Working well into your 70s because you can’t afford to retire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is our country and lawmakers going to do anything about the number of seniors who are working minimum wage jobs just to make ends meet? In the end everyone is at a loss as there are 20 and 30 somethings who can’t take the jobs filled by elderly people and then the fact that someone had to work at 75. I was in a hospital recently and the nurse was 74, she told me she had been working as a nurse for 50 yrs but can’t afford to retire bc she has medical bills to pay. What is this country doing and how can we fix it?

Bullshit

+1.

Or, utter stupidity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh yes, proof of what happened from SENATOR MIKE LEE.

http://dailysignal.com/2017/04/04/we-cant-bail-out-social-security-disability-insurance-forever-heres-a-reform-proposal/

Yeah, Mike Lee, Mr. end-all-spending... And this posted on the Daily Signal, which is an official mouthpiece of the Heritage Foundation which also wants to gut all spending.

Here's what can and should be done: Raise the contribution cap for SS and set up means testing for folks who already have significant income and don't need SS, like Warren Buffett.

Analyses have already shown this would extend SS for generations.

I agree with this. The problem is there will be arguing about what constitutes significant income. Someone here already said that people earning more than $500k could afford to give up half. That was probably from a wealthy person with a HHI of $300k who is fine with OTHER people losing benefits.

Let's do the figures. A m not sure what the max benefit is for SS, but let's say $40,000. A retiree with an income of $150,000 can afford to give up half - or $20,000. Plis, at that level, it's almost fully taxed, so it's really like giving up $15,000. There is NO reason why a retired couple needs more than $150,000 a year.

Then stop maintaining Social Security as a separate system. Wind it all into welfare and just eliminate the concept of a lifetime limit after age 65/66/67/whatever the full retirement age is.

If you don't make enough money, you apply for welfare. If you're too old or feeble to work, there is no lifetime cap on number of years.

That wouldn't work because welfare is a charity program and social security is a program in which participants contribute. Needs to be two separate piles of money, so that laws concerning support of elderly retirees who worked all their lives aren't tied to laws impacting welfare recipients.

+1 Exactly. Can't believe the number of DCUM posters who don't see the difference in forced contributions for 25 - 40 years that so many have made and welfare recipients.

[Anonymous]

Social security serves the same function as a contribution to an IRA etc BUT it is mandatory. When those contributions are diluted for non-contributors to the tune of billions annually we get the mess.

Same thing for medicare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This problem is really hard, there is no easy fix.

I feel for the uneducated. A nurse that has worked for 50 years and is not prepared for retirement baffles me. That is a good paying job. What happened?

Medical bills happened. They happen even to “the educated.”

Yep, my brother was a nurse. He broke his back and couldn't work anymore. He did get disability but it wasn't enough to cover his bills and my sister and I had to help him out financially until he died.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh yes, proof of what happened from SENATOR MIKE LEE.

http://dailysignal.com/2017/04/04/we-cant-bail-out-social-security-disability-insurance-forever-heres-a-reform-proposal/

Yeah, Mike Lee, Mr. end-all-spending... And this posted on the Daily Signal, which is an official mouthpiece of the Heritage Foundation which also wants to gut all spending.

Here's what can and should be done: Raise the contribution cap for SS and set up means testing for folks who already have significant income and don't need SS, like Warren Buffett.

Analyses have already shown this would extend SS for generations.

I agree with this. The problem is there will be arguing about what constitutes significant income. Someone here already said that people earning more than $500k could afford to give up half. That was probably from a wealthy person with a HHI of $300k who is fine with OTHER people losing benefits.

Let's do the figures. A m not sure what the max benefit is for SS, but let's say $40,000. A retiree with an income of $150,000 can afford to give up half - or $20,000. Plis, at that level, it's almost fully taxed, so it's really like giving up $15,000. There is NO reason why a retired couple needs more than $150,000 a year.

