Posted on 11/15/2010 6:18:44 AM PST by MichCapCon
NO! They should immediately change the law so that people can OPT OUT of this horrible program.
I WANT OUT! You can even keep my donations up to this point!
They reduced the retirement payout for military to 40% under Clinton... and found that they soon had a severe shortage of volunteers for the job.
So they then raised it back up again and the recruits came back.
You have to offer enough compensation to attract a workforce. And it looks like people are willing to live with the poor pay and hazards of the military in return for a good retirement check early on and some form of medical care.
I guess we could drop those and just double everyone’s pay to compensate.
That’s not a bad idea...
Simple solution: Adjust the retirement age every year to maintain break-even solvency. Booms and busts are realized not as savings (which get stolen) and deficits (which never get repaid) but in having to work a little longer or shorter than expected.
If voters want to retire earlier, (and don’t have their own savings) they can vote to cut benefits for illegals, disabled, etc.
Forget the refund (that could run into the trillions). At this point, I'd be happy if they'd just stop robbing us! *grrr!*
Element Social Security put everyone who is on retirement and put them on welfare and when they die take the house and sell to recover the loss.
Sounds like a true progressive program,at the rate they are going it looks like it could happen.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Do not raise the age. Make the politicians pay double SS taxes and see if they like that.
Military retirement begins at 38 years old. But for what is done for that and the measly pay it is perfectly good to not change a thing. The one thing I would do for the military retirees is not take federal taxes from it.
Yeah.
Sweet deal for the gvt early on.
Let’s face it, they’re going to raise the age. Did anyone not really know that in the back of their mind for the last decade or two?
They’ll probably raise the tax too, but not too much.
Cutting bennies is a political no-no, so that aint gonna happen.
Do away with socialist security.
LLS
Every penny over 108,000 does not get SS Taxes. Who thought of that nonsense? It should be for all income and then we would not be in this mess.
I’m pretty close to the top 5%. Years ago I could have increased my earning significantly by foregoing a pension and 401k, like 25% earning in those years. I took the long view, in part because a lot of the 25% would have gone to taxes and in part because I didn’t want to be dependent on Social Security. In addition, my wife never really made a living, so I wanted to provide for her. I always suspected that the ants would gang up on the grasshoppers by the time I was ready to retire.
Yup!
They should offer buyouts to people at really unfavorable discount rates.
I’d probably take it, and I bet a lot of ther people would too. A bird in the hand, and all that.
And it would really help their balance sheet.
I remember something from my federal socialist learning days. One large reason for forcing the SS ponzi scheme on the subjects was to free up jobs for the young people.
I always thought that was more important then taking care of our elderly when they got to old to work. Family took care of them. Can you believe that? Americans use to have moral fiber. Many still do but many more believe the fedgov.con is responsible for the care of the elderly and the young and even the incubators who hatch more nanny tit sucking socialists.
I am 54, and the answer is “yes”, along with some other freeloaders who need to be slapped back from the trough.
And in 1936, the contribution (employer and employee) was what percentage of income?
Any system that takes 15% of your income for life and is going broke can only be run by the government.
Further, how is changing the retirement age going to change the other big problem with Social security - disability payments - which have skyrocketed over the past 20 years.
I may try that out for a tagline and hope the PC police dont raid my house and send me to socialist studies camp
You have hit on a great point. In 1935 families were ‘units’ with several children, able and capable of taking care of elderly widowed parents. With women staying at home it was not only the ‘right thing to do’; grandparents also helped raise the grandchildren. Most couples only had 4 elderly parents to worry about.
Today, with ‘blended’ families; there are dozens of elderly ‘step’ grandparents and great grandparents, with complex degrees of separation and connection to working couples or singles - who have no time, resources, or space to take care of them.
We have effectively destroyed the family unit and outsourced care to profit centers. Social Security does not come close to meeting that financial burden.
I forgot the fedgov part bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.