Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I would stop the ability to claim SS if you've never paid in.

Who gets SS if they don't pay in? I thought you had to have 40 quarters of earning, and the benefit is figured in your top 35 years.

There are benefits for children and spouses.

https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/yourchildren.html

https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/yourspouse.html

PP. Oops. Forgot about that.

Workers are paying for their own spouses and children. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I would stop the ability to claim SS if you've never paid in.

Who gets SS if they don't pay in? I thought you had to have 40 quarters of earning, and the benefit is figured in your top 35 years.

There are benefits for children and spouses.

https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/yourchildren.html

https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/yourspouse.html

PP. Oops. Forgot about that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I would stop the ability to claim SS if you've never paid in.

Who gets SS if they don't pay in? I thought you had to have 40 quarters of earning, and the benefit is figured in your top 35 years.

There are benefits for children and spouses.

https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/yourchildren.html

https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/yourspouse.html

Anonymous wrote:I think I would stop the ability to claim SS if you've never paid in.

Who gets SS if they don't pay in? I thought you had to have 40 quarters of earning, and the benefit is figured in your top 35 years.

Anonymous wrote:I'd like the damn thing to earn some interest somehow for starters. Right now, it's just a transfer payment from young to old.

I don't like a cap increase. Are you also going to do a payout increase? Of course not. This just proves how mathematically unsound it is. It's a pyramid scheme and at the end, the noobies are going to get screwed, b/c it won't be there for them.

Forget this uppermost brackets stuff. It isn't a welfare system and it was never meant to be. It's a retirment system.

Additionally, why is SSDI (disability) dipping into SS? Becuase everyone who collected 99 weeks of unemployment decided the next best route was to go onto disability for (unprovable) aches and pains. The system is being abused and people need to be told to FO.

Finally, I want Obama to return the close to $1 Trillion he took from medicare to fund Obamacare. Enough of this robbing peter to pay paul for votes crap.

This. At what point are we going to stop robbing Peter to pay Paul? The tax the rich mantra is getting old.

I think I would stop the ability to claim SS if you've never paid in.

Anonymous wrote:I'd go for increasing the taxable cap and decreasing the benefits for upper incomes. But I also think we should increase benefits for people with lower incomes. If your parents have $150K in retirement income, they've done a lot more than just save responsibly, they've also earned good income most of their lives and probably live in a home that's paid for. Some people depend solely or primarily on Social Security and don't have any money left over.

I am not in favor of raising retirement age at this time. While middle and upper class people are living longer, life expectancy for working class whites is going down, and many of them do physical labor that is really tough on a 67-year old body.

OP. What you say makes sense regarding physical labor. And far as some people depending solely on SS, that's why I suggest a small reduction ONLY for those with top incomes. If you're relying solely (or even mostly) on SS, of course we couldn't cut it.

Also, I will admit (since this is anonymous) that my parents had a nice income, but they were a one-person household - three kids - and never earned more than $120k. I mention this because it is possible to fund a retirement by living beneath one's means, and it doesn't take $200k+ to do it. (And yes, they're earning more now in retirement than during the peak of their earning years. Thank you, stock market of the 90s!)

If you increase the cap without increasing benefits, you are turning it into a welfare program.

I have been paying into this program for 30 years, it is my money. Who would invest in a program where they pay in money, then get it back only if they need it.

If you want to start a welfare program for those that need it, then fine, create a new entity to address that but every person in this country shouldn't pay into a program no knowing if they are going to get the money back?

I would take #2, #3 both of which impact me. Or increase immigration.

Increase immigration.

I'd go for increasing the taxable cap and decreasing the benefits for upper incomes. But I also think we should increase benefits for people with lower incomes. If your parents have $150K in retirement income, they've done a lot more than just save responsibly, they've also earned good income most of their lives and probably live in a home that's paid for. Some people depend solely or primarily on Social Security and don't have any money left over.

I am not in favor of raising retirement age at this time. While middle and upper class people are living longer, life expectancy for working class whites is going down, and many of them do physical labor that is really tough on a 67-year old body.

I'd like the damn thing to earn some interest somehow for starters. Right now, it's just a transfer payment from young to old.

I don't like a cap increase. Are you also going to do a payout increase? Of course not. This just proves how mathematically unsound it is. It's a pyramid scheme and at the end, the noobies are going to get screwed, b/c it won't be there for them.

Forget this uppermost brackets stuff. It isn't a welfare system and it was never meant to be. It's a retirment system.

Additionally, why is SSDI (disability) dipping into SS? Becuase everyone who collected 99 weeks of unemployment decided the next best route was to go onto disability for (unprovable) aches and pains. The system is being abused and people need to be told to FO.

Finally, I want Obama to return the close to $1 Trillion he took from medicare to fund Obamacare. Enough of this robbing peter to pay paul for votes crap.

Number two is a no-brainer. Yes, I like the bump up in my paycheck at the end of the year, but if I'm making that much already, I won't miss it that much either if I keep paying my FICA.

OP. Forgot to include link.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/22/pf/social-security-medicare/

SS, in its current form, is projected to run dry by 2034. (And while some people are talking about increasing benefits, it's obvious we need to cut.) From what I understand, a couple of minor "tweaks" can save the program. What would you be willing to sacrifice? I would vote for three changes:

1) Gradually increase the full retirement age to 68. ?There should be no change for people within 10 years of retirement, but for others, we could add a month every year until we get to 68. When SS was introduced, people barely lived 5 years past retirement age (on average), and now we have people claiming for 20 to 30 years.

2) Increase the cap on the amount people pay the SS tax.

3) Lower the benefits for people in the uppermost brackets - in retirement - by about 25%. My parents have a retirement income of about $150k - no pensions, just responsible lifelong savings and investments - and they tell me they wouldn't miss a SS cut of a few hundred dollars a month.

Opinions?