Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: abb

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?


158 posted on 06/29/2010 9:46:15 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies ]


To: ilovesarah2012
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?

Yes.

161 posted on 06/29/2010 9:49:53 AM PDT by abb ("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies ]

To: ilovesarah2012

Well it would make an honest man out of the Social Security Adminsitration if it just became a full fledged transfer of wealth.


178 posted on 06/29/2010 10:08:46 AM PDT by RockinRight (I can see November from here!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies ]

To: ilovesarah2012

“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.


272 posted on 07/14/2010 12:06:18 PM PDT by Grumplestiltskin (I may look new, but it's only deja vu!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson