Can this really be true?

#26
#26
volinbham said:
SS is a perfect example of what Congress will do with a big pot of money and steady flow that isn't being immediately spent. They are in transfer business, not the investment business.
Click to expand...

This is one situation where Gibbs absurd blathering about short term view works. Congress spends its money almost purely for short term vote buying, hence can't take a holostic or long term approach.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#27
#27
BigPapaVol said:
This is one situation where Gibbs absurd blathering about short term view works. Congress spends its money almost purely for short term vote buying, hence can't take a holostic or long term approach.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Like the people who don't have $2000 saved up?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#28
#28
TBH I'm surprised the number is only 50%. I can't think of many people who understand the concept of a Savings Account.
 
#29
#29
lawgator1 -

I would venture a guess that most people don't see it that way and rightfully so. Folks are required to pay into it in the hopes that it will be around when they retire. The sad reality is that if SS is not tweaked it will not be around for the long haul.

Not that I'm banking on it being available, but I will certainly be pissed if the time comes for me to retire and it's no longer there. That's 35+ years down the road for me...so a lot can happen but my retirement plans and calculations do not include SS for the simple reason that I can't rely on it being there.

What I've never understood is why they use our money (current workforce) to pay for those who are currently retired? We all have SSN's so why not create an account specifically for each individual, every time you pay in - put it into that account, allow it to accrue interest over time, and then slowly pay it out when you hit the magic age?

At least make it optional...give people the choice of paying in if they wish to collect.
 
#30
#30
xXRockyTopXx said:
lawgator1 -

I would venture a guess that most people don't see it that way and rightfully so. Folks are required to pay into it in the hopes that it will be around when they retire. The sad reality is that if SS is not tweaked it will not be around for the long haul.

Not that I'm banking on it being available, but I will certainly be pissed if the time comes for me to retire and it's no longer there. That's 35+ years down the road for me...so a lot can happen but my retirement plans and calculations do not include SS for the simple reason that I can't rely on it being there.

What I've never understood is why they use our money (current workforce) to pay for those who are currently retired? We all have SSN's so why not create an account specifically for each individual, every time you pay in - put it into that account, allow it to accrue interest over time, and then slowly pay it out when you hit the magic age?

At least make it optional...give people the choice of paying in if they wish to collect.
Click to expand...



I save dutifully every month, as well, into my 401k and should be okay. But I am also paying the max social security tax you can each year.

I am okay with a raise in the eligibility year to 66 or 67 because that affects everyone and it appears to be the way to make the thing stay afloat.

But, means testing is a non starter with me because it means the more you've saved aside from SS, the less SS you will get. I have a real problem with the notion that the people who contributed the most to SS would end up being paid out the least. Seems to me that concept would be particularly obnoxious in the eyes of Republicans.
 
#31
#31
vollygirl said:
The amount of people living paycheck to paycheck so they can have what they want when they want it (i.e. on credit), added to the people who are barely getting by living week to week, is probably higher than a lot of people think. People don't have savings accounts like they used to. They contribute to a 401K and figure that's savings enough. Doesn't do anything to help you in the short term when emergencies come up.
Click to expand...

very true. i have a cousin who is a year older than me, and he and his wife make more than 100k a year. just recently their a/c unit needed repair. they had to wait til the following month to have it fixed because they didn't have the money. however he had money to go to a theme park with their son, go to a couple of movies, and buy a crotch rocket.
 
#32
#32
lumberjack4 said:
TBH I'm surprised the number is only 50%. I can't think of many people who understand the concept of a Savings Account.
Click to expand...

my wife never had more than a couple hundred in her's at one time until we got together. Some just don't think about it until it's too late
 
#33
#33
lawgator1 said:
I save dutifully every month, as well, into my 401k and should be okay. But I am also paying the max social security tax you can each year.

I am okay with a raise in the eligibility year to 66 or 67