fix ss get congress to quit raiding the fund where do think congress gets the money for pork barrel projects

Reply

While many may be against raising the retirement age further, I think it should be raised further. It could be raised to 68 for those born after 1970, 69 for those born after 1980 and 70 for those born after 1990. Any cuts in benefits could be tied to taking benefits at the normal retirement age, whatever age that might be for the given individual versus a higher payout for waiting and extra five years.

Secondly, and this is something nobody talks about; it is estimated that by 2050 our population will soar from its current 300 million to approximately 440 million. As far as I know, there is no age limit for people to immigrate to the US. We need to reduce the age for immigration to no more than 30 years of age. The idea is not to stifle immigration but to promote immigration to younger people, people who will marry and have babies. We cannot allow older immigrants to come to America, work for only fifteen years, and then collect full benefits. As our population becomes increasingly older, we need to reduce the average age of Americans by increasing the percentage of our younger population. Since almost all of our population increase over the next forty years has been assumed due to immigration (Americans aren't having enough babies to increase the population from within) those immigrants must be young.

Reply

How come when President Bush wanted to address Social Security, the left all lined up and said there was nothing wrong with it??? Now, the same people are mentioning that we need to address this problem????

Reply

I do agree with the fact that a person with a half million in the bank or properties or whatever should not be able to collect the same benefits ( if any at all ) as the person with five thousand dollars. Sure they paid in and yatta yatta but there should be a limit on who gets the money in retirement. When it was founded Social Security was a widow's benefit because men lived to be roughly 60 and women lived to be 65 ( maybe not exact figures but close ) and now we all live 20 more years. I also agree witjh Rich in that there should be an age limit for immigration, try emigrating to Australia or New Zealand, they have age requirements as well as occupational requirements. If everyone chips in it could just be more affordable.

Reply

Allowing people to invest in their own retirement accounts is a bad idea?

What do you think a 401(k) plan is?

Amey is woefully un-educated on this subject. Social Security was never intended to be a catch all retirement program. It was originally supposed to be a supplemental program. Over the years it has been bastardized to the point that we give benefits to people who have never even paid in to the social security fund.

The best thing for social security would be for the government to make it a completely voluntary program. If you decide to pay into it, those funds would be invested in a 401(k) fund, with a quarterly statement sent out, like with all of the other 401(k) plans. If you decide to not pay into the social security 401(k) then your retirement is up to you.

Where in the constitution does it say the government is responsible for everyone's retirement?

Reply

calvin is right the baby boomers put a lot of money in the fund but thanks to pres. Johnson took the fund and put it in the general fund then they just started using the money and writing iou's to it ,our problem was caused by the goverment , they seem to be the ones who causes most of our problems

Reply

I am 68 and have started collecting SS. When I was working for many years I went over the SS limit in the fall and enjoyed the "bonus" I received by not paying the 6.2% for the last few months. As I look back that was wrong. I think that instead of a gap or donut like Medicare part D the cap should just be taken off and all income hit with the 6.2% for both the employee and employer. If needed the percentage could be raised for those over a certain limit, e.g., the $250,000 Obama suggests. Finally, we should look at the CPI used and adjust for changes in buying habits.

Reply

The quickest way to help social security is to eliminate the cap of $106,800.00. Let the people who make more contribute more.

Reply

The easiest way (and perhaps fairest) to preserve Social Security is to have the FICA tax apply to incomes over $95,000 or so. Currently only the first $95,000 (approximately) is taxed by FICA. All Americans, however, should receive their benefit if they payed into the system. Most will agree that a progressive tax system is appropriate as the so-called "rich" can afford to pay more. But not allowing them to collect any benefits is blatant socialism (income redistribution) and essentially a penalty on being successful. Keep in mind that the richest 5% already pay a whopping 60% of the federal taxes.

Reply

Apparently the idea of 'saving' for a person’s retirement has somehow become the responsibility of your selected officials and not that of the individual.

"And those that know what's best for us must rise and save us from ourselves."

Raising the rate isn't the answer. We already have an effective 13% rate as it is. That is approximately 1/3rd of the total immediate taxes paid by the average taxpayer. It isn't that SS isn't getting enough money. Look at the pie chart on the back of your Federal tax booklet to see where it is going if you doubt that.

Increasing the age of retirement isn't the answer. It offsets the problem by a decade or so, but all that does is effectively hand it to yet-another-administration that will, as has been done for over a decade now, proclaim critical mass on a problem the government, in fact, created in the first place.

Eliminating benefits for higher-incomes is nothing more than flat-out robbery. It doesn't matter whether someone makes 25K, 250K, or 2.5mil per year. The same argument people make now, "Our retiring workers were counting on this, as it was promised to them, and now it won't be there" can be said for higher incomes, but for completely different reasons. They may not be ‘counting’ on it, but what business is that of yours? Whether you like it or not, and try to see this without the 'have.vs.have-not' glasses on, those same higher-income workers were made the same promises by the same people. That they earned more, saved more, and with any luck, have more, should not be used in considering whether the money is 'needed'. It is, in fact, *theirs* as was set up by SS during the time they paid in. They were made the same promises.

