed during the Primary battle to raise the ceiling so you pay on every cent earned, just like the 99%. I believe she claimed that would raise 1Trillion dollars over 10 years. That would sure help. We have to pay on every cent, so should all. Once again, a loophole for the wealthy. Is anyone naïve enough to believe a worker proposed that ceiling? I think not. There are many people over 65 who want to work over 65, no doubt. There are millions on disability SS. Some deserve it, many, many do not. It is a scam. When I signed up at 62, I was the oldest guy in the room. I was shocked, this needs to be rectified, also we can blame the government, and Lawyers. Costs billions.

I do not have a concrete answer, but we will need SS more and more as time goes on, as mentioned before. The need is growing, not shrinking. I do think a trillion dollars, and better wages, more jobs will solve the problem. I certainly know that a shrinking job base is not the way to go, as has been happening for years.







5



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9089 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (12 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1877 times:

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2008/...-population-projections-2005-2050/



If this comes true, bad days ahead. Look at the dependents for every 100 workers near the bottom.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineblueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 4090 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (12 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1877 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Another quick and needed fix is to use the PCE index instead of the CPI to direct increases in benefits. The PCE index is a more accurate measure of inflation (and the "official" measure as far as the Federal Reserve is concerned) but retirees prefer the CPI because it overstates inflation, so any adjustment for inflation in benefits is effectively a raise in purchasing power.

[Edited 2013-11-03 20:41:38]


I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9089 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (12 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1863 times:

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 10):
Another quick and needed fix is to use the PCE index instead of the CPI to direct increases in benefits. The PCE index is a more accurate measure of inflation (and the "official" measure as far as the Federal Reserve is concerned) but retirees prefer the CPI because it overstates inflation, so any inflation adjustment in benefits is effectively a raise in benefits.

I cannot imagine anyone living on the minimum SS alone. Just the other day, I was at lunch and we overheard a group of women talking about ones husband passing away, she said, that even though she was receiving her husbands higher amount, she was still out her amount and it was affecting her finances severely. This is the reality of it all, one has to live on a fixed income to understand. That is why a cost of living increase is so important to many people on SS. If all you have is SS, and with everything going up. you are squeezed more and more.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineblueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 4090 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (12 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1833 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 11):
That is why a cost of living increase is so important to many people on SS.

I'm not against cost-of-living increases, but using the CPI for that purpose is a cost-of-living-plus-some-extra increase. Whether SS is enough to live on (no), whether one should count only on SS to live on (no), are separate arguments from how to calculate an increase correctly, in my opinion.



I've got $h*t to do
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15795 posts, RR: 27
Reply 13, posted (12 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1830 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Thread starter):
This poll shows that people who have paid their dues all their working life, do not want anyone trying to change the game.

Of course they don't, they're pretty much off the hook and will be dead long before it causes them a problem.

The middle is the preferable place to be in a pyramid scheme: those at the bottom lose money and those at the top go to jail.

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 1):
What about those of us who also will have paid all of our working life and are almost certain to collect much less relative to the current generation of retirees? Tough luck? If the math doesn't work, it doesn't work.

Have as many kids as possible maybe? Sweat it out? That's basically just the way life is as a potential Ponzi scheme victim.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 2):
That is too bad... I think a really simple fix would be to slowly raise the retirement age. If you are actually old and frail, by all means draw it early, but if you are healthy, continue to work.

We need to set a series of dates over the next few decades to phase out Social Security. Based on when you are born your contributions and benefits will be adjusted downwards until there is eventually a birth date after which people are exempt.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 2):
SS is a safety net, not a 401K.

No, it isn't. A 401(k) is an actual investment.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 3):
Who would you blame, me?

I would blame the liberals who enacted the system and never bothered to cut it off in all these decades.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 3):
our esteemed corporations who sent the tax paying jobs overseas by the millions. Jobs that paid into that fund. They have been disappearing for about 30 years now. Tell that to your congressman/woman. I know your generation has been asleep, could give a shit less. bought all the cheap shit, supporting the killing off of union jobs. Time to pay the Piper as they say. When you are getting less, blame the people who deserve blaming, look in the mirror also.

I don't need to have a job to benefit from Social Security, baby boomers need me to have a job to benefit from Social Security. That's how these sorts of schemes work.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 4):
I also think there should be some need basis to get SS, including denial in full or part of eligible SS benefits if a person gets a substantial pension (like $50K or more as a base for a reduced payment), has a huge IRA/401(k) (like over $ 1 Million in solid assets) or a similar level of annual annuity payments.

That's no good. The solution to a Ponzi scheme is not to ensure it screws people in the middle as well as the bottom of the pyramid.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 5):
One has to recognize that many millions today, and getting worse every year have no pension, no 401 K, nothing but substandard wages to live on.

What sort of fool doesn't save money?

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 5):
I remember the golden age of manufacturing, wages, unions. Not one of those did I have a hand in destroying.

You did, you just did not realize or care. Benefits went up, wages went up, but skill and productivity did not keep pace. At that point, it would be stupid not to send manufacturing to locales where the value proposition is better.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 6):
The math seems to be against SS.

Liberals don't do numbers, apparently. For some reason, math and economics just seems to escape them.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 7):
The wealthy will do all right, they always do because the 99% let them.

The 99% don't let them do anything. It's their money, not ours.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 8):
We have to pay on every cent, so should all. Once again, a loophole for the wealthy.

No, they shouldn't. The wealthy have no use for Social Security and will not have any interest in benefits. The wealthy get nothing out of the system, so forcing them to pay in more for the system is shamelessly using them as a piggy bank.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 4027 posts, RR: 28
Reply 14, posted (12 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1808 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Thread starter):
people who have paid their dues all their working life, do not want anyone trying to change the game. I agree with them. I paid dearly, on nearly every dime for 42 years.

Newsflash, you did not pay into Social Security, you just paid taxes by another name. Social Security contributions are not deposits, nor are they insurance premiums (unless you show me a legally-binding contract you signed that says otherwise), they are just a disguised way to increase general government revenue (partly to help pay for the people that came BEFORE you). I work with insurance companies and I can tell you, if any insurance company ran its business the way Social Security runs theirs, your friendly local insurance regulator would shut it down so fast it would make your head spin and its management would quickly find out just how slimming an orange jumpsuit can be.

Quoting WarRI1 (Thread starter):
The ceiling most certainly should be raised. I remember well that every time I exceeded the ceiling the next year it was raised again. Now we have many who exceed the ceiling in a week, or a month. There should be no ceiling, pay on every dime, like the 99% do.

I would love to be able to pay more into Social Security - provided you are close enough to retirement to actually stand a shot at collecting it, Social Security provides by far the best return on "investment" out there, particularly given the war on savers Ben Bernanke is undertaking. Of course, if you raise the contribution ceiling you also need to raise the maximum payouts, which would only make Social Security go insolvent even faster.

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 1):
If the math doesn't work, it doesn't work.

The longer I live the more I think everyone should be required to take actuarial studies in High School. My favorite example of government flying in the face of reality was when they tried to introduce CLASS as a part of Obamacare. CLASS was basically supposed to be a voluntary long-term care insurance program offered by the government (long-term care is a line of business most insurance companies have abandoned after losing tons of money and not being able to cope with the massive Federal Reserve money-printing). The way CLASS was designed, you would start taking in insurance premiums now but payouts would have a deferral period so that, at the earliest, payouts under CLASS would only start being made close to the end / after the 10-year period the Government Accountability Board was required to look at in their math to see if Obamacare was going to reduce costs or not. The way government accounting worked, all insurance premiums CLASS was going to take in in the first 10 years would count as revenue, thus proving that Obamacare reduced costs! This is just borderline criminal... luckily government and outside actuaries ran the numbers and concluded that there was basically no way this would not blow up pretty badly and the HHS nixed the plan.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 2):
I do realize that older citizens have 'paid into the system,'

No they have not. See above.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 4):
use a inflation formula that is lower than the general CPI (the so-called 'chained CPI') that ignores the real inflation of health care, supplemental health care premiums, energy, housing and other costs of living are all very unpopular for good reason.

