Proposed budget via NY times

[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?

[Princess Doreen]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

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

If that's the case, then how many wealthy people would give it back to the government. You and I were just saying what we would do.

No matter how wealthy a person is, I'm sure they'd still stoop down to pick up loose change on the ground.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

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

I would venture that far more than the amount the wealthy collect in SS is donated to charity by them. Of course I am talking about the real wealthy not a family of four earning $200K.

[Riot]

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.

I think that's a kind of forced charity, rather than reaping the just rewards of the insurance you've paid into your whole life.

Why should someone be punished for being successful? SS isn't a handout, it's insurance.

[dalakhani]

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.

I completely agree. I think there should be restrictions and that SS recipients should have to prove need/eligibility. At this rate, it will come to that anyway and if we start it NOW we can actually use that money to help fix our current crisis.