Posted on 03/29/2018 9:31:30 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
How about throwing the able bodied riff raff off of welfare and have them take one of the millions of jobs now available. It really pi$$es me off that their check is more sacrosanct than a Social Security check earned over 50 years of work.
This will be SS fund social equity redistribution take from the "haves" and give to the "have nots", won'ts, don'ts, never wills and non-english speakers currently flooding the system. It will be disguised as keeping SS self funding.
They will evaluate the SS payments as a percentage of total personal retirement (or entitlement) income and personal net worth. Then they will assign a "cap" based on some GAO study where they decide the "haves" will have too much. When that number is decided they will meter out the SS payments as supplemental payments not to exceed the aggregate personal cap. You can readily see some will max out an never see $1 of their "guaranteed" SS retirement income.
If you don't already think that is happening, look at income taxes. They are already doing it, it is just cloaked as income tax. Social security is taxed on a graduated scale depending on you tax status. I pay regular income tax on 85% of my SS payment.
Muckraker? Muckraker?
You take that back!!!
I’m more like a Muckhoer.
That didn’t come out right.
That’s my kids problem. And no I don’t feel guilty in the least. I’ve been footing the bill for wars and welfare and scholarships and such for over 40 years. They can take the SS saddle.
Which really isn’t so much an issue than nitpicking the elderly, when one considers that about half of those paying into SS never live long enough to collect and those that do collect, will do so for 5 to 10 years before they also die. It may be said a 65yo ‘died so young’ but that’s hardly ever said of a 75yo.
I think that name is copyrighted to CNN.
The point is to make people, like many on this site who call SS recipients leaches on the young, feel righteous.
So it’s OK for the government to steal more money from us because supposedly we won’t need it later? I do not think so!
It could be your problem, your kids problem, or your grandkids. Or all 3.
It appears we have a greater responsibilty to subsidize socialism in other nations through our military exertions than we do to fulfill our commitments to American retirees who have paid into the system all their life. People like Rubio who drone on endlessly about committments to foreigners never seem to repect obligations to Americans.
Ohhhhhhh.......
Well, I don’t want a lawsuit over that.
They’ve earned that name.
40% of our retirements come from SS - we could subsist w/o it but not enjoy our retirement as we do...we paid for it w/o options to go a different route so we planned it into the mix. If SS was our only avenue, we’d be up the proverbial creek w/o a paddle.
Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! That is exactly what the article is about, reducing or eliminating SS by means testing.
The article is pure bull shite.
Nope. Not me. I am old. I consider very few things my problem any more. As for kids and grandkids, we built them a great world so they’ll figure it out. We did. And our parents did. No guilt trip for me. I want my investment back, and I expect it like clockwork every month just like it was taken. It’s not up for discussion on whether I ‘need’ it nor not. It’s my money and the only thing in life I am ‘entitled’ to from the government. Cough it up. Or I’ll leave my estate to my cat’s nonprofit trust.
I’ve been retired for almost four years and could have started collecting SS two years ago. My retirement planning never factored in SS as I wasn’t sure it would still be there for me. When I hit 66 I’ll reassess and decide when I should start getting SS.
There is no legal right to Social Security, and that is one of the considerations that may decide the coming debate over Social Security reform.
Many people believe that Social Security is an “earned right.” That is, they think that because they have paid Social Security taxes, they are entitled to receive Social Security benefits. The government encourages that belief by referring to Social Security taxes as “contributions,” as in the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. However, in the 1960 case of Fleming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that workers have no legally binding contractual rights to their Social Security benefits, and that those benefits can be cut or even eliminated at any time.
...saying “To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of ‘accrued property rights’ would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever changing conditions which it demands.” The Court went on to say, “It is apparent that the non-contractual interest of an employee covered by the [Social Security] Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments.”
In an earlier case, Helvering v. Davis (1937), the Court had ruled that Social Security was not a contributory insurance program, saying, “The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way.”
In other words, Social Security is not an insurance program at all. It is simply a payroll tax on one side and a welfare program on the other. Your Social Security benefits are always subject to the whim of 535 politicians in Washington. Congress has cut Social Security benefits in the past and is likely to do so in the future. In fact, given Social Security’s financial crisis, benefit cuts are almost inevitable. Several proposals to cut benefits, from increasing the retirement age to means testing, are already being debated.
Link: https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/is-there-right-social-security
I think that name is copyrighted to CNN.
No, that would be Muckwhore.
If I won’t depend on when I retire, then stop taking it from me now.
Do I ‘depend’ on SS? Maybe a little. It supplements income from my investments. If there were no SS I would survive.
- UNLESS you're a dem sponsored illegal alien invader, in which case you get benefits even if you never paid into the trust fund.
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.