Governments like to manipulate inflation figures down to justify more money-printing. The official inflation statistics used by the Fed do not take into account housing costs, despite the fact that housing represents a huge component of the monthly budget of most households.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 4):
the % rate of tax could be lower for both the individual and their employer

The employer does not, and never has, paid any SS contributions, those contributions are 100% made by the employees through reduced salaries. Trying to further shift the cost of Social Security to employees is just a sneaky way to increase taxes on individuals.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 4):
there should be some need basis to get SS, including denial in full or part of eligible SS benefits if a person gets a substantial pension (like $50K or more as a base for a reduced payment), has a huge IRA/401(k) (like over $ 1 Million in solid assets) or a similar level of annual annuity payments.

So, let me get this straight, if you saved money every month throughout your career you get hosed, but if you blew it all on hookers and cocaine you come out on top? Sounds like our estate tax system at work, a great way to align incentives. What's to stop people from cashing out of their 401Ks and paying the penalty one day before applying for Social Security?

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 11):
a group of women talking about ones husband passing away, she said, that even though she was receiving her husbands higher amount, she was still out her amount and it was affecting her finances severely

At the very least, Social Security should be changed so it stops hosing single people and people with no kids.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (12 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1722 times:

Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system. Currently it takes in enough to pay out the benefits to those retired, without adversely affecting the rest of the budget. However the ratio between workers paying social security taxes and those receiving them is tiling from a 1960 ratio of 5:1 to a ratio in 2030 of 2.2:1. By 2030 the amount of taxes collected to social security, will be 75% of what is to be paid out. This is a switch that makes Social Security unfundable due to demographics.

Raising the contribution limit would only raise the payouts, so it would not work under the current law . What has to change are the ratio between those receiving benefits and those paying into it. it will take law .
1. Raise the age of eligibility
2. Reducing benefits for certain income levels
3. increasing taxes on those still working
4. Provide incentives for couples to have more children to increase the workforce.


I think we could get away with just doing the first two without touching the third or fourth, but these are the real changes that must be made.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 16, posted (12 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1715 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 14):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 2):
I do realize that older citizens have 'paid into the system,'

No they have not. See above.

Semantics. You pay the tax now to support those that already paid the tax earlier in their lives and you expect to recieve the same. I realize I'm not actually putting money into the DeltaMD90 SS Fund

Quoting casinterest (Reply 15):
1. Raise the age of eligibility
2. Reducing benefits for certain income levels
3. increasing taxes on those still working
4. Provide incentives for couples to have more children to increase the workforce.


I think we could get away with just doing the first two without touching the third or fourth, but these are the real changes that must be made.

I agree that we shouldn't touch 3 or 4, but I'd really like to focus on 1. Like I said, we are living longer, healthier lives. If someone cannot work and gets sick at 55, let them draw SS. If someone is 65 and has never been healthier, keep em in the labor force til IDK, 75. That might not seem "fair" but look at it this way: I'm sure the 75 year old is more than happy to be finally collecting SS like that 55 year old has been, but the 75 year old had 20 more healthy, productive years, and the 55 year old died at 57.

I realize the financial sense that your point #2 makes but I still find it tough to swallow. The rich help fund the system a lot more than the poor and when they reach the age of retirement, they don't get to draw anything from it? I guess my perspective changes if I view it as a pseudo 401(k) you pay into (semantics, Pyrex, bear with me) or if you view it as a safety net to keep the old and unhealthy from dying in the streets



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (12 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1706 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 16):
but I'd really like to focus on 1

I agree. Look people are making it to 90 with regular ease these days, which is 23 years past the 67 year old retirement age. The average age of death is still 78 in the US, but many of the deaths that occur and still count, are folks that never collected retirement pensions. Once you make it to retirement, the average life expectancy is age 86. If you make it to 86, you have a 50/50 shot at 93. So raising the retirement age for full benefits makes sense, since folks that make it to 67 are going to probably live at least 15 years longer.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 16):
I realize the financial sense that your point #2 makes but I still find it tough to swallow. The rich help fund the system a lot more than the poor and when they reach the age of retirement, they don't get to draw anything from it?

