Reply With Quote
Even if they make just over minimum wage, they're still having their paycheck docked for SS.
Even if it has to be a mandatory thing, put that 4-6% or whatever it is being taken out of their checks into an IRA or 401k plan.
What happens if you make just enough money to get by and pay bills like rent, electricity, water, food, etc.....I know people like that and at the end of the month they have almost nothing left to save. There are alot of people who make just over minimum wage and CAN'T save.
Even if they make just over minimum wage, they're still having their paycheck docked for SS.
Even if it has to be a mandatory thing, put that 4-6% or whatever it is being taken out of their checks into an IRA or 401k plan.
yup... all jobs are required to take out for social security..no matter how little you make...
Fascism or Socialism?....though choice. I don’t think anyone is against people having the choice to decide what to do with income, but Social Security is a safety net that has worked for almost a generation, and it can continue to work for another generation if we just apply a few fixes instead of trying to rebuild the program from the ground up. If we start defunding Social Security now, which is essentially what the Bush junta plan attempts, there is no turning back later if stock market returns were to flatten out over the next two decades. Millions of people could be left devastated, and that’s not much of a safety net. I ask each of you, would you borrow money at 3%+ today and invest it in today’s stock market? This is essentially what you would have to do each and every year under the Bush Plan no matter the economic cir stances at the time.Here's a thought: come up with a seperate plan for those that you're discussing, one that helps deal with those medical costs, and let the other hundreds of millions in this country do something besides give money to SS that they have no hope of seeing come back to them down the road.
That's another thing I hate about liberals. If something's affecting someone, somewhere, the rest of the country has to suffer for it as well, instead of dealing with that cir stnace fairly and letting the rest of the country live their lives.
If you want socialism move to Cuba.
yes, i would... i could earn over 3% taking a dump...
Yeah, but now the government has had to borrow trillions of dollars to fund your and everyone else's market gamble and to meet its yearly expenses, which would be much worse in deficit if they weren't spending your yearly Social Security surplus. There is only a finite amount of money and foreign credit and when the government is forced to borrow more, that leaves businesses and consumers, like you and I, competeing for the few credit-dollars that are left. So you get higher interest rates, you see over-all consumer purchasing power decrease because businesses have to charge more for their product and services to meet their higher cost of borrowing(your dollar is worth less), and consumers are squeezed by ARMs, interest only loans, and adjustible-rate debt. And if the foreign capital that has been funding Americas deficit spending was to suddenly stop, the market would go into such a slide that millions of Americans would never recover for decades.
investing is not gambling... i take you have no money invested then?
The process to raise the retirement age needs to begin soon.
not really...
The solution is some combination of:
1) raising retirement age
2) means-testing
3) increase salary cutoff
4) ensure all workers pay in
that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
That's the second most stupidest thing I've ever heard.
they are all bad except for maybe 2..
1. it is already at 65.. you want people working til they are 70-75? wtf???
2. elaborate...
3. so, if someone pays more they will take more out.. won't fix anything..
4. most workers pay in unless they are part of a different system(i.e. my mother is a teacher and they have their own system, they don't pay into ss). even self-employed are required to pay ss..
1. Yes, increase it above 65. If we are living longer, doesn't that mean we can also work longer? I do not want to retire later when I get there, but why should the gov't pay for me if I can still be very productive?
2. People who are rich don't need SS.
3. As as been already pointed out, people do not get exactly what they put in. SS is more like insurance than a IRA or 401k.
4. Yes, there are workers in different systems but it become less workable if special classes of workers can opt out.
None of these options are very satisfying, just the hard decisions you need to make if you make to make it work.
1. wal-mart can only hire so many greeters and sam's club can only hire so many receipt checkers.. not many other companies hire over 65 people...
2. you think rich people should pay for the poor??? move to a socialist country... there should not be a disincentive to making something of yourself..
3. why do you hate the rich? make some money so you won't to try to take it away from those better off than you.
When it comes to restructuring SS, W maybe his own worst enemy
More...Some congressional Republicans who have been trying to craft a Social Security reform package say their efforts have been undercut by an unlikely source: conservatives whose top priority is to restructure the program.