Then stop maintaining Social Security as a separate system. Wind it all into welfare and just eliminate the concept of a lifetime limit after age 65/66/67/whatever the full retirement age is.

If you don't make enough money, you apply for welfare. If you're too old or feeble to work, there is no lifetime cap on number of years.

That wouldn't work because welfare is a charity program and social security is a program in which participants contribute. Needs to be two separate piles of money, so that laws concerning support of elderly retirees who worked all their lives aren't tied to laws impacting welfare recipients.

+1 Exactly. Can't believe the number of DCUM posters who don't see the difference in forced contributions for 25 - 40 years that so many have made and welfare recipients.

And one difference is quite obvious. When everyone gets a payment, then it's a popular program. But if only poor people get a payment, it widely hated. In principle I like means testing for Social Security, but politically it would be a huge mistake and so I oppose it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not country’s job to fix. They should have saved more when they were young.

Hard to "save more" when almost half of Americans only have access to low wage jobs that don't pay enough to save anything.

So raise the minimum wage and put more people out of work? That won't help.

When an employer employs someone for 40 hours out of every week it's no longer relevant what the employer thinks that person is worth paying. When you take up that much of someone's time you become responsible for their livelihood and have a fundamental responsibility to pay them a living wage.

Employers should be paying living wages. The fact that taxpayers are picking up the slack for what companies should be paying by providing benefits like food stamps to low wage workers amounts to massive corporate welfare.

It’s actually better in the long run for companies to provide job training rather than inflated wages.
If you give a man a fish....

Just say no to hand outs. Say yes to hand ups!

Living wages and job training are not mutually exclusive. And living wages aren’t inherently inflated wages. Across the board wages for all but the top earners have stagnated in this country. CEOs and thier directs get inflated wages; the rest of the population gets table scraps and that’s accelerated under GOP leadership.

Interesting to see all the Ayn Randian contempt for the working and middle class on this thread.

Why did Obama let immigration go so out of control and flood the labor market which kept wages low?

Citation?

Still waiting on this. Any actual facts to back up this comment? Or is it just some crap you read on Breitbert?

different poster here, but you can see via the below chart that legal immigration on average, was higher under the Obama administration than the Bush adminstration.

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/Annual-Number-of-US-Legal-Permanent-Residents

The US foreign born population is at the largest number in 100 years.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2013/10/03/what-percentage-of-u-s-population-is-foreign-born/
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/09/28/chapter-5-u-s-foreign-born-population-trends/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This problem is really hard, there is no easy fix.

I feel for the uneducated. A nurse that has worked for 50 years and is not prepared for retirement baffles me. That is a good paying job. What happened?

Medical bills happened. They happen even to “the educated.”

Yep, my brother was a nurse. He broke his back and couldn't work anymore. He did get disability but it wasn't enough to cover his bills and my sister and I had to help him out financially until he died.

+1

My brother made a great living, had tons of savings, and two houses. But he was working as a contractor and when he got cancer in his mid-40s could no longer get insurance. Treatments ate up most of his savings and he had to sell one house. He's lucky because he still has the other one (and because he is currently cancer free), but no longer has the cushion of savings. And if healthcare returns to pre-ACA type discrimination against pre-existing conditions, he will be scrwed if he gets kicked off insurance and his cancer returns.

[Anonymous]

In less than 5 years I will be into my 70's and I intend to still be working. Making way too much money to retire, driving up my future SS payments at the same time, and I have the freedom to take off when I want to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh yes, proof of what happened from SENATOR MIKE LEE.

http://dailysignal.com/2017/04/04/we-cant-bail-out-social-security-disability-insurance-forever-heres-a-reform-proposal/

Yeah, Mike Lee, Mr. end-all-spending... And this posted on the Daily Signal, which is an official mouthpiece of the Heritage Foundation which also wants to gut all spending.

Here's what can and should be done: Raise the contribution cap for SS and set up means testing for folks who already have significant income and don't need SS, like Warren Buffett.

Analyses have already shown this would extend SS for generations.

