Proposed budget via NY times

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Princess Doreen

According to "some" people, the government can just tweak it and make it alright. Tweak meaning raise the % rate or the amount on which people have to pay, increase the retirement age to 75 or 80. Yup, you younger generation has absolutely nothing to worry about. Just keep paying into the Ponzi scheme.

None of that has to be done. No retirement age raises, no change in benefits.

If the cap is simply raised from the current $106,800 to about $200,000, SS is flush and readily funded for about 70 more years. If the cap is simply eliminated, SS has a surplus.

The Senate Democratic plan is to simply raise the cap. The Senate Republican plan is to take away benefits and raise the retirement age, as they don't want rich people paying more, so they will take from those least able to afford it (those making less than $106,800 per year)

"Out there" plans include means testing (so the rich don't get social security or as much, in spite of paying in) or privatizing it so Wall Street has control of your retirement fund.

Which should the country choose?

A good article on what doing different tweeks to SS will do in the long run:

While all proposals put a dent in the shortfall, completely eliminating the cap without increasing benefits actually creates a long-term surplus, and eliminating the cap while increasing benefits comes close. The nature of Social Security as a social insurance, rather than welfare, program suggests that the latter proposal may be more palatable, as it retains the connection between what wage-earners pay into Social Security and what they get out of it.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...s_could_r.html

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by Riot

None of that has to be done. No retirement age raises, no change in benefits.

If the cap is simply raised from the current $106,800 to about $200,000, SS is flush and readily funded for about 70 more years. If the cap is simply eliminated, SS has a surplus.

The Senate Democratic plan is to simply raise the cap. The Senate Republican plan is to take away benefits and raise the retirement age, as they don't want rich people paying more, so they will take from those least able to afford it (those making less than $106,800 per year)

"Out there" plans include means testing (so the rich don't get social security or as much, in spite of paying in) or privatizing it so Wall Street has control of your retirement fund.

Which should the country choose?

A good article on what doing different tweeks to SS will do in the long run:

Just curious what are your feeling about a proposal to raise the health insurance premiums on working class Retirees. Yet the Retirees wont get any type of raise and yet thier health premium might be going up. Im confident you are all for it and many others are for it.

Some is some reading reading for you:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

Just curious what are your feeling about a proposal to raise the health insurance premiums on working class Retirees. Yet the Retirees wont get any type of raise and yet thier health premium might be going up.

What are you talking about? Private retirees or Medicare recipients?

Im confident you are all for it and many others are for it.

Then don't bother to ask my opinion if you are sure you can read my mind. Buh bye.

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by Riot

What are you talking about? Private retirees or Medicare recipients?


Then don't bother to ask my opinion if you are sure you can read my mind. Buh bye.

Military retirees who are of the working class age. Did I say anything about Medicare DUH.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

Military retirees who are of the working class age. Did I say anything about Medicare DUH.

That's why I asked, because you didn't say anything about anything. DUH.

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by Riot

That's why I asked, because you didn't say anything about anything. DUH.

I guess it was hard for you to decipher what a working class retiree is?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

I guess it was hard for you to decipher what a working class retiree is?

Well, Nascar, a working class retiree is NOT most usually a veteran. MOST USUALLY they are on Medicare.

That's why I politely asked you what you meant.

You're an idiot. I give up. Talk to yourself.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

Military retirees who are of the working class age. Did I say anything about Medicare DUH.

anyone not of ss age, but retired-raise it. after all, someone with 20 years in could be all of 38 years old...
they need to raise the length of service to qualify for retirement from the military.

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by Danzig

anyone not of ss age, but retired-raise it. after all, someone with 20 years in could be all of 38 years old...
they need to raise the length of service to qualify for retirement from the military.

Twnety years is alot more than four years. If im wrong say it but doesnt the President collect a pension if they only serve one term? If I was allowed to I would of gladly stayed in the military longer.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

Twnety years is alot more than four years. If im wrong say it but doesnt the President collect a pension if they only serve one term? If I was allowed to I would of gladly stayed in the military longer.

i think they do collect a 'pension'. had something to do with men like monroe and grant dying broke, living on the charity of others after a lifetime of service. i don't agree that congress members should get a lifelong retirement, honestly they may have to revisit the presidents stipend in view of the salaries earned in speaking fees, etc. but i can see the former chief exec getting money after serving.

