So nearly 50% of people choose the option “Do not touch it! Increase taxes, close looph[o]les to pay for it”.
What are the loopholes in SS funding?
While I would not call them “loopholes”, I suppose you could impose SS payments on dividends/interest/capital gains. That would lead to the interesting scenario of retired people effectively paying for their own SS by having to pay SS taxes on their non-SS retirement income.
In other words - force them to pay into social security, yet forbid them from collecting. That is not fair.
When they’re too old to work, perhaps we should - because really the alternatives you’re leaving them with is either suicide or committing more crime. I just don’t see many people volunteering to kills themselves for the benefit of society, so most, when too old to get work, will have no choice but to turn to crime (again).
But you’re leaving them no other alternative.
At least you won’t starve to death in prison. Or freeze to death. You seriously think that somehow elderly crooks released back into society WON’T commit a new crime, either to get away with it and have the means to pay for their survival, or be put in jail where at least they’ll have food, shelter, and medical care?
But they frequently picked-and-chose who would get their charity, often favoring members of their church over others, and people DID starve, or freeze to death, because they had neither family nor were helped by a charity. Private charity is even less fair than government “charity”.
Along with the above, raise allowances for individuals to contribute to their own private funded accounts (401K, IRA, etc).
No, that’s exactly what you are telling them to do; commit crime, or die. As a rule, that means they’ll commit crimes, which mean it is “society’s problem”. People who are told to quietly go off in a corner and die typically don’t.
It doesn’t matter since it wasn’t even close to enough.
:dubious: Because when government wasn’t doing it, people died of cold and starvation.
I need it to live, as so thousands of others. Leave it the hell alone.
But a lot of that change has been driven by the drop in child and infant mortality. The life expectancy of a 65 year old has not increased by nearly as much.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html
That’s based on 1990 data, but the 2007 numbers aren’t that much higher.
The crisis has been overstated - in order to push a political agenda.
However, to satisfy all you chicken-littles, the only adjustment needed is to remove the cap on earnings.
There, done.
This.
Social Security represents a large government obligation that will primarily benefit the poor and middle class. It is right that they should receive it, after paying into the system their whole lives. And with minor adjustments, the system can continue functioning as is.
The point of convincing people that Society Security is doomed is to get them to give up without a fight. That way the money to be frittered away on more tax breaks for the rich. Or be handed off to some predatory private stock broker to gamble with.
And from the tone of the people in this thread, it’s working.
Listen to yourselves. You’re being swindled out money that is rightfully yours and you’re helping the swindlers do it.
This is PRECISELY how I feel!
Though it’s true healhier babies skew the age data.
This thread is so bizarre I can’t think of a way to respond to all the idiocy. If we pay the bill, the program will remain the resounding success that it has been since it’s inception. But I’ve lost all optimism. People prefer a comforting lie to the truth. We are doomed. Rollerball anyone?
Okay, but with no cap on entitlements. If I put more in, I get more out.
(Actually I’m not at all okay with it, but if you’re going to steal more of my money, then I want more of it back.)
Raise the cap, jigger the amount you get if you retire early, and call it done. 66 isn’t the actual retirement age. 66 is the age you get the basic full benefit - you can choose to collect earlier, and get less, or collect later, and get more.
BTW, could anyone saying to raise the age to 70 give their current age. If you say this when you are 25, I humbly submit you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Or, we could make it a law that anyone who calls SS a Ponzi scheme must contribute but get nothing back. Judging from the Dope, that would fix the system in no time flat.
No you can’t. If you have a child or spouse entitled under your earnings record, they can draw Title II benefits while you’re in prison, but you can’t draw benefits yourself.
Also, Title XVI is a pittance. Really, it’s hardly anything. The maximum benefit is hardly enough to live on, which is why the more expensive states offer small suplements to recipients. And you have to actually be disabled and unable to work to get it (or 65+ and absolutely destitute).
I don’t have any grand ideas to fix the system, but I would like to see them get tougher on people who commit fraud to get benefits.
Oh, and also…
I don’t know if Social Security is stil the “third rail” of American politics, or if it will be for much longer. My grandparents’ generation grew up with a certain mythology surrounding the New Deal and how President Roosevelt saved the country and all that, and their children absorbed some of that, and it made it seem like Social Security would be untouchable forever.
But those generations are being replaced in the electorate now, with people who were never really immersed in that mythology. People my age have generally positive associations with Social Security, but we would probably be open to its being replaced with something else if you could convince us it’s better.
And of course, people ideologically opposed to it have been working very hard for 75 years to undermine confidence in the program, by calling it a scam, or insisting that it’s unstable, and whatever else they can do. And like The Hamster King said, it’s starting to work.
The money was stolen years ago and isn’t there to continue the system.
it is appalling so many don’t understand the implications of the general fund now needing to pay into SS instead of their being a SS excess to pay into it.
Social Security isn’t any part of the problem we are having with the national spending and debt. Talk about SS at this point is just a distraction so we don’t pay attention to the very real problems with the way congress throws around money. Somehow, our leaders have managed to convince the public that the one single government program that is currently solvent is the problem with the budget.
Sure, SS may well have problems in the furture and those should be addressed now. One of those problems will be trying to collect the money lent to the spendthrift US governement. If SS hopes to survive the US has to reign in its other spending. Reducing SS benefits won’t do a damned thing to help the currect budget.
Scrap it, the government can’t keep their filthy paws out of SS nor can they stop themselves from giving it to people who don’t pay into it.
I voted for Another Option. Beyond the bare minimum needed for survival, you should have the option of withdrawing from the program entirely considering that it has morphed beyond its original purpose of preventing seniors from starving in the streets into a government-funded middle class retirement program.
So beyond that which will endow you with a bare minimum check every month, you should be able to withdraw what you put in, plus interest, and have your benefits reduced proportionally.
But that certainly won’t save the system, so instead, to ensure the solvency of the system you should only be able to get a certain percentage of that, say 50 cents on the dollar. That would ensure the solvency of the system, and at the same time give people like me a chance to access some of our money before the system entirely breaks.
I didn’t choose “private option” because that would entail all the downsides of my above proposal with none of the upsides. It would be a boondoggle for private investment firms since you would not be allowed flexibility to access your money early if you decide to take an early retirement, while not providing even the minimum amount of security SS already provides, and depriving the SS system of needed funds.
SS was NEVER supposed to be paid into the general fund. It was supposed to be held in an SS-only trust fund. The plundering of SS was all part of the long-term scheme to destroy it.