I think they should be able to draw from it, but I think there should be a top end gap on payouts. This could be arbitrary, but I think at current living expenses a top out of 6,000 to 7,000 a month in benefits would be more than generous. I do not propose allowing a person that paid more in to receive less monthly than someone who paid very little in. However I think the idea of the system is a bit retirement and a bit of social security for those less fortunate. Some of this tax will never be seen by the person that put it in, however they should see a progressive benefit for their contributions in this system.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5684 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (12 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1673 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 15):
Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system. Currently it takes in enough to pay out the benefits to those retired, without adversely affecting the rest of the budget. However the ratio between workers paying social security taxes and those receiving them is tiling from a 1960 ratio of 5:1 to a ratio in 2030 of 2.2:1. By 2030 the amount of taxes collected to social security, will be 75% of what is to be paid out. This is a switch that makes Social Security unfundable due to demographics.

Raising the contribution limit would only raise the payouts, so it would not work under the current law . What has to change are the ratio between those receiving benefits and those paying into it. it will take law .
1. Raise the age of eligibility
2. Reducing benefits for certain income levels
3. increasing taxes on those still working
4. Provide incentives for couples to have more children to increase the workforce.


I think we could get away with just doing the first two without touching the third or fourth, but these are the real changes that must be made.

Like others I too agree that the changes need to be made. The sad thing is I do not know if it is possible with one party sometimes appearing to want to have it fail and the other party not willing to make concessions on benefits. We have known of this for the past 30+ years and no one has been willing to make the simple changes to fix the problems. Especially when the issue was first raised, the changes would have been simple, a small increase in the SS tax, place some limits on the benefits, and set aside and secure a portion of the funds for future use. But they delayed and delayed it, and are still delaying making any decision. It is not that hard a concept and a solution is straight forward as you noted above, the hard part is getting any legislation though Congress to resolve the issue.

Tugg

[Edited 2013-11-04 11:30:37]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21730 posts, RR: 55
Reply 19, posted (12 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1661 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 16):
I realize the financial sense that your point #2 makes but I still find it tough to swallow. The rich help fund the system a lot more than the poor and when they reach the age of retirement, they don't get to draw anything from it?

That's true with a lot of things that taxes go toward. Ideally, I'd like everybody to get back what they put in, but we're going to have a demographic problem and things are going to have to get cut. And if you don't need the help, that seems to be a reasonable place to cut.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2810 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (12 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1595 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 1):
What about those of us who also will have paid all of our working life and are almost certain to collect much less relative to the current generation of retirees? Tough luck? If the math doesn't work, it doesn't work.

I look at my pay stub every week depressed to know I will never get to see the money that I paid into the system. I'm all for giving those who paid into the system their share. But there has to be a point where what my generation has paid into the system can be redeemed as well.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 2):
That is too bad... I think a really simple fix would be to slowly raise the retirement age. If you are actually old and frail, by all means draw it early, but if you are healthy, continue to work.

We do have to raise the retirement age for sure. But how do we determine if someone is old and frail? That is a really subjective thing.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 3):
Our esteemed congress, and our esteemed corporations who sent the tax paying jobs overseas by the millions.

Social Security is affected a lot more by the fact that families are a lot smaller now than it is job's going overseas. If there was 20% unemployment, I'd agree with you. But the problem is more there are more people getting pay outs because of age than not enough jobs paying in.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 3):
supporting the killing off of union jobs.

The demise of unions is not the cause of social security issues.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 16):
If someone cannot work and gets sick at 55, let them draw SS. If someone is 65 and has never been healthier, keep em in the labor force til IDK, 75. That might not seem "fair" but look at it this way: I'm sure the 75 year old is more than happy to be finally collecting SS like that 55 year old has been, but the 75 year old had 20 more healthy, productive years, and the 55 year old died at 57.

But you don't know that the person is going to die at 57. They may miraculously pull through and live to 90. We need a hard line that says you can get SS at this age like we do now. The only thing is the age has to be increased.

Quoting Mir (Reply 19):
And if you don't need the help, that seems to be a reasonable place to cut.

Although they don't need the help they are entitled to that money just as someone who made $65,000 a year.
Pat



All of the opinions stated above are mine and do not represent Airliners.net or my employer unless otherwise stated.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 21, posted (12 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1593 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 20):
We do have to raise the retirement age for sure. But how do we determine if someone is old and frail? That is a really subjective thing.

The same way they determine if people can draw early today. There is subjectivity but there also is a line (might be a fuzzy one, but it's there) that says "no, this person isn't healthy enough to work." I should have clarified, I don't think people should just work til 100 just because they can. I just think the retirement age should be raised to a higher age (maybe 70 would do the trick, maybe 75) but if you're actually unable to work prior to that age, you can draw just like you can draw today

My idea isn't that complex at all, it's basically what we have today, we just have a higher retirement age. Also, I think people need to realize that this is a safety net and not a 401(k)... invest your own money, SS will be there to keep you from living on the street



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2560 posts, RR: 7
Reply 22, posted (12 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1543 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 13):
What sort of fool doesn't save money?

The sort of fool that has a low-paying job and needs their entire paycheck to meet living expenses. The sort of fool whose child or spouse has a medical condition that requires multiple surgeries or round the clock medical care that insurance either doesn't completely cover or that has a lifetime maximum benefit. There are others of course, but these are just two examples.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 13):
We need to set a series of dates over the next few decades to phase out Social Security. Based on when you are born your contributions and benefits will be adjusted downwards until there is eventually a birth date after which people are exempt.

As long as you younger folks are OK with it, this old man has no objections. I'll take mine though, thank you very much.
  

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 14):
At the very least, Social Security should be changed so it stops hosing single people and people with no kids.

You are my new hero!  


User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9089 posts, RR: 11
Reply 23, posted (12 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1535 times:

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 12):
I'm not against cost-of-living increases, but using the CPI for that purpose is a cost-of-living-plus-some-extra increase. Whether SS is enough to live on (no), whether one should count only on SS to live on (no), are separate arguments from how to calculate an increase correctly, in my opinion.

This I cannot argue with, I leave it to the experts in government to come up with what is fair, in relation to cost of living hikes. I'll tell you this, what we are getting in my opinion is not based on reality, not nearly enough to come close to staying above water for those in real need, such as someone who only has SS as an income.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 989 posts, RR: 51
Reply 24, posted (12 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1524 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 3):
What would you call it, tough luck? Who would you blame, me? Them who have already paid all their lives, and on every cent they made.

You may have paid SSI tax on every dime you made, but that doesn't mean every dime of Social Security payments is from your earned income, or even your generation's earned income. Those receiving Social Security today will, on average, receive a lifetime benefit significantly exceeding their lifetime contributions.

Quoting WarRI1 (Thread starter):
This poll shows that people who have paid their dues all their working life, do not want anyone trying to change the game. I agree with them. I paid dearly, on nearly every dime for 42 years

Greed is a hell of an emotion. Real economic numbers show that:

- Seniors are wealthier today than in past generations
- Seniors are enduring recessions more comfortably than any other age group
- Senior median net worth has risen 48% since 1989
- Under 40 net worth has decreased 31% since 1989

But by all means, they need their "hard earned benefits" that exceed their net contributions.

Source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...-11e3-a624-41d661b0bb78_story.html


