How about combining Society Security and Unemployment Insurance together.
The way it would work is if you need Unemployment Insurance during your life time it would come from your Society Security. Making it the reasonability of the individual to use his allotment on Unemployment Insurance or save it for Society Security retirement.
If a individual use it on Unemployment Insurance then he has the option to pay it back once he finds work to bring his/her Society Security to full benefit. He/she does not then they get less Society Security. It would be their reasonability.
What do you think of this idea (1)?
-
Skeeterman
- Posts: 1988
- Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 5:21 am
- Location: Skeeterville CA.
Re: What do you think of this idea (1)?
Good idea the only problem is it's to easy to do and the govs don't like easy.
Re: What do you think of this idea (1)?
Any one else - how about Liberals and Libertarinsa chiming in!
Re: What do you think of this idea (1)?
It needs to go into a lockbox with laws in place making it impossible for politicians to get their greedy *** fingers into it.
Re: What do you think of this idea (1)?
Great idea Marty!
Here's a few others:
-Limit S.S to 10-12 years max.starting in 2016 for everyone. If you died before drawing on the benefit your spouse or kids receive what you paid into the system (In Full). \
[S.S was never meant to draw on the entitlement for life]
-If you want S.S for life then you’ll pay 15 percent more in S.S taxes starting now. If you stop paying into it for more than (3) years, you default to receiving S.S benefits for 10 years.
-if you don’t like either plan, then you can forfeit your benefits for life, and eliminate the tax.
-if you weren’t born in this country you cannot receive S.S benefits, and you’re not required to pay the tax.
Ed
Here's a few others:
-Limit S.S to 10-12 years max.starting in 2016 for everyone. If you died before drawing on the benefit your spouse or kids receive what you paid into the system (In Full). \
[S.S was never meant to draw on the entitlement for life]
-If you want S.S for life then you’ll pay 15 percent more in S.S taxes starting now. If you stop paying into it for more than (3) years, you default to receiving S.S benefits for 10 years.
-if you don’t like either plan, then you can forfeit your benefits for life, and eliminate the tax.
-if you weren’t born in this country you cannot receive S.S benefits, and you’re not required to pay the tax.
Ed
-
b2customrods
- Posts: 136
- Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 2:41 pm
- Location: Newark, Ca.
- Contact:
Re: What do you think of this idea (1)?
So I retire at 65 and can only draw on my SS for ten years after paying in for fifty. I run out of my benefit at 75 but I may live another ten or more years.
What about the truly disabled? Should we just say "Sorry you get to starve"
Ya know, there are allot of folks that are not as well off as most of us here. Some depend on SS when they can no longer work or are not able to find work due to there age (Yes employers discriminate due to age!) What are they to do?
You want to fix SS? Then give it to only those that have paid in. Tell the politicians to keep there mits off the money.
As far as unemployment. I hope none of you 50+ year olds loose your job.
If it wasnt for my wife I wouldnt be able to live here in Ca.
What about the truly disabled? Should we just say "Sorry you get to starve"
Ya know, there are allot of folks that are not as well off as most of us here. Some depend on SS when they can no longer work or are not able to find work due to there age (Yes employers discriminate due to age!) What are they to do?
You want to fix SS? Then give it to only those that have paid in. Tell the politicians to keep there mits off the money.
As far as unemployment. I hope none of you 50+ year olds loose your job.
If it wasnt for my wife I wouldnt be able to live here in Ca.
Re: What do you think of this idea (1)?
"So I retire at 65 and can only draw on my SS for ten years after paying in for fifty."
The taxes you paid into the system for those years would not even come close to what you're going to draw for the next 10-12 years. Add increases in inflation verses what you earned at 15 years old to retire age and that's if you paid S.S taxes until retirement age and you'll have the answer.........
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Agreed regarding the handling/managing of Social Security funds by the U.S government. Another well manage debacle of Washington.
Unfortunately, the funds are spent so arguing the why’s and who’s to blame in Government solves nothing moving forward.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The bottom line, there are not enough people paying into the system to handle the millions of baby boomers retiring in the next few decades. The ones drawing on the system earlier than expected taxes the system even more and are not accounted for in long term CBO forecast. As each year passes, the 3 to 1 tax payer ratio declines to 2.2 -1 in 2030. And the United States Government cannot simply continue to print money out of thin air to handle the deficit the entitlement system presents moving forward.
The country is flat broke, value of dollar continuing to decline..........means the entitlement system has to change. –No choice, numbers don’t lie……….
There are people that prepared financially and saved for a rainy day [retirement], and then there are those (baby boomers) that did nothing but lived financially recklessly beyond their means. [The 2008 debacle is an excellent example when you look at the amount of bankrupcies reported.]