Social Security is the fundamental poster child of what goes wrong when a well-intended, and above all, *limited* government program grows by targeted ‘solutions’ to problems that are, in fact, not government’s responsibility. Over the decades it continued to grow in encompassed territory as more and more government officials sought out more and more things to cover under its umbrella In most cases it was (and still is) short-sighted ‘solutions’ that accomplished one thing above all else: securing block of voters for increased political power. The result is an indentured servant society we have before us today.

There is only one solution, and it is virtually impossible for anyone with a social-adeptness for government interaction to stomach.

1. Reduce benefits. Period. Limit the scope of what is covered, stop adding ‘crisis issues’ to the umbrella of social security and start pulling them back out.
2. Take Social Security OFF the federal budget. Currently the trust fund is completely empty, filled with nothing by IOUs written by congress. Every year since LBJ (yes, that includes Clinton and Bush) congress has raided the fund of all its assets, spent the money, and dropped an IOU back in, a ‘loan’ from the taxpayer to the government. If you think for a minute that the date when there is more going out than coming in is a problem, just wait until the day after when we all finally fess up and realize the money isn’t there at all. Taking it off budget means congress can’t take it (nor can the president, not that he ever could). It would be ear-marked ONLY for what it is intended. Of course, the side effect of that is a budget deficit that will skyrocket since we’re no longer spending everyone’s retirement fund. That’s another topic (though eerily similar to this one).

And it will never happen. Ultimately it is about power. The sacred cows of government, Social Security and the home mortgage interest deduction, will *never* be reduced or eliminated because doing so will accomplish the polar opposite of the end result an elected official strives for: reelection. You can’t touch this problem, regardless of the legitimacy in doing so, without taking things OFF the sow of Social Security.

Reply

Something came to my attention when I recently went through a divorce in regards to Social Security. As long as a couple was married for at least 10 years, you are entitled to half of the amount that your X spouse is eligible for, while at the same time your X receives 100% of their Social Security. With today’s divorce rate, this could be making a significant negative impact on the reserves of Social Security. Although I am in agreement that a spouse should receive half, why is it that your X partner still receives 100%. I think your X spouse should only be eligible to receive 50% of their original eligible amount…this should be the price you pay for choosing to divorce and the rest of society shouldn’t have to pay for and risk the entire structure of Social Security from multiple marriages and divorces. It would be interesting to analyze what is lost in Social Security from paying out 1 1/2 X more than someone paid in and actually eligible for and if someone was married twice (more than 10 years each), double would be paid out compared to what they were originally eligible for.

Reply

First, stop the draining of Social Security funds into the General Fund.

Second, all monies taken from Social Security and used as the General Fund are to be repaid, in full, with interest.

Third, Social Security in its initial design was to be a Retirement Suppliment. It was never designed to be sole source of retirement income. People need to be re-educated to this fact.

Fourth, Being a retirement suppliment, Social Security should not be used for Welfare payments. IF a welfare fund is needed, establish one.

Reply

First fix is to require everyone to pay in. That means everyone. All government workers, all public employees - including the President. No exceptions. Everyone pays at the same rates, including the medicare piece which stops for noone regardless of income level. Every employed person, including self-employed persons pays in. That would improve the intake dramatically. I would like to know the number of people currently exempt, the income being earned by those individuals and the lost social security payments.

Once we get every one paying in, then we need to have money managers who get compensated based on how the earnings are. The fund loses money, so do they. It makes money, they are compensated fairly (not excessively) based on that.

Reply

Society should take care of it's own retirement. People should save their own money for their retirements. Why should the government determine how much of the money we put in should be given back to us. Social security at this point is just more money for the government to spend on rediculous projects. I will take care of my parents and hope that my children will care for me when the time comes that I can't work. In the mean time I will put away money for myself, ,it would just be nice if I didn't have to feed money into social security and my own account at the same time. The elderly in this country have lost the respect of the younger generations. We should all be happy to help out the people who did so much for us. Family is supposed to be social security not government.

Reply

Wake up America! There is NO, I said NO Social Security fund. SS TAXES, yes, I said Taxes, (you pay tax on the money deducted from your pay for SS, that means you are taxed twice, and then, lucky you, a third time when you get to collect you get taxed again, unless you are near the poverty line. All these TAXES go right into the general fund, that's right, this money is then spent by congress like drunken sailors (pardon me you real sailors).. If nothing is done over the next decade or so to fix this charade, SS payments will account for much of the entire federal budget. Congress, especially the dems and the MSM will not touch this problem...The so called "third rail" of politics...to go there is tatamount to political death. What does it take for Americans to wake up and demand reform?

Reply

Social Security reform is needed and included in this should be a saw stating that people like King George could not dip into it to support a attack on places like Iraq or anywhere else. Than get rid of some of the people working for this administration that are to put bluntly lazy and do not care about anything but their next coffee break, so in essence are nothing but taking up space. This cuts costs of operation the same applies to IRS etc.

Reply