Here's to 80 Years of Social Security
Aug 15, 2015 18:01:41 #
Aug 15, 2015 18:06:48 #
To campaign against Social Security is to court political suicide. (It certainly didn't help Alf Landon; he was trounced.) It therefore becomes imperative to convince voters instead that the program is unreliable. That's the Republican strategy.
Aug 15, 2015 18:12:50 #
I can't prove it and you can't disprove it, but I think there are more elderly people in poverty now than there would be if the program had never been created. It has taken from me 15% of the fruits of my productivity all of my working life.
Americans no longer save anything for their retirement and are dependent on others for their subsistence.
I don't think it is a point of pride to have so many of us dependent on government.
Americans no longer save anything for their retirement and are dependent on others for their subsistence.
I don't think it is a point of pride to have so many of us dependent on government.
Aug 15, 2015 18:23:03 #
dirtpusher wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-a-saunders/heres-to-80-years-of-soci_b_7987974.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
SS would have, probably, been just fine. That is, if the thieves in Washington had not gotten their grubby paws on it. When it was moved to the general fund was the start of the problems.
--Bob
Aug 15, 2015 18:33:17 #
rmalarz wrote:
SS would have, probably, been just fine. That is, if the thieves in Washington had not gotten their grubby paws on it. When it was moved to the general fund was the start of the problems.
--Bob
--Bob
yupper :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Aug 15, 2015 18:35:20 #
ILFarmer wrote:
I can't prove it and you can't disprove it, but I think there are more elderly people in poverty now than there would be if the program had never been created. It has taken from me 15% of the fruits of my productivity all of my working life.
Americans no longer save anything for their retirement and are dependent on others for their subsistence.
I don't think it is a point of pride to have so many of us dependent on government.
Americans no longer save anything for their retirement and are dependent on others for their subsistence.
I don't think it is a point of pride to have so many of us dependent on government.
there are large somes elderly retired that wasn't drawing large pay check as of today. many are on the poverty line...
http://money.usnews.com/money/retirement/articles/2012/05/21/poverty-increasing-among-retirees
Aug 16, 2015 07:42:38 #
When SS was created, Americans lived on average 68-70 years. The Govt. pick age 65 because they knew that it would help the elderly during the final few years of life. Fast forward to today. We live on average 15-20 years longer, yet SS has not changed much, except we have added a more benefits including disability insurance and pushed back the full benefit age back a few years. The Federal Govt. has mismanaged the SS "Trust Fund" and now we are paying the piper. The only way to save it is to return it to individual account, keep it out of the General Fund, and raise the retirement age to be in sync with demographic changes in longevity.
Aug 16, 2015 10:08:44 #
I have been on SSI for 7 years. It is a supplement for the retirement I earned through 35 years at work and the small amount I put into a tax shelter for 30 years. I do not believe SSI was supposed to be all you needed in retirement. I think it was designed as a supplement to ones regular savings. However, you probably know that many people on SS receive a minimum because of various governmentally-backed and/or entitlement programs (the public dole, oops, did I say that?). If SS was only paid to those who paid into the system, there would probably be plenty for all who worked and have reached the required age. If you participated in the SS system, you, the one who worked, is entitled to the money you invested in the system. If you didn't pay into the system for the required quarters, you should get nothing... like politicians (oops, did I say that?).
Aug 16, 2015 10:51:20 #
rmalarz wrote:
SS would have, probably, been just fine. That is, if the thieves in Washington had not gotten their grubby paws on it. When it was moved to the general fund was the start of the problems.
--Bob
--Bob
Thanks to Lyndon Johnson who start the free for all among the thiefs in politics
Aug 16, 2015 10:53:59 #
rickerb
Loc: utah
About 10 years ago, I made an appointment at the social security office in order to discuss my account. I wanted to get specific details on my optimum time for retirement.
I entered the office and took a number to see a rep. When I sat down, I was very surprised to see that I was defintely the oldest person in the room. The place was full of younger people applying for disability. Some couldn't work because of their drug situation (rehab, etc) or other vague reason but I suspect that most were there for free money from MY social security. I found it infuriating.
I entered the office and took a number to see a rep. When I sat down, I was very surprised to see that I was defintely the oldest person in the room. The place was full of younger people applying for disability. Some couldn't work because of their drug situation (rehab, etc) or other vague reason but I suspect that most were there for free money from MY social security. I found it infuriating.
Aug 16, 2015 11:45:13 #
rickerb wrote:
About 10 years ago, I made an appointment at the s... (show quote)
And if you asked theses persons , they will tell you , "we are entitled" :lol: :lol: :lol:
Aug 16, 2015 11:57:49 #
people are paying in more than they were 30 years ago. as pay goes up payments go up. as cost of living goes up. corporation need to cut their golden parachutes yearly take..
Aug 16, 2015 12:15:03 #
dirtpusher wrote:
people are paying in more than they were 30 years ago. as pay goes up payments go up. as cost of living goes up. corporation need to cut their golden parachutes yearly take..
I believe , there are not enough peoples working today, so the funds are getting very low , with an economy like we have , I don't think we have to expect a change soon
Aug 16, 2015 12:16:08 #
People with high incomes above the "maximum" for Social Security do pay in a smaller percentage of their income than others. However, they also receive a smaller percentage of their income in payout. In fact, for most wealthy people, they would have been much better off investing their social security contribution rather than sending it off to the government. To say that it is "unfair" and they should pay more is itself an unfair statement. They pay into the fund and get virtually no benefit.
Aug 16, 2015 12:21:47 #
Violameister wrote:
People with high incomes above the "maximum&q... (show quote)
until they or if they reach max limit... i have maxed several times.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.