To think S.S. is a safety net to receive benefits indefinitely is not realistic or reasonable regardless of the case. And the country’s current financial dilemma means we have no choice but to implement limits or changes. There’s no difference increasing the retirement age verses setting time limits for everyone.
This is difficult to accept considering the catastrophic events (health) that occur in life, but S.S/Government resources are not and never were designed to take on millions to just simply live off the system for 25-35 years.
Social Security payouts should be based on what you put into the system. When those funds are exhaust who's responsible to pick up the short fall?
Government?
At some point, people need to take personal responsibility for planning their financial situation in their own lives.
Age discrimination?
Nothing new here, age discrimination for 50’s plus exist for years. Again, long term realistic planning and living within your means to handle a job loss or career change is what in order. We cannot control corporate decisions that deviate from labor laws in every aspect of hiring, but we can control our personal financial income and how to obtain it. This is a personal decision and responsibility, And not the Government or business.
Ed
The taxes you paid into the system for those years would not even come close to what you're going to draw for the next 10-12 years. Add increases in inflation verses what you earned at 15 years old to retire age and that's if you paid S.S taxes until retirement age and you'll have the answer.........
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Agreed regarding the handling/managing of Social Security funds by the U.S government. Another well manage debacle of Washington.
Unfortunately, the funds are spent so arguing the why’s and who’s to blame in Government solves nothing moving forward.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The bottom line, there are not enough people paying into the system to handle the millions of baby boomers retiring in the next few decades. The ones drawing on the system earlier than expected taxes the system even more and are not accounted for in long term CBO forecast. As each year passes, the 3 to 1 tax payer ratio declines to 2.2 -1 in 2030. And the United States Government cannot simply continue to print money out of thin air to handle the deficit the entitlement system presents moving forward.
The country is flat broke, value of dollar continuing to decline..........means the entitlement system has to change. –No choice, numbers don’t lie……….
There are people that prepared financially and saved for a rainy day [retirement], and then there are those (baby boomers) that did nothing but lived financially recklessly beyond their means. [The 2008 debacle is an excellent example when you look at the amount of bankrupcies reported.]
To think S.S. is a safety net to receive benefits indefinitely is not realistic or reasonable regardless of the case. And the country’s current financial dilemma means we have no choice but to implement limits or changes. There’s no difference increasing the retirement age verses setting time limits for everyone.
This is difficult to accept considering the catastrophic events (health) that occur in life, but S.S/Government resources are not and never were designed to take on millions to just simply live off the system for 25-35 years.
Social Security payouts should be based on what you put into the system. When those funds are exhaust who's responsible to pick up the short fall?
Government?
At some point, people need to take personal responsibility for planning their financial situation in their own lives.
Age discrimination?
Nothing new here, age discrimination for 50’s plus exist for years. Again, long term realistic planning and living within your means to handle a job loss or career change is what in order. We cannot control corporate decisions that deviate from labor laws in every aspect of hiring, but we can control our personal financial income and how to obtain it. This is a personal decision and responsibility, And not the Government or business.
Ed
-
b2customrods
- Posts: 136
- Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 2:41 pm
- Location: Newark, Ca.
- Contact:
Re: What do you think of this idea (1)?
You may want to go back and read on SS. There is nothing in it that says it was never intended to be used as a safety net or used indefinitely. It was created as a benefit to retirees with a lump sum benefit at death.
Creation: The Social Security Act
The Social Security Act was drafted during Roosevelt's first term by the President's Committee on Economic Security, under Frances Perkins, and passed by Congress as part of the New Deal. The act was an attempt to limit what were seen as dangers in the modern American life, including old age, poverty, unemployment, and the burdens of widows and fatherless children. By signing this act on August 14, 1935, President Roosevelt became the first president to advocate federal assistance for the elderly.[12]
Provisions of the Act
The Act is formally cited as the Social Security Act, ch. 531, 49 Stat. 620, now codified as 42 U.S.C. ch.7. The Act provided benefits to retirees and the unemployed, and a lump-sum benefit at death. Payments to current retirees are financed by a payroll tax on current workers' wages, half directly as a payroll tax and half paid by the employer. The act also gave money to states to provide assistance to aged individuals (Title I), for unemployment insurance (Title III), Aid to Families with Dependent Children (Title IV), Maternal and Child Welfare (Title V), public health services (Title VI), and the blind (Title X).[12]
If you want to make it so that there is a limit on the benefit that is fine. Lets make it though that I can invest the amount that would be taken out of my check for ss in either ss or a private retirement fund. Lets also not punish those that are on ss currently and make those changes to those that are not and for the future. To tell an 80 yo lady that sorry the ss game has changed and you have been paid more than you put in so were cutting you off. Are you going to let all the current ss recipients starve and live out on the streets?
