[Oldeconomybuyer]

[Slyfox]

So, we will be paying into Social Security until December.

[rexthecat]

I’m a first year Boomer (born in 1946) and I have been getting SS since I retired at age 67. I don’t see what the problem is. My check is deposited every month. And I have no complaints about Medicare either.

[stylin19a]

It’s pretty much how SS was saved in the early 80’, from an earlier death.

If we don’t privatize, what is left to do to keep it running for as long as we can ?

[Mariner]

Yep, there is no reason whatsoever that we should pay for all these benefits we’re handing out...and receiving.

It’s a communist plot I tell ya’.

At this rate the country would be solvent in 40 years.

/s

[LostInBayport]

For families making the median income, it means paying an extra $720 a year to Social Security. But that's only half the tax bite. The employer's share effectively comes out of workers' pockets as well, in the form of lower wages. So, the real increase is more like $1,400 a year.

And the self employed you get screwed like it is going out of style.

[TBP]

No, cut the rate.

[i_robot73]

And, using the Constitutional pie chart, the majority of Fedzilla would be in NON category.... Course, plenty on FR *love* 'em some Socialism ("I 'paid'", "Don't touch 'my' ") too.

[Uncle Sham]

1. Kick those receiving benefits who were not designed into the program OUT by cutting their benefits by 25% a year.

2. FREEZE current benefits at the current levels and do not give cost of living increases. Let the states themselves address cost of living issues as it will vary by state anyway.

3. Offer a one-time cash buyout to those within ten years of retirement, (perhaps 50 to 60 thousand dollars might be attractive enough to lure half of this group away from ever receiving social security benefits). In addition to this, anyone taking the buyout is forever exempt from having to pay social security taxes. This makes them attractive, older, experienced, dependable, and CHEAPER to pay for workers to potential employers. These folks will rule the job market when in our current market, they are dispensed with because of the cost they bring. Borrow whatever you need to borrow to fund this as it will more than pay for itself in dollars saved from the reduction in the number of benefits sent out.

4. Those not taking the buyout will be stuck with whatever NEW rates are agreed to by Congress.

5. These new rates will apply to everyone who is within twenty years of retirement. This will give them ample time to build their own supplemental income to offset the new rate decreased pay outs. The rates might be lower but at least these folks will be guaranteed their social security.

6. Those who are more than twenty years away from retirement will NOT receive benefits at all. They will pay social security taxes but at least the amount they have to pay will decrease with time to the point of not having to pay anything as the last recipient dies off. They will completely own their own retirement and can use it as they wish, leave it to their kids, etc.

In forty years or so, the idea that the government can own it's elderly citizens will have been eliminated. That's exactly what social security is. Government ownership of the old. Let's phase it out.

[DNME]

Cutting off benefits might sound Libertarian, but there is some solid ground underfoot here.

The Constitution precisely lists the powers of Congress and the central government. Article 1, Section 8, if you’re curious. The Tenth Amendment states any unlisted powers belong to the states or to the people, not the Feds.

Please show me where the Constitution allows the Social Security system. Or Medicare. Or even unleaded gasoline and the TSA.

Washington, D.C., should be a small town again.