Posted on 11/16/2010 11:44:42 AM PST by Slyscribe
The first thing that needs to be said about the Social Security reform plan from the Fiscal Commission’s co-chairmen is that it beats doing nothing.
That’s not a high hurdle to clear because the status quo, to borrow from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s critique of the co-chairs’ broad fiscal blueprint, “is simply unacceptable,” as I’ll explain later.
There are certainly positive aspects of the commission plan, particularly a more generous minimum benefit to lift the benefits of low-wage earners up to or above the poverty level.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.investors.com ...
“It is only right that people who have worked a full career are afforded the dignity of a passable income in old age.”
Typical redistributionist BS.
You are owed only what is earned. Nothing more.
My idea:
1. Stop the intergovernmental IOU’s when applying the Social Security taxes collected through payroll deduction into the General Fund to be used for general spending. Immediately create a Fund for the monies from which they can be used for no other purpose except paying retirees.
2. Either through privatized accounts of better government management investment (like the Thrift Savings Plan already in existence) in certain mutual funds, etc should be allowed and must be accomplish to ensure a certain percentage of return on the investment to increase the fund balance.
3. Immediately increase the retirement age to 77-80 years old.
We also must remember what is done here is totally separate to the other needs of tax reform, spending reform, etc.
“3. Immediately increase the retirement age to 77-80 years old.”
Just because people can live longer doesn’t mean they can work longer. You’d be dragging people out of their nursing home beds.
Typical redistributionist BS.
You are owed only what is earned. Nothing more.
Exactly, especially since a 'full career' is only 10 quarters or 2 1/2 years, which is all you need to work to get the minimum payout.
That might have made sense when this started back in 1930-something, to avoid having to wait a generation for the benefits to kick in, but not now.
“You are owed only what is earned.”
If I get that much I’ll be happy. If I die too early I’ll never see a nickle.
Nor will your heirs, which was the plan.
No. If they are already retired they are OUT of the picture. This is for those not yet retiring.
Increase the age for full retirement and benefits. The going talk is to raise it to 70. I personally think it should be higher for those not in it and those not yet 65 which is the age today, this minute, right now.
If individuals are not capable of working we have other provisions in social security and medicare for them.
not to mention they would have to compete for jobs with 20 and 30 year olds.
Their fix for Social Security is Obama’s Death Panels. The SS Final Solution.
If you aren't thinking of retiring soon, you were probably born too late to get anything back.
If you aren't thinking of retiring soon, you were probably born too late to get anything back.
If you aren't thinking of retiring soon, you were probably born too late to get anything back.
LOL! Did you think before posting?
The LE in the U.S. is 77 - 77.9 years.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lifexpec.htm
Really? Then someone else is obligated to provide them a passable income? It says "people", but it really means "people in America", right? Are we proposing that Americans should have to provide a "passable income" to anyone in the world who has "worked a full career"? I guess we need to define a "full career"? If someone took a year off, or a month? A week, a day, an afternoon? Is it still a "full career"? How about 2 jobs for 1/2 a career? Is that OK?
I actually know folks that age and older who still work.
If you had read a later post I did reduce it. I think 70 is good but will have to be raised again in several years cause the system can not survive with the decrease in those being taxed.
Eben in 1935 when passed Social Security was never envision to be the sole source of retirement income for so many, rather a supplement. Two-thirds of seniors today rely on social security getting one-half of their retirement income from social security. Not what was envisioned.
Radical, drastic changes are needed.
I wonder how K-one Texas would feel working as a roofer at, say, age 77? Hmmm?
Some Freeper statements are beyond stupid.
You guys seem to me to be overlooking a key point. Nearly everyone pays into SS their entire working life. Therefore, as far as SS is concerned the retirees are not living off anyone. They are simply getting back what they put in. Had that money been invested instead of taken from them by the government they would get much more back.
SS was a scam from the very beginning. There was never a trust fund nor even Al Gore’s lock box. Both FDR and Gore simple lied and they knew it. On top of that, when the retirement age of 65 was set the LE was 67 for whites and 64 for blacks. The blacks who are so in love with the Democrats were never intended to get any of their money back and whites very little. Those who died early were simply contributors to the fund. All the money just went into the general fund as was spent immediately on other things. So, when you talk about raising the retirement age or lowering benefits you are just enabling the continuation of the scam.
When I reached age 65 and applied for my SS they had no record of most of the companies I had worked for. They blamed it on a computer change in 1988 and said they lost a lot of data. They wanted to know if I had all my income tax records going back to 1988. This was in 2004 so of course I did not have those records. I told them I did not but the IRS did. They said they couldn’t get it from them, that it must come from me. I ended up with about half of what I was owed. Until then I had always been told I had contributed the maximum amount and would get full benefits.
In the last few years, at SS offices in Dallas and Georgetown, Texas, I have seen long lines and full waiting rooms of young minorities with “counselors” with them. They were signing up for disability payments from SS. It seems the law has been changed to include alcohol and drug abuse, depression, including simple mood swings, and almost everything else as a disability. However, if you are not a minority you need not apply. A big chunk of the SS payments goes to those folks rather than to retirees. Yet, when you hear them saying we need to “save SS” they mention only us old folks. They don’t want you to know about the freeloaders on the system.
“I have seen long lines and full waiting rooms of young minorities with “counselors” with them. They were signing up for disability payments from SS. It seems the law has been changed to include alcohol and drug abuse...”
The operative observation is “drug abuse”.....these are public funds being disbursed to support the drug trade.
I had not thought of that angle and I am suspicious of everything.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.