Posted on 03/07/2005 9:24:05 AM PST by Cagey
"You don't touch your "private" account until you retire. At that time, a schedule is put together determining how much you would need per month, and that amount is doled out to you from the account for the rest of your days."
At what age is the retirement considered valid? (per government definition) Do you know if that age is connected to 401K investments?
You've been sold a bill of goods.
Paying into SS does not equate to 'saving your money'. It was collected as Income Tax II, in fact (Medicare is Income Tax III), and spent. ALL of it.
In fact, your demand for 'your share' is a demand on your children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
Do you believe they owe you a bigger bank account, while they are required to live on less and less??
"As I wrote on a previous post, Republicans should refer to "collection of benefits age" rather than "retirement age"."
I like this clarification. The government should have no say when I can retire!
Read the thread. It's shocking a discussion like this takes place at arguably the most conservative website in the country.
"Means testing just means taking away benefits from folks who have saved their money and giving them to people who shot theirs on boats and cocaine. I can find no moral justification for basically cancelling my account out so you can get full benefits. What's your justification for this?"
Nobody is talking about cancelling accounts. A person of means would get back all they paid in plus interest, but that is it. If this person fell back below the set threshold, they could start receiving payments again.
The welfare mentality is one of the most insidious and addictive things there is in a society, and it can easily take hold even on good, honest conservative people. And the longer one goes in life thinking that society "owes" him something, the more unlikely it is that person will ever let go of that attitude.
I agree.
But how you can call me some kind of a communist for disagreeing with you that transferring the minimal living sustenance of our kids to our bank accounts, when ours are already bulging, is beyond me.
As far as I know its the same age that you're eligible for Social Security.
I don't care what they do to the benefit--they can cut it to 70% of what is paid today and that's fine with me--as long as we all take the same haircut. I'm not going to sit quietly while we yet again reward the grasshoppers and screw the ants.
And I haven't even touched on the disincentive to save that such a plan would require. Why not just p!ss away my savings if the rest of you will pay for a full benny for me?
Means testing is Socialism 101.
I am 21 too and I do not expect to recieve social security benefits in the future. The whole system is one big ponzi scheme and we are going to be ripped off. It would ease burden somewhat to raise the retirement age but at the same time we should be against it because the sooner the system falls apart, the better. Then people will rely on family for security, the way that it used to be before the expansion of the government destroyed the role of traditional family in American life.
In other words, plan ahead for your retirement and have a couple of kids, you will be all set. That way if you ever became broke while you're old, you can always move in with one of your kids. *wink*
I don't think I follow. The benefits being paid to current recipients are derived from the Social Security payroll tax payments currently being paid by those working. I understand what you to be proposing is that "well off" people should "get back" an amount equivalent to the Social Security payroll tax payments they have made to date over the course of their working years. Again, where is that money going to come from?
Again, you have bought into the lie that somehow SS went 'into your account'. That's laughable.
SS is nothing but a generational transfer payment...from the generations with the least assets to the generation with the most assets.
Yup. The number of people around here who are willing to opine on how to "fix" Social Security, without having any idea as to the basics of how the program works, is astonishing.
It really is.
And those who propose the first step to undoing the damage being foisted on our people get called 'socialists'.
'Astonishing' is definitely the appropriate word...
You need to read up on this problem. Today's seniors get back their money with interest--it's tomorrow's seniors who won't even get their money back, let alone interest. Your solution might have worked 20 years ago, but the system has plenty of money now and no mechanism for saving any surplus.
Just returning our money with interest would be a greater amount of money than just leaving things alone because as it stands now we (tomorrow's retirees) won't even get back our money, let alone interest.
I hope you're not actually planning on SS as a means of funding your retirement.
That is what they have always counted on...
Damned increased life expectancy!
Where is global warming when you need it?
< /sarcasm >
Yes, we could start a C&SUF program. We have the unelected sit in full view of the public at a desk doing nothing. At the close of business, they get up from their desk go to the closet. Once there, they retrieve (1) perk mop & bucket. They then proceed to mop the Capitol floors to earn their meager pay in full view of the public. Satire at it's best. NSNR
There are no individual Social Security accounts. FICA is just a tax, no different from income taxes, and SS benefits are just welfare paid by current taxpayers. So yes, there's no reason why Warren Buffett should collect any payments, neither should Bill Gates in 25 years, and if things go well neither should I in 40. The corollary of means testing is that it allows a substantial tax reduction since payments would be limited to those who are actually poor, rather than being distributed to everyone in the group of richest Americans. (And actually the regressive payroll tax should be abolished altogether, both for efficiency and to end the fiction that it's a retirement plan, but that's another matter).
You respond as if I intend to tax my children so I can get paid, but the discussion here is what solutions we'll agree upon to avoid that. I have already agreed to a 30% haircut and you have agreed to cancel out my benefit and give it to someone who threw their money away instead of saving it. You tell me who's willing to sacrifice to avoid taxing the bejeezus out of the kids. (Hint: It's one of us, but not you.)
Sounds to me like my account's pretty real when you want to appropriate it, but not when I assert the same rights as anyone else would have. Why? Because I have savings?
Pfft.
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.