So do you think that the ammt paid in is lesser or greater than the benefits taken out?
COLA's come from where exactly? From investing the money?
I get a massive kick out of my inlaws and their views on SS, that COLAs were promised and should be given..even though there were not proper pay-in adjustments over the decades they contributed..nor the fact that Medicare IS an extension of SS in reality..and most definitely that has not been funded properly at all.
SS should have been double what it was..maybe even higher.
How could it be under funded if, had the politicians not robbed the fund, it would be able to last over 100 more years with colas included? It seems like the fund really had enough assets, just to many sticky hands stealing it. I just believe if they never stole the money, they would have had enough time to fix what was broken in the system. Its not a perfect system, but it really is one of the better systems to help people. Like i have said on other things, alot of times the system itself is a good one, but the people running it are very bad.
I just know letting people invest their SS money on their own, will just result in most not doing it and they will end up being broke in their later years, so the govt will still end up paying, but it will be more now, since they wouldnt have gotten all that money from those people threw the years.
Do you have any suggestions for a better system
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
So do you think that the ammt paid in is lesser or greater than the benefits taken out?
COLA's come from where exactly? From investing the money?
I get a massive kick out of my inlaws and their views on SS, that COLAs were promised and should be given..even though there were not proper pay-in adjustments over the decades they contributed..nor the fact that Medicare IS an extension of SS in reality..and most definitely that has not been funded properly at all.
SS should have been double what it was..maybe even higher.
How could it be under funded if, had the politicians not robbed the fund, it would be able to last over 100 more years with colas included? It seems like the fund really had enough assets, just to many sticky hands stealing it. I just believe if they never stole the money, they would have had enough time to fix what was broken in the system. Its not a perfect system, but it really is one of the better systems to help people. Like i have said on other things, alot of times the system itself is a good one, but the people running it are very bad.
I just know letting people invest their SS money on their own, will just result in most not doing it and they will end up being broke in their later years, so the govt will still end up paying, but it will be more now, since they wouldnt have gotten all that money from those people threw the years.
I agree with you regarding investing on your own, that is a terrible idea.
The stock market would LOVE to have those funds though..for sure they would love to feast off the stupidity of the sheep.
No I dont think SS would long term meet its needs, even if you look at the fund as a stand alone like the funds were there I dont think it is funded properly.
Plus I really think Medicare is in a much greater hurt and is as much a SS type of benefit as SS is..yet the discussion of its deficit is not included with SS even though it should be.
I've given my solution..it makes sense and is what should happen-
If you make more than the median income of the working class then the benefits are phased out, especially SS.
SS should not be a slush fund for politicians and it should not be a casino junket throw away for people who do not NEED it.
The program needs to weed out the high net worth and higher retiree earners and take care of those who are earning less than the average family, those who are paying in currently.
That is your solution..have a phase out starting at the average 5 yr median income OR a certain asset level..say 2M in assets, then it begins to phase out.
I agree with you regarding investing on your own, that is a terrible idea.
The stock market would LOVE to have those funds though..for sure they would love to feast off the stupidity of the sheep.
No I dont think SS would long term meet its needs, even if you look at the fund as a stand alone like the funds were there I dont think it is funded properly.
Plus I really think Medicare is in a much greater hurt and is as much a SS type of benefit as SS is..yet the discussion of its deficit is not included with SS even though it should be.
I've given my solution..it makes sense and is what should happen-
If you make more than the median income of the working class then the benefits are phased out, especially SS.
SS should not be a slush fund for politicians and it should not be a casino junket throw away for people who do not NEED it.
The program needs to weed out the high net worth and higher retiree earners and take care of those who are earning less than the average family, those who are paying in currently.
That is your solution..have a phase out starting at the average 5 yr median income OR a certain asset level..say 2M in assets, then it begins to phase out.
That would not be difficult, you can regionalize the median incomes quite easily.
A rolling 5 yr average is simple and direct and fair, it also makes possible if someone falls into a bad stretch that they could be eligible in the future.
Never will happen though.
That would not be difficult, you can regionalize the median incomes quite easily.
A rolling 5 yr average is simple and direct and fair, it also makes possible if someone falls into a bad stretch that they could be eligible in the future.
That would not be difficult, you can regionalize the median incomes quite easily.
A rolling 5 yr average is simple and direct and fair, it also makes possible if someone falls into a bad stretch that they could be eligible in the future.
Never will happen though.
This is a pretty good plan Wall, but your right, it will never happen. All politicians care about is staying in office and getting votes. This is why if there were term limits, the people in office might actually start doing the work for the people instead of themselves.
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
That would not be difficult, you can regionalize the median incomes quite easily.
A rolling 5 yr average is simple and direct and fair, it also makes possible if someone falls into a bad stretch that they could be eligible in the future.
Never will happen though.
This is a pretty good plan Wall, but your right, it will never happen. All politicians care about is staying in office and getting votes. This is why if there were term limits, the people in office might actually start doing the work for the people instead of themselves.
@#6 In some countries people pay taxes because they know it goes to... snip... free health care.... snip... V V V V V V $o it ISNT FREE health care, the 50% or higher tax rate pays for the "Free" healthcare.
Of course it is more "free" for anyone that doesnt work, there only contribution is taxes on good purchased
$o it ISNT FREE health care, the 50% or higher tax rate pays for the "Free" healthcare.
Quote Originally Posted by J_Galt:
@#6 In some countries people pay taxes because they know it goes to... snip... free health care.... snip... V V V V V V $o it ISNT FREE health care, the 50% or higher tax rate pays for the "Free" healthcare.
Of course it is more "free" for anyone that doesnt work, there only contribution is taxes on good purchased
$o it ISNT FREE health care, the 50% or higher tax rate pays for the "Free" healthcare.
Hot Forum Topics
