Most recent photo of Boehner.
Posted on 06/29/2010 8:23:18 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
“
I’ll second that.
For me it will be 53 years (so called full benefit) before I can collect the money that was stolen.”
Good to see there are people who believe in accountability...
If we are required to pay a tax for something that is supposed to be a benefit, then it’s only natural we expect a return.
For me I’m in the getting close to collecting after paying for all those years, so this whole discussion raises my attention.
In addition, lets look at other ways our tax dollars are spent, and make the hard choices to trim those areas to shore up this type of plan.
That’s what most of us do when confronted with financial challenges, or many businesses, large or small, do when they
face survival questions. ( exception O’Bummer bailout candidates)
“In addition, lets look at other ways our tax dollars are spent, and make the hard choices to trim those areas to shore up this type of plan.”
Well, for one, how about stopping billions in Foreign Aid that goes to countries that hate us. This is bribe money to keep them from funding terrorism or from producing illegal drugs, and it doesn’t work.
Stop the flow of illegal aliens into this country. It’s costing us billions also. In N.J. over 22 hospitals have gone bankrupt dur to “too much charity work”. Illegals going to the emergency room so they cannot be refused care, and don’t pay a dime. State has stopped re-imbursement to the hospitals, so they’ve been forced to sut down.
Man, I could go on and on about how this country pisses away our tax dollars.
It’s almost July. Tomorrow I can start working for me and my family. The first half of the year was for our gov’t.
” Man, I could go on and on about how this country pisses away our tax dollars.
It’s almost July. Tomorrow I can start working for me and my family. The first half of the year was for our gov’t.”
Hopefully more people will start to think like this, and elect officials like Chris Christie who look at the bigger picture, and actually start to make changes.
Well, I voted for Christie, but I am a sceptic. So far, I’m hopeful, and he wants to take on the NJEA (New Jersey Extortion Association). I’m all for that.
At least he seems to have a set of stones, and he’s got a mess to clean up after Corslime.
Tea party needs to focus on winning GOP primaries and taking over that party. Tea party and GOP on the General election ballot = democrat super-majorities.
Most recent photo of Boehner.
They are already telling us how long we can work before we collect.
By your logic I’d have access to the money immediately after I got my paycheck.
I don’t disagree that it’s a repulsive concept, but as the system stands today absent politicians with balls enough to abolish it, the retirement age should be raised to reflect higher life expectancy.
You make a good and logical point, as usual.
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio)... said that raising the retirement age by five year, indexing benefits to the rate of inflation and means-testing benefits would make the massive entitlement program more solvent.offsite:
And the Winner Is ... Social Security: The 10 Most Harmful Government Programs
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1612411/posts
The Dims created this Ponzi scheme...
“Let me see if I follow - someone makes quite a bit of money, has wise investments, etc. and work for many years and they pay into SS but when they retire they will not get the money they paid into SS because they are already rich enough without it?”
Yep, that’s it exactly, you got it!
And I’m NOT kidding with that response.
My prediction is that we are much more likely to see benefits means-tested than we are to see the retirement age rasied much higher.
By 67 (which I believe is the “last step up” to which the retirement age was raised for the younger workers coming down the line), most folks are pretty tired, physically worn, and READY for retirement. Indeed, some can work longer, but how many 70-year-old bus drivers and bricklayers do you see?
It will be much more “politically possible” to test benefits than raise the retirement age. After all, the constituency for folks who expect to get older is 100%. But for those to have an income subject to means testing? Much less (at least AT FIRST).
I expect that if this comes to pass, you (and I, and all) will have to submit a yearly “wealth statement” — significantly different than the “income statement” you submit now to the IRS.
On the “wealth statement”, you will list not only any income, but also savings, investments, real property, certain personal property, etc. — to arrive at a “wealth total” to be used by the Social Security Adminstration. You will still be awarded the same benefit that anyone else would get. HOWEVER, your monthly check from SSA will then be “offset” or reduced proportionately based upon your wealth statement.
If the wealth statement shows no assets (or nearly none), you’ll get the full amount of your benefit annuity. Some wealth (middle class), and it will be offset accordingly. I’ll guess that upper-income folks will still get a few bucks out of SSA so it can’t be said that “the government took it all and gave me nothing in return”. But I wouldn’t be surprised or shocked to see the annuity reduced by 75-90% to the most wealthy retirees.
And I’m NOT kidding about THIS, either.
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.