As President Bush has struggled to gain traction on Social Security reform, Republicans have repeatedly criticized Democrats for refusing to negotiate on changing the en lement system.
But some say that Bush should look to his right for scapegoats if Congress does not pass a Social Security bill this year. They blame conservatives for drawing several lines in the sand and refusing to consider compromises.
...
A Senate Republican leadership aide expressed frustration with conservative groups’ rhetoric. While Bush and GOP congressional leaders say they are open to many ideas, conservatives have panned the everything-is-on-the-table approach.
...
“There is a splinter in the Republican Party on how this should be addressed,” another Senate Republican aide said.
The Hill NewsPeter Ferrara, a senior fellow at the Ins ute for Policy Innovation (IPI) who is credited as the author of the Ryan-Sununu bill, wrote an op-ed in The Washington Times two months ago that mocked the White House for trying to send the president out to sell personal accounts with a message that they don’t really solve the problem.
Ferrara wrote, “Is it any wonder then that the more George W. Bush talks about personal accounts the lower they sink in the polls?”
Ferrara told The Hill he is trying to help Republicans get on track on Social Security. He accused top Bush administration officials — including Rove and White House Chief of Staff Andy Card — of urging people to tell him to “shut the up.”
Ferrara, who is scheduled to testify on Social Security before the Senate Finance Committee today, said Rove, Card and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Josh Bolten lack expertise on the en lement system and mistakenly believe some Democrats are close to embracing the president’s plan."
i don't know what part of ss will go bankrupt that people don't understand...
1. What later are you talking about? Social Security is going to be broke in the next 10-15 years. There is no future, no "later."f we start defunding Social Security now, which is essentially what the Bush junta plan attempts, there is no turning back later if stock market returns were to flatten out over the next two decades.
2. According to the most rabid stock market guru/401k guy at our company, there is no 11 year period since WWII that the stock market that did not realize at least an 8% gain.
I don't get why you're going on about the future WRT SS. There is no future. It's going to be bankrupt. Soon.
SS isn't going bankrupt, that's just it. You've fallen for the big lie. Worst case scenario, if we do nothing they have to minimize some of the payments. If you talking about the IOU's in the SS fund, remember that those IOU's are government bonds and securities and if we can't or won't pay those back we are all ed anyway, because that would mean we have no intention of paying back our debt to anyone.i don't know what part of ss will go bankrupt that people don't understand...
you are incorrect... demos and repubs agree that in 12 years ss will be paying out more than it takes in... that is going bankrupt to me...
Not when you have a over trillion dollar hedge fund sitting in the bank.you are incorrect... demos and repubs agree that in 12 years ss will be paying out more than it takes in... that is going bankrupt to me...
Bush must hate the rich, too. From NYT:
President Bush called Thursday night for cutting Social Security benefits for future retirees to put the system on sound financial footing, and he proposed doing so in a way that would demand the most sacrifice from higher-income people while insulating low-income workers.
the most, but not A L L the sacrifice. too many times in this county the poor are looking for handouts
What I don't understand is why the President's opponents believe we're too stupid to be free and why we let them get away with overtly expressing that sentiment.
As a perfect example, I give you the New York Times:
"Survey Finds Many Have Poor Grasp of Basic Economics," reads a New York Times headline. No doubt many do, but reporter Mary Williams Walsh immediately draws policy implications that suggest she has a poor grasp of how a free society works:
To see why this argument is faulty, consider an analogous one: Most Americans don't know much about medicine, therefore the government should control health care. Or: Most Americans don't know much about journalism, therefore the government should control the press.
Americans who don't understand economics don't need the government to make their decisions for them. There are people in the private sector with the expertise to help them make their decisions. But apparently Mary Williams Walsh has never heard of accountants or financial planners.
Anyone else in here remember when Bill Clinton said we couldn't be trusted with our own money...that we would squander it if allowed to control our own incomes. Even if that's true, this is still a free country...or is it?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