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

Just curious what are your feeling about a proposal to raise the health insurance premiums on working class Retirees. Yet the Retirees wont get any type of raise and yet thier health premium might be going up. Im confident you are all for it and many others are for it.

Some is some reading reading for you:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

I'm not against charging more for their Insurance. Mine just doubled. No B.S. Doubled. I can't afford to keep paying for everyone else's sh1t I have another $500 oil bill this month. Wouldn't it be fair if you people living in the sunny south were gonna start kicking up for that? I want my Global Warming!

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

I'm not against charging more for their Insurance. Mine just doubled. No B.S. Doubled. I can't afford to keep paying for everyone else's sh1t I have another $500 oil bill this month. Wouldn't it be fair if you people living in the sunny south were gonna start kicking up for that? I want my Global Warming!

I feel sorry for you about your rate doubling. Was there a legit reason given to you as to why it doubled?

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

I feel sorry for you about your rate doubling. Was there a legit reason given to you as to why it doubled?

OBAMACARE!!

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

OBAMACARE!!

Riot will disagree with you and say it is not Obamacare. Riot will also say you know nothing about Obamacare. Has Riot read the over 2000 page document? NOTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[dellinger63]

[quote=SOREHOOF;752635] sickening

[Princess Doreen]

Originally Posted by Riot

None of that has to be done. No retirement age raises, no change in benefits.

If the cap is simply raised from the current $106,800 to about $200,000, SS is flush and readily funded for about 70 more years. If the cap is simply eliminated, SS has a surplus.

And you really think that just raising the cap to $200K will solve the problem?

Look at how the full retirement age has risen 2 years and % amounts of SS paid out prior to 67 have diminished -

http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/retirechart.htm

You really think that in 30 or 40 years, the full SS benefit retirement age will not have risen to 70, 72, maybe even 75 years of age? It's the only way SS will survive - gotta make sure some of those old timers die off before they can collect.

One of the most unfair benefits in the SS program is allowing a spouse who never worked a day in her life to collect 50% of her husband's social security when both he and she reach maximum retirement age. I have a friend whose husband was a bank executive making a huge salary. She is collecting half of his SS and it amounts to more than what I collect - my having worked 40 years putting into the system. That's one of the entitlements in the SS program that can be done away with or drastically reduced.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Princess Doreen

And you really think that just raising the cap to $200K will solve the problem?

That's what the math says - better if the cap removed entirely, as the article says, because that makes a surplus so benefits can go up. Imagine that. Solvent SS for decade after decade, and better benefits for all.

The Dems are all for that, it's the GOP that doesn't want to do it. That is why I am tired of banging my head against the stubborn silliness of the GOP.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Princess Doreen

And you really think that just raising the cap to $200K will solve the problem?

Look at how the full retirement age has risen 2 years and % amounts of SS paid out prior to 67 have diminished -

http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/retirechart.htm

You really think that in 30 or 40 years, the full SS benefit retirement age will not have risen to 70, 72, maybe even 75 years of age? It's the only way SS will survive - gotta make sure some of those old timers die off before they can collect.

One of the most unfair benefits in the SS program is allowing a spouse who never worked a day in her life to collect 50% of her husband's social security when both he and she reach maximum retirement age. I have a friend whose husband was a bank executive making a huge salary. She is collecting half of his SS and it amounts to more than what I collect - my having worked 40 years putting into the system. That's one of the entitlements in the SS program that can be done away with or drastically reduced.

I personally think that if someone has a huge amount of wealth when they retire, they should opt out of recieving SS. It is unneeded if you have millions in the bank.

[Princess Doreen]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I personally think that if someone has a huge amount of wealth when they retire, they should opt out of recieving SS. It is unneeded if you have millions in the bank.

If I was in that category, I'd still collect my SS benefit and donate it to a worthy person/cause of my choice. That would give me much more satisfaction that letting the government keep it.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Princess Doreen

If I was in that category, I'd still collect my SS benefit and donate it to a worthy person/cause of my choice. That would give me much more satisfaction that letting the government keep it.

that is a better idea! but how many wealthy people would actually do that?