25 BMI727 : There was a different term when Bernie did it. Screws people with money. Screws those still working. Screws people who don't want to have kids. So mu
26 WarRI1 : That is the system, and the way it is. By the way, millions pass away without collecting any money. Do you advocate reimbursing them? I find that rep
27 DeltaMD90 : It could be if the cost of having impoverished seniors outweighs SS contributions. You seem to only think of the cost of one side of scenarios. I'm n
28 WarRI1 : Absolutely, people will be supported, they will not starve here. If SS does not function, it will then be welfare for millions. People should be care
29 DfwRevolution : And have you wondered why support for the system is low among young people? The young are your patrons, so you would be well served to consider their
30 WarRI1 : I and millions more did just that, we put our faith in our government. They made us a promise, we paid for years on that promise. Now the younger gen
31 BMI727 : What's more corrupt than a Ponzi scheme? Indeed, which is why I want to phase the system out before it can collapse.
32 StuckInCA : Well that's nice. What about the sustainability of the program? While I have a lot of respect for my grandparents generation (you're likely too young
33 WarRI1 : I am certainly of the older generation. I still say, raise the ceiling, pay for every dime you make. They did it to us, let everyone pay, no exceptio
34 DeltaMD90 : Well me personally, I have no problem with a safety net for the very old and disabled, but I don't see it as something to rely on. I don't want to pu
35 WarRI1 : I agree, it was put into place to give dignity to people in their old age. The generation before me, saw what they had to rely on during the Great De
36 jetblueguy22 : You just said that those in the government should decide which is fair, but those in need right now are not getting enough. Pardon my lack of underst
37 BMI727 : Above a certain income level people have no need or use for Social Security. To continue to force those people, likely the ones with the intelligence
38 Mir : How about the money I'm paying in right now? Am I entitled to that? Because I'm probably not going to see all of it, if any of it. I don't see why it
39 jetblueguy22 : You are absolutely entitled to it. I'm not at all saying you aren't. But why do you deserve it more than they do? Did they not pay their share as wel
40 ER757 : I'll let BMI727 repond - for once I think I'll share his selfish opinion. Wonder how that feels when the shoe's on the other foot:
41 DeltaMD90 : I think it's the same line of reasoning as welfare. You and I pay into welfare through taxes (most of the poor don't) yet they are the ones drawing f
42 BMI727 : Money out, nothing in. If that isn't a bad deal I don't know what is. We should be entitled to not pay into it since it's our money in the first plac
43 DeltaMD90 : BMI... before you say you're answer is to "create a system where everyone can succeed on their own" don't you realize that no matter how ideal the ci
44 WarRI1 : That was said tongue in cheek, I do not think we have a say in the way it is run do you? They most certainly are not getting enough, the ones in need
45 BMI727 : There will be, but that's on them. I'd rather they not take my money. If the money must be spent anyway, I'd rather spend it on larger police departm
46 DeltaMD90 : Again, you just ignore half the issue. What happens after it's "on them" and they don't get welfare? And again, who says that's cheaper or even effec
47 WarRI1 : It is also safer, too many guns around now.
48 BMI727 : That's for them to figure out. I don't think you would. Liberals have this fantasy of poor people being savages who demand institutionalized protecti
49 Mir : Why do they deserve it more than me? My point is that if I'm going to be expected to give up my future Social Security benefits (which I'm pretty sur
50 DeltaMD90 : Well I've said multiple times as much as we "wish" it to be an isolated problem, it just isn't. Anything after that is denial So you deny that higher
51 StuckInCA : Exactly. Their parents generation was "the greatest generation." They are the self centered generation as far as I can tell. Don't feed the troll. I
52 BMI727 : I'm in favor of improving education. That should be all the welfare anyone needs. A lot of schools legitimately suck and won't put people on a path f
53 DeltaMD90 : I'm not claiming anything 'liberals' are claiming. It's just a common sense statistic. I don't view welfare as just protection money, but I'm playing
54 BMI727 : Oh it won't achieve 100% success. I just want people to have no excuses if they fail. How much of that crime even effects the people paying significa
55 DeltaMD90 : Well I agree with most of what you're saying, I just think there will always have to be something out there. Even under the best circumstances, there
