RE: Should the age to receive social security be raised? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


servantforuse -> RE: Should the age to receive social security be raised? (8/9/2010 6:49:53 AM)

If I still had minor children and died today, each child would be eligible for a monthly payment of $1,694.00.. My spouse would also be eligible for the same amount. If I were to become disabled I would be eligible to recieve $2,259.00 per month..This info was taken from my yearly SS statement. SS was not intended to support all of this. These costs have nothing to do with a retirement supplement.




DarkSteven -> RE: Should the age to receive social security be raised? (8/9/2010 7:13:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpiritedRadiance

No its a used band-aid fix to a problem that they could easily solve if theyd learn to manage their money. Like collecting debts owed to them, Last I checked most of the "needed" saving institutions are on their feet once again, why cant they start paying back the millions and millions in money they own? Why is it I get to be screwed for wars I had no say in, or laws I had no way to vote for and situations that I had no voice in. Them raising the age affects MY generation, the generation that just received the ability to vote. I dont think spanking us for the elders poor choices is effective in any way shape or form.

I also dont think sitting on senate or the house deserves 174 grand a year. Yeah those men who sit on their ass an argue all day long get paid 174000 yearly, The house,,, gets 193 thousand yearly?

Sure am I naive and young and such Sure am... But i still think thats an obscene amount of money for services not rendered.

Cut those salaries, And start making people pay back what they owe that will keep social security going for some time. But its never going to happen.



Out of the mouths of hot young things... Well said.

[sm=agree.gif][sm=goodpost.gif]




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Should the age to receive social security be raised? (8/9/2010 8:46:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

This would be completely unacceptable in private enterprise. 


Incorrect. Retirement age is being raised in hundreds of private retirement plans. Currently it is only from early retirement to age 65, but 65 will move up before too long.

Raising SS retirement age is totally appropriate, and I dont think it even needs to be protected for those between 40 and 50, maybe even higher. Demographics of the work force are changing. Fewer and fewer people even want to retire at 62 or 65. The retirement age issue would resove itself if SS didnt provide actuarial increases for delayed retirement. Pay the same benefit to an age 70 retiree as an age 66 retiree with the same earnings history and a good portion of the savings of an increase in retirement age would be realized.




Musicmystery -> RE: Should the age to receive social security be raised? (8/9/2010 8:49:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

If I still had minor children and died today, each child would be eligible for a monthly payment of $1,694.00.. My spouse would also be eligible for the same amount. If I were to become disabled I would be eligible to recieve $2,259.00 per month..This info was taken from my yearly SS statement. SS was not intended to support all of this. These costs have nothing to do with a retirement supplement.

Sure it was. Who's going to support them?

But you're presenting the claim as a bankrupting feature. How often does this happen? How much cash are we spending on this? What percentage of overall benefits? And even then, your minor children would grow.

You also claimed we were sending them to college. Nonsense.

And yup, sure, I too have worked long enough to qualify for disability if that happens---see what that say? Worked long enough to qualify, i.e., have been paying in.

It is not, as you present it, money flying out the door. This program is funded.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

I wonder how many of those screaming "bankruptcy" (and SS still has an almost 3 trillion dollar surplus--which the US borrowed from the SS funds via Treasury Bills) have ever read their SS benefits estimate?

Given what I've paid and what my employers paid (which, after all, was paid on my behalf, and is part of my compensation package) combined, and given what I and they will still pay in, whether I retire at 67 or 70, it will still take about ten years just to collect that money back. Then it's a matter of how long and whether I live past 77/80.

But wait--we haven't figured in any interest on all that money for decades! Even at modest rates, say, 5%, this would more than double that benefit pool. Now I'm at 87/90.

But wait! We haven't accounted for inflation yet--I'm getting back 21st century dollars for more more expensive 20th century payments. A 1980 dollar, for example, is worth $2.57 in 2009 dollars--and I've still got a ways to go until retirement! This again more than doubles the pool. Now I'm funded through age 107/110 plus.

And the same is true for you, as your benefits and payments are determined by the same percentages and formulas as mine.

That SS is going to run itself bankrupt is just bull. It doesn't matter how many workers there are per retirees. Or what the retirement age is currently (and it's already changed, from 65 to just under 67). You paid for it. Collect it.







willbeurdaddy -> RE: Should the age to receive social security be raised? (8/9/2010 8:50:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

Good gravy julia, did I say I didn't care about the younger people?
I just said that is the cut off.
If I didn't care, I wouldn't have started this thread.
Take the chip off you're shoulder.


