Social Security Changes

[Perry White]

Lucky you. If you aren't contributing, hows that compute?

[Lindsay Richards]

So if you count just what YOU put in, the numbers are not so large.

As an emoloyer, I can tell you that they would much rather give the 7.65% to you rather than the government. As far as what it amounts to, you forget the miracle of compounding interest. If you invested 15.3 % of your earnings (before taxes) your entire career, your earnings would in most cases far exceed your SS benefits. You can no use a dollar invested in 1962 as being a dollar today,

[LadyFitz...]

Originally Posted by wnytaxman

...I'll go back to my original question. What would you be willing to do to help save the Social Security System?

Same answer. I didn't make the mess, why should I pay for the mistakes of the ones who screwed up the system? The only thing I will do is vote against any sorry politician that tries to cut any more of my benefits instead of correcting the original problem.

[Superslif]

Those joining the world of work need to be told by the government what the new rules are and then those workers can follow those new rules in a fashion that will benefit THAT worker in the best way. It would be totally unfair to SURPRISE a 50 year old worker (who has followed the age old rules for 30 years) with the news that the playing field has changed dramatically and unfortunately those 40 to 64 years of age are bearing the brunt of these radical changes. Just MHO.

Someone in a earlier post mentioned the above. I couldn't agree more. I'm in that boat (age 49) and planning on retiring in 4 years. Already my union pension was cut by 50% five years ago. If SS would change drastically after I retire, I'll be in a pickle. The industry and job I'm in if for forced to work till 65 / 70 my body would be toast like many other fellow co-workers have found who have not saved for retirement. I personnel started my retirement saving at age 13. I understood $$$ at a early age. Yes, it might have been my paper route money, but it was all my doing.

[LadyFitz...]

Originally Posted by Rubix cube

Obviously the public's low opinion of Congress is not having the desired affect on effective legislation, no matter how unpalatable.

It used to be that people wanted to get into office to make a difference, and some still do on both sides of the aisle, but I feel more are just interested in getting into office, no matter the cost to our citizens.

Social Security itself has not failed. Drawing it into the general fund destroyed it. And why was it drawn in? To augment funds for projects other than the intended use of the money.

I'm convinced that our government is bloated with redundancies and misspending, which if eliminated would maybe get spending under control. Now, this may sound like I fall right of center; however, I like to think they agree with my philosophy of how our country should be run rather than my taking their whole platform.

I don't find our government successful in many adventures they run or create. The Fed was institutionalized to stop Bank failures. (right ) Its current policies will undoubted bring inflation upon us - which is a lagging aspect to creating excesses in the Money supply. Medicare is rife with fraud, and the government responds with effectively trying to put everyone on it. The Department of Education has us at 25th in the world for its efforts. ATF - guns sold to Mexico says it all , The Attorney Generals office has become a political position, and well I'm sure we could do this all day.

The federal government should not be deciding how much we will give to Charity. Charity is best administer at a local level, if not personal level. I currently have a young couple in my house that is struggling with finding jobs. I know they are looking hard, and finding some temp or part time positions. Last month i gave $50 to a family I barely knew, (based on their church's recommendation) because they had hit a bump in the road. I don't expect the money back. THAT is charity.

I would like Social Security taken OUT of the general fund. Its need has NOT disappeared, just its funding's use...

Especially the part in bold!

[B Bob]

WNYTAXMAN - SS as it has been documented to me by the SS administration is a contract. Means testing, extending the age for eligibility, and so on are fine past the date that the changes are enacted. But to retroactively change the contract / agreement already made I would not accept. I worked for a company that had a defined benefit plan back in the 1990's. They decided to go to a 401 type system. So they sent me a check for the amount I was already invested in the defined benefit plan. If the government wants to send me a check for full payment of the benefits I am vested in like the company I worked for fine. I will invest the money and figure out how to live on it.

[Lindsay Richards]

Sorry, but I don't think anybody should be able to retire at 53 and have society take care of them for probably longer than they worked, I'd like to see any studies showing that your line of work has such an early death rate justifying a 13 year early retirement. We set aside a good chuck of our money for decades and were able to retie a few years early, but it was our ddoings. Any retiremnets should be based on funds set aside in the year they were made. If your pension was reduced on the basis of the housing and economic colaspe in the last half decade, welcome to the real world. We are all in that same boat, The stock market has nearly recovered and most pension funds are back to where they were before the collaspe. 401k's took a real beating and that boat is very full.

[LadyFitz...]

Originally Posted by JimM68

again, we're heading off the deep end...

but so what. SS should remain what ir was intended to be, a safety net for the "old poor". It should continue to pay out according to it's formulas, as originally imagined. Those who can't think far enough ahead to save for retirement should get whatever social security there is, and those who did, well, if you contributed, you should get paid, according to the same rules.