56 rfields5421 : Yes, however a 401(k) will never be a replacement for Social Security under current laws. Basically the caps on 401(k) and IRA contributions prevent
57 Post contains images Beardown91737 : I am in my mid 50s and I think we need to tinker with the system. It would probably need to be phased in, but my age would defintely have to be in the
58 WarRI1 : It is everywhere, most people I know have a problem. My wife met her cousin today for lunch, her son moved out, her daughter and her son moved in. Th
59 casinterest : It is like the turn of a screw. Everything is more difficult to undo the more you keep going in the same direction. No, You keep using Ponzi scheme,
60 BMI727 : To describe it as anything else would be to ignore reality. Tell me, if people stopped paying into Social Security tomorrow, would those who have alr
61 rfields5421 : Only for about 8 or 9 more years depending upon the death rate of current recipients. In 2012 - Social Security continued to have more total income t
62 casinterest : Go look up Ponzi scheme again and use a real search engine. Nope, you said screws people with money, or are you going back on your word and lying? No
63 BMI727 : So it is not sustainable. If you stopped making deposits into your savings account how much longer would it generate interest? How about a mutual fun
64 casinterest : So basically you are wrong. From your same link "A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation " "Operators of Ponzi schemes usually entice new
65 BMI727 : So you're basing your defense on the idea that Social Security is government sanctioned and therefore must be okay? The financial mechanics are ident
66 casinterest : Nope. My defense is that it is funded. and it can pay out what it owes based on understood formulas. it is not a fraudulent program. However you fail
67 BMI727 : It funds the payouts to previous investors by turning around the incoming payments of new "investors." Just like a Ponzi scheme. The financial mechan
68 FlyPNS1 : SS isn't an investment, it's insurance. There's a big difference that you clearly don't understand. Comparing SS to 401k's and hedge funds proves you
69 BMI727 : That makes it the dumbest insurance ever. You shouldn't have insurance against something that is all but inevitable, in this case getting old. Unless
70 FlyPNS1 : And what happens when bad things happen and all your savings go down the toilet? Or what happens when you live far longer than expected and all your
71 BMI727 : If you're so close to retirement that something like a recession will have that large of a negative effect on your retirement plans you have planned
72 FlyPNS1 : And what happens when the recession happens when you're 40 and the stock market doesn't rebound for decades? There's no law that says the market has
73 BMI727 : If you're 40, you have decades. People were saying that when my parents were my age. To me, that sounds like all the more reason to not let the older
74 FlyPNS1 : No you don't. If the market goes sideways for decades, you won't have time to recoup your money before you need to get out of the market as you appro
75 casinterest : It also uses securitized assets aswell. It also has the benefits of being transparent. Everyone knows why and when it will be underfuned. The questio
76 n318ea : Our Gubermint has been working on the solution for decades now. Keep on spending, run up deficit keep printing money and borrow money to fund deficit.
77 BMI727 : When has that ever happened? Maybe, but why is that relevant? Do you really think Americans should use taxes to fund each other's divorces? So did Be
78 rfields5421 : An a small scale it happens about once every 10-15 years. The market goes down and it takes four to five years to recover lost investment value. If y
79 BMI727 : So the market doesn't go sideways for decades. More planning, so more reason why people pushing insurance on everyone are wrong. No they aren't, so i
80 WarRI1 : Very good, a statement of truth finally. Winners and losers just like any other insurance policy. It was set up as a backup for the people who would
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
44% Of Americans Want Bush Back In WH posted Fri Dec 11 2009 14:37:07 by KC135TopBoom
Changes In Boats; My Observations And Experience posted Wed Aug 12 2009 09:02:49 by MCOflyer
New Pics Of SS France In Alang posted Sun Aug 24 2008 09:49:33 by United_Fan
AP: Most Americans Back Holding Olympics In China posted Wed Aug 13 2008 02:43:32 by Elite
Why Do Americans Wear Maple Leafs In Europe? posted Thu Jun 29 2006 15:49:50 by KrisYYZ
6 In 10 Americans Oppose The War In Iraq posted Wed Jun 22 2005 00:07:33 by Greasespot
Bush's SS Plan In Trouble-So He Wants Delay's Help posted Tue Apr 26 2005 14:53:46 by Falcon84
It's Not Just Americans That Are Dying In Iraq. posted Sun Nov 30 2003 04:50:45 by Commander_rabb
UK Govt Minister Says Americans Think UK Is In ME posted Thu Nov 21 2002 12:47:20 by David_itl
Poll: Americans Want Dems In Power posted Fri Jul 14 2006 19:56:43 by Maury