If you took that as a swipe at you, it wasn't, it was a swipe at the entire idea of raising the age people can collect what they pay in...

You know, when Social Security was started it was implemented for a few reasons. One of which was that there were many elderly people that could not even afford food, other people lost all their money during the depression, and the last reason was because if older people retired then they could free up jobs for younger able-bodied people....

Social Security would not be in trouble but for the asshole politicians that have exploited it. Why should our retirement be raided by politicians (both sides of the aisle). They want to destroy Social Security, one of the most successful programs of all time....why? Because they want to privatize it for their cronies...


1. When Social Security was implemented life expectancy at 65 was about 2 1/2 years, and improvement to 17 or 19 years wasnt envisioned. Things have changed, why shouldnt social programs respond?

2. Exactly how have "asshole politicians" exploited it?




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Should the age to receive social security be raised? (8/9/2010 8:56:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

They cut benefits to widows and orphans so far back it would boggle your mind.


ORLY. And just what were those cut backs? You do know that widows receive 100% of their spouses benefit (or their own if higher) and widows with dependent children can receive up to 180% of the spouses benefit, regardless of their age? When was it higher?




Jeffff -> RE: Should the age to receive social security be raised? (8/9/2010 9:32:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

They cut benefits to widows and orphans so far back it would boggle your mind.


ORLY. And just what were those cut backs? You do know that widows receive 100% of their spouses benefit (or their own if higher) and widows with dependent children can receive up to 180% of the spouses benefit, regardless of their age? When was it higher?



Sure they can.

We are paying it with our 3.8% real estate tax.




Marini -> RE: Should the age to receive social security be raised? (8/9/2010 9:40:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

This would be completely unacceptable in private enterprise. 


Incorrect. Retirement age is being raised in hundreds of private retirement plans. Currently it is only from early retirement to age 65, but 65 will move up before too long.

Raising SS retirement age is totally appropriate, and I dont think it even needs to be protected for those between 40 and 50, maybe even higher. Demographics of the work force are changing. Fewer and fewer people even want to retire at 62 or 65. The retirement age issue would resove itself if SS didnt provide actuarial increases for delayed retirement. Pay the same benefit to an age 70 retiree as an age 66 retiree with the same earnings history and a good portion of the savings of an increase in retirement age would be realized.


I disagree with this one, I could be wrong.
I work for the state, and at this time full retirement age is "normally" still 65.
What companies do you know of that require people to work until 70 to get
full retirement?
This is getting absurd!
Soon many would have us working until 70-75 to get anything!!!
By 75 most of us would be on our last legs from working so many years.

Maybe the plan is to work us to death.

Good gravy!




servantforuse -> RE: Should the age to receive social security be raised? (8/9/2010 9:50:15 AM)

Music, You are asking me questions that members of congress don't even have answers for. Show me where disability benefits and college costs wer part of the original SS program.




Musicmystery -> RE: Should the age to receive social security be raised? (8/9/2010 9:52:54 AM)

Don't need to, that's the point--you are making assertions based on zero data.

If you care to find it, the government collects mind-numbing amounts of data. Me, I've got paid research to do here.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Should the age to receive social security be raised? (8/9/2010 9:53:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Average lifespan in the US for Whites... 78.

For blacks... 71.


Thats life expectancy from birth and takes into account the high infant mortality rates and high teen accident rates. Life expectancy once you have attained age 65 is 83 for men, 85 for women.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Should the age to receive social security be raised? (8/9/2010 9:56:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

This would be completely unacceptable in private enterprise. 


Incorrect. Retirement age is being raised in hundreds of private retirement plans. Currently it is only from early retirement to age 65, but 65 will move up before too long.

Raising SS retirement age is totally appropriate, and I dont think it even needs to be protected for those between 40 and 50, maybe even higher. Demographics of the work force are changing. Fewer and fewer people even want to retire at 62 or 65. The retirement age issue would resove itself if SS didnt provide actuarial increases for delayed retirement. Pay the same benefit to an age 70 retiree as an age 66 retiree with the same earnings history and a good portion of the savings of an increase in retirement age would be realized.


I disagree with this one, I could be wrong.
I work for the state, and at this time full retirement age is "normally" still 65.
What companies do you know of that require people to work until 70 to get
full retirement?
This is getting absurd!
Soon many would have us working until 70-75 to get anything!!!
By 75 most of us would be on our last legs from working so many years.

Maybe the plan is to work us to death.