I agree with this. The problem is there will be arguing about what constitutes significant income. Someone here already said that people earning more than $500k could afford to give up half. That was probably from a wealthy person with a HHI of $300k who is fine with OTHER people losing benefits.

Let's do the figures. A m not sure what the max benefit is for SS, but let's say $40,000. A retiree with an income of $150,000 can afford to give up half - or $20,000. Plis, at that level, it's almost fully taxed, so it's really like giving up $15,000. There is NO reason why a retired couple needs more than $150,000 a year.

Then stop maintaining Social Security as a separate system. Wind it all into welfare and just eliminate the concept of a lifetime limit after age 65/66/67/whatever the full retirement age is.

If you don't make enough money, you apply for welfare. If you're too old or feeble to work, there is no lifetime cap on number of years.

That wouldn't work because welfare is a charity program and social security is a program in which participants contribute. Needs to be two separate piles of money, so that laws concerning support of elderly retirees who worked all their lives aren't tied to laws impacting welfare recipients.

+1 Exactly. Can't believe the number of DCUM posters who don't see the difference in forced contributions for 25 - 40 years that so many have made and welfare recipients.

We're also forced to contribute to welfare recipients. Social Security isn't sustainable. Admit we don't have enough for everyone. It was never a "put money in to get money out" retirement program, because it goes to many people who never put money in. Stop pretending it's a retirement program and admit we can really only afford for it to be a welfare program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Social security serves the same function as a contribution to an IRA etc BUT it is mandatory. When those contributions are diluted for non-contributors to the tune of billions annually we get the mess.

Same thing for medicare.

Study after study shows that unless savings is mandated, the majority of people won't save. A majority of Americans don't have enough money in savings to cover a $2000 emergency.
A majority of people these days are irresponsible and don't have the wherewithal to save or plan for the future.
Removing a mandate to save for the future is a recipe for disaster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh yes, proof of what happened from SENATOR MIKE LEE.

http://dailysignal.com/2017/04/04/we-cant-bail-out-social-security-disability-insurance-forever-heres-a-reform-proposal/

Yeah, Mike Lee, Mr. end-all-spending... And this posted on the Daily Signal, which is an official mouthpiece of the Heritage Foundation which also wants to gut all spending.

Here's what can and should be done: Raise the contribution cap for SS and set up means testing for folks who already have significant income and don't need SS, like Warren Buffett.

Analyses have already shown this would extend SS for generations.

I agree with this. The problem is there will be arguing about what constitutes significant income. Someone here already said that people earning more than $500k could afford to give up half. That was probably from a wealthy person with a HHI of $300k who is fine with OTHER people losing benefits.

Let's do the figures. A m not sure what the max benefit is for SS, but let's say $40,000. A retiree with an income of $150,000 can afford to give up half - or $20,000. Plis, at that level, it's almost fully taxed, so it's really like giving up $15,000. There is NO reason why a retired couple needs more than $150,000 a year.

Then stop maintaining Social Security as a separate system. Wind it all into welfare and just eliminate the concept of a lifetime limit after age 65/66/67/whatever the full retirement age is.

If you don't make enough money, you apply for welfare. If you're too old or feeble to work, there is no lifetime cap on number of years.

That wouldn't work because welfare is a charity program and social security is a program in which participants contribute. Needs to be two separate piles of money, so that laws concerning support of elderly retirees who worked all their lives aren't tied to laws impacting welfare recipients.

+1 Exactly. Can't believe the number of DCUM posters who don't see the difference in forced contributions for 25 - 40 years that so many have made and welfare recipients.

We're also forced to contribute to welfare recipients. Social Security isn't sustainable. Admit we don't have enough for everyone. It was never a "put money in to get money out" retirement program, because it goes to many people who never put money in. Stop pretending it's a retirement program and admit we can really only afford for it to be a welfare program.

Social security could be sustainable for generations by raising the contribution cap and implementing means testing for folks who don't need it (i.e. already have more than $200k income)