The following is taken from the wiki on SS concerning ss vs. the private retirement investment.
Claim that it gives a low rate of return
Critics of Social Security [131] claim that it gives a low rate of return, compared to what is obtained through private retirement accounts. For example, critics point out [131] that under the Social Security laws as they existed at that time, several thousand employees of Galveston County, Texas were allowed to opt out of the Social Security program in the early 1980s, and have their money placed in a private retirement plan instead. While employees who earned $50,000 per year would have collected $1,302 per month in Social Security benefits, the private plan paid them $6,843 per month. While employees who earned $20,000 per year would have collected $775 per month in Social Security benefits, the private plan paid them $2,740 per month, at interest rates prevailing in 1996.[131] While some advocates of privatization of Social Security point to the Galveston pension plan as a model for Social Security reform, critics point to a GAO report[132] to the House Ways and Means Committee, which indicates that, for low and middle income employees, particularly those with shorter work histories, the outcome may be less favorable.
I do agree though that if you did not put in then you should not be allowed to take out. But a surviving wife of a spouse that paid into the system should receive the spouses ss. Especially if the wife was never employed but was a stay at home mom.
Creation: The Social Security Act
The Social Security Act was drafted during Roosevelt's first term by the President's Committee on Economic Security, under Frances Perkins, and passed by Congress as part of the New Deal. The act was an attempt to limit what were seen as dangers in the modern American life, including old age, poverty, unemployment, and the burdens of widows and fatherless children. By signing this act on August 14, 1935, President Roosevelt became the first president to advocate federal assistance for the elderly.[12]
Provisions of the Act
The Act is formally cited as the Social Security Act, ch. 531, 49 Stat. 620, now codified as 42 U.S.C. ch.7. The Act provided benefits to retirees and the unemployed, and a lump-sum benefit at death. Payments to current retirees are financed by a payroll tax on current workers' wages, half directly as a payroll tax and half paid by the employer. The act also gave money to states to provide assistance to aged individuals (Title I), for unemployment insurance (Title III), Aid to Families with Dependent Children (Title IV), Maternal and Child Welfare (Title V), public health services (Title VI), and the blind (Title X).[12]
If you want to make it so that there is a limit on the benefit that is fine. Lets make it though that I can invest the amount that would be taken out of my check for ss in either ss or a private retirement fund. Lets also not punish those that are on ss currently and make those changes to those that are not and for the future. To tell an 80 yo lady that sorry the ss game has changed and you have been paid more than you put in so were cutting you off. Are you going to let all the current ss recipients starve and live out on the streets?
The following is taken from the wiki on SS concerning ss vs. the private retirement investment.
Claim that it gives a low rate of return
Critics of Social Security [131] claim that it gives a low rate of return, compared to what is obtained through private retirement accounts. For example, critics point out [131] that under the Social Security laws as they existed at that time, several thousand employees of Galveston County, Texas were allowed to opt out of the Social Security program in the early 1980s, and have their money placed in a private retirement plan instead. While employees who earned $50,000 per year would have collected $1,302 per month in Social Security benefits, the private plan paid them $6,843 per month. While employees who earned $20,000 per year would have collected $775 per month in Social Security benefits, the private plan paid them $2,740 per month, at interest rates prevailing in 1996.[131] While some advocates of privatization of Social Security point to the Galveston pension plan as a model for Social Security reform, critics point to a GAO report[132] to the House Ways and Means Committee, which indicates that, for low and middle income employees, particularly those with shorter work histories, the outcome may be less favorable.
I do agree though that if you did not put in then you should not be allowed to take out. But a surviving wife of a spouse that paid into the system should receive the spouses ss. Especially if the wife was never employed but was a stay at home mom.
Re: What do you think of this idea (1)?
Isn't social security kind of like a ponzi scheme? As you pay in its not kept in some personal account for you, your money goes to pay others currently drawing it, when you start drawing that money is coming from people currently in the workforce, and on and on. The cycle has to continue or like a ponzi it collapses. During economic downturns especially one as severe as we are experiencing and because of high unemployment there will be serious shortfalls in the amount of fica collected to keep the system going, this eventually will have to be made up.
Heres a short but good read of how the numbers basically crunch out. Also, most attention is on social security we tend to forget medicare or caid is another costly entitlement not payed for.
http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/pla ... retirement
Heres a short but good read of how the numbers basically crunch out. Also, most attention is on social security we tend to forget medicare or caid is another costly entitlement not payed for.
http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/pla ... retirement
Advertising
Copyright © 2013-2024 WesternBass.com ®