Good gravy!


Federal law for private pensions still requires normal retirement at age 65. As I said, the changes that are being made in private plans are to early retirement age. If private pensions survive at all there will be pressure to increase NRA beyond age 65.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Should the age to receive social security be raised? (8/9/2010 10:07:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

They cut benefits to widows and orphans so far back it would boggle your mind.


ORLY. And just what were those cut backs? You do know that widows receive 100% of their spouses benefit (or their own if higher) and widows with dependent children can receive up to 180% of the spouses benefit, regardless of their age? When was it higher?



Sure they can.






"For the family of a worker who becomes age 62 or dies in 2010 before attaining age 62, the total amount of benefits payable will be computed so that it does not exceed:
(a) 150 percent of the first $972 of the worker's PIA, plus
(b) 272 percent of the worker's PIA over $972 through $1,403, plus
(c) 134 percent of the worker's PIA over $1,403 through $1,830, plus
(d) 175 percent of the worker's PIA over $1,830. "

At the average SS benefit of 1650 thats 180%. At the maximum benefit its 175%.




thornhappy -> RE: Should the age to receive social security be raised? (8/9/2010 8:52:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpiritedRadiance
You need to understand I see people who i know personally can work and choose not to who receive money upwards of 3 grand a month, who dont deserve it who arent of retiring age and receive the money.

How do they do that?  I'm 51 and would pull in a bit less than 2k a month.  Been working full time since '82.

I'd pull the limit on contributions...that would put a bunch o' bucks in.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Should the age to receive social security be raised? (8/9/2010 9:03:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpiritedRadiance
You need to understand I see people who i know personally can work and choose not to who receive money upwards of 3 grand a month, who dont deserve it who arent of retiring age and receive the money.

How do they do that?  I'm 51 and would pull in a bit less than 2k a month.  Been working full time since '82.

I'd pull the limit on contributions...that would put a bunch o' bucks in.



With spouses and dependent childrens benefits they could be getting >4000. I just disagree that SS shouldnt provide disability benefits, and its highly unlikely that SR's acquaintence can work. Qualifying for SS disability benefits is extremely difficult..so much so that private plans automatically qualify anyone who qualifies for SS disability benefits, and there is a big legal industry based on appeals of denials.




SpiritedRadiance -> RE: Should the age to receive social security be raised? (8/9/2010 9:03:33 PM)

A "friend" is bi polar, She is to unstable to work she receives from ssi  1690 a month, her mother to care for her because she cant work receives 1690, a month, and she receives  1245 a month for her baby.

I know also a neighbor who receives 1200 a month for himself and 1200 for each of his two children because he has a bad back and can no longer work, but carries 60 pound coolers to the pool every weekend.

I think the contributions are high enough as it is, It isnt about putting more money in, The system can sustain its self, its about what money is being pulled out and why.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Should the age to receive social security be raised? (8/9/2010 9:06:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpiritedRadiance

her mother to care for her because she cant work receives 1690, a month,



Uhhhh, no such thing.




SpiritedRadiance -> RE: Should the age to receive social security be raised? (8/9/2010 9:08:00 PM)

Actually yes there is, Because of the way its worded by her doctor, the girl with the bi polar is so unstable she can not care or provide for herself, so her mother gets money for being a care taker.

Ive seen their bank statements and  the payments are from social security.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Should the age to receive social security be raised? (8/9/2010 9:14:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpiritedRadiance

Actually yes there is, Because of the way its worded by her doctor, the girl with the bi polar is so unstable she can not care or provide for herself, so her mother gets money for being a care taker.

Ive seen their bank statements and  the payments are from social security.



She may be getting payments from a state program but there is no such thing as the parent of a disabled adult getting Social Security payments based on the disability of the child, caregiver or not.




SpiritedRadiance -> RE: Should the age to receive social security be raised? (8/9/2010 9:28:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

She may be getting payments from a state program but there is no such thing as the parent of a disabled adult getting Social Security payments based on the disability of the child, caregiver or not.


http://www.ssa.gov/dibplan/dqualify10.htm


A child under age 18 may be disabled, but we don't need to consider the child's disability when deciding if he or she qualifies for benefits as your dependent. The child's benefits normally stop at age 18 unless he or she is a full-time student in an elementary or high school (benefits can continue until age 19) or is disabled. For a child with a disability to receive benefits on your record after age 18, the following rules apply:
  • The disabling impairment must have started before age 22, and;
  • He or she must meet the definition of disability for adults.






Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875