SS should be out of the general fund immediately, it should be made back into the self perpetuating system it was originally designed to be...

You have made excellent sense up to here, however...

Originally Posted by JimM68

...Welfare and disability should be removed. The US of A does not owe a subsistence living to anyone. Disabled? Poor? 18 with 3 out of wedlock children? Sorry. We (as in the workers and taxpayers of America) owe you nothing. Die in the streets if your families won't take care of you...

Wow! That's harsh. I agree people shouldn't just get handouts; they should somehow earn any welfare they receive, even if only pushing a broom or picking up roadside trash. But, not only is leaving them to die essentially murder, it would result in many, if not most of them resorting to crime to survive. Also, keep in mind many of those on the streets served in the armed forces for us.

Originally Posted by JimM68

...Anyone applying for public assistance for thier born out of wedlock child should be sterilized as part of the deal.

This is beyond harsh. Putting a cap on the number of children who can receive benefits would make more sense.

Originally Posted by JimM68

...and congress and the senate should not be due any more than anyone who has worked fopr 4-6 years.

This makes sense.

Originally Posted by JimM68

..."same sex couples" or whatever they call you these day, we owe you nothing. If you want death bed benifits, take a moment to write a will...

Where did this come from? It has nothing to do with SS, not to mention your "solution" is not a solution or even addresses the issue.

Originally Posted by JimM68

...Further, term limits, as in 2 senate 6 year terms, and 3 congress 4 year terms, period, end of discussion, would go a way long way toward solving most of this countries problems, particularly if the states ran the same bandwagon for thier governers, mayore, congress, etc...
Here in Illinois, we have a "CABLE" who has been running the state for generations, people with names like Daly, Stroger, Madigan. People who have been running our sad state for generations. People who think the state of Illinois exists to give them power and make them rich.

Now we are back on topic.

[LadyFitz...]

Originally Posted by kstateaddict

I'm really getting tired of people complaining that people that have money should pay more!!!!! What really irks me are is the 50% that pay nothing!!! How about the people that try to make a change then are crucified for "trying to take away my social security" One more thing.... When I signed up for SS I went in for my appointment the office was standing room only and I was the only person in the room with grey hair. It was full of people that looked homeless,covered with tatoo's,hoodies etc.I went to the window and asked if I was in the right place. She assured me that I was then I asked her what in the hell were all these people during here. She said they are on disabilty and dependants. That's when I knew we were in so much trouble it was going to be next to impossible to fix. We have to support the people trying to change the system.

I'm not going to support anyone who wants to take away any more of the benefits I was promised, especially after busting my backside at as many as three jobs at the same time, destroying my body in the process. I'm not on disability or collecting as a dependent. I'm 63, not even collecting all that I was promised.

[LadyFitz...]

Originally Posted by Warden

Stop Giving it to Illegals

[mick]

Every night as I lay myself down to sleep, I pray the Lord, the SS to keep.

Tax the young more, tax the rich more, tax the poor more, but keep my SS check a coming home to daddy.

And the ansswer to your question ............ A RESOUNDING NO !!!!!!!!!

[LadyFitz...]

Originally Posted by wildtoad

Actually many receive far more than THEY put in. Unless you were self employed and paid both parts (the 15%) you will get back more than you paid in very quickly. The 7% company match is in itself government required welfare. So if you count just what YOU put in, the numbers are not so large...

Your logic is faulty. Essentially, the portion the employer paid was part of your wages; you just didn't receive it first.

[wildtoad]

Originally Posted by Lindsay Richards

As an emoloyer, I can tell you that they would much rather give the 7.65% to you rather than the government. As far as what it amounts to, you forget the miracle of compounding interest. If you invested 15.3 % of your earnings (before taxes) your entire career, your earnings would in most cases far exceed your SS benefits. You can no use a dollar invested in 1962 as being a dollar today,

Don't disagree. However, when folks talk about how much they paid in they should only consider what they actually paid in not what their employer so graciously kicked in.

[Lindsay Richards]

However, when folks talk about how much they paid in they should only consider what they actually paid in not what their employer so graciously kicked in.

Nothing gracious about it at all. It is a federal law and it is part of the cost of employing you. It would be much easier to give it to you rather than go thru all of the paperwork to give it to the government. You should assume that if they didn't have to pay it to the government, you would get it. Self employed people have to pay it directly and you just have the employer pay it directly. 15.3% set aside for your retirement is a huge amount and would be great for most folks. It has been squandered and the population of people receiving SS has been drastically expanded. What about the guy who is hit by a bus on the way to his 66th birthday party gets nothing. If he had the money invested, his family would get millions of dollars.