Posted on 04/29/2005 9:34:43 AM PDT by Brian_Baldwin
It's called Socialist Security!
Sorry, but I think there should be means testing for social security.
Turning into one?
It's a tax to rob from one group to give to another. If this is what the Republicans have come to, there is no distinction between them and the RATS.
"Sorry, but I think there should be means testing for social security."
Then it should be called "Welfare."
I pay in the max; I will get the least because I save for retirement. Sounds like more Communism, to me, --- punish those who work and save.
I don't think there should be ANY Social Security to begin with, but since it's here, I don't think that multi-millionaires need that extra $1300 a month. I just don't. I think people on the very high end range would be happy to let it go. They're taxed on it anyway.
Look at what he had to do with education reform to get that passed.
But forcing an individual to contribute a specific amount of money for their retirement, then not giving it back when they retire, is bull$hit.
Stop the pretense, get rid of FICA, raise income taxes, and be done with it. Set up a National 401K program if you need to.
We are for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we have accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.
But we are against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those who depend on them for livelihood. They have called it insurance to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified that it was a welfare program. They only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the people.
-Ronald Reagan, 1964
Nice try liberals. It already is and has always been a welfare program.
Bush won't drop private accounts.
This is a brillant tactical move.
It allows the GOP to pass a bill that will ensure lower income workers get more social security, but also ensures that people will have private accounts.
Listen, I'm 26, I'd rather have private accounts, even if my guranteed (sic) benefits were reduced.
I'd rather take the risk with private accounts.
Bush has just shifted the debate.
He's a bloody genuis!
Me neither. Then let them opt out of paying FICA.
Of course Social Security should be means tested, viz guranteed (sic, how do you spell this?) benefits.
It's a welfare program ALREADY!
But with private accounts and means testing, Bush is letting people know that the current system benefits NO ONE.
SUCH A BRILLIANT MOVE!
Millionaires?
I have maxed out social security since 3 years out of the Army. I have done so because I busted my hump, working 7 days a week while risking home and financial ruin to achieve financial prosperity. Still work hard.
Have put in --- counting my part and the part my employer (which is me) would pay me, if the stupid law was not in effect --- over $100,000. I will put in many more $100,000s over my work life.
That was MY money.
Assuming normal life expectancy, I will get a -1.5 percent return on my money. I would do better burying the money in coffee cans in my back yard.
Why should I not at least get my own money back?
Oh I see...since you deem that they don't 'need' it, even though the money is theirs, you be happy to conficate it from them to give to someone else. Interesting.
I contribute the max, am not a 'multi-millionaire' and don't mind paying tax on the money when I would be entitled to get it.
Get your hands out of my pocket.
Why? Should there also be means testing for schools or any other government program?
Oops ... silly me, here in NJ, that's the effect of the current school funding system. We get to pay for Newark schools through income taxes (17,000/pupil) and yet again for our schools through property taxes (11,000/pupil)
Personally, I figure if I pay for the party, I get my share of the cake. Anything less means that somewhare along the middle of the income scale, there is an incentive to stop working harder. A recent example was posted (where, I forget) about somebody on SocSec making about 10thou/yr. If they needed more income for any reason, they hit a 100% tax rate between tax rates and SocSec reductions for excess income.
Means testing is usually a vicious hit on the middle class, a double tax on those who work and save.
Explain to me how you've put in $100,000's of thousands of dollars into Social Security.
How about, since we're 'means testing' SS, we also means test Medicare and prescription drug program too...there's a political 'winner'....
I mean, why should some elderly 'rich' get federally funded health-care, when they could buy health-care commercially on the market?
If they paid into the system they should get it out of the system. Otherwise it's a tax used to subsidize another group.
The REAL problem is that there are FEW people who are multi-millionaires who collect Social Security. Most of the people are just average Joes and Josettes who make a reasonable income and sock away something into their IRA and pay this TAX expecting to get some money back. They're really the ones that will end up paying with a reduce stippend for what will become the new welfare of the elderly.
Social Security is no longer a "retirement" system. They pay all sorts of benefits unrelated to retirement. Perhaps they should really look at that. Or, better yet, stop spending the trust fund money on other programs.
Sorry Hildy,
I fail to see why there should be any "means test" for Social Security.
With each paycheck, I am forced to contribute to SS with the presumption that I'll be lucky to even get back what I paid into the system - not to mention the loss of earnings had I been able to put the same money into a private investment account.
Now, Bush wants to make the SS payments back to me in my old age dependant on whether I "need them" or not. This decision will be done based on the judgement of some nameless beaurocrats in the future. I'm not happy.
This raises a question. Based on my doubts of the ability of future SS payments to provide for my old age, should I continue to invest in a 401(k) program, or am I only penalizing myself by saving money for retirement? Perhaps the SS program will decide my savings make me "rich", and will take my contributions to SS and give them to the people that spent their whole lives spending money on vacations and toys, rather than retirement. Can you tell me what the wise choice is, then, under the proposed plan? Will anyone be able to? If not, then where is the "security" in Social Security for me? It's now just another socialist income-redistribution plan, destined to punish those making wise financial choices and rewarding those making poor choices.
Between this and the immigration/border issue, I've never been more disgusted with the Republican party.
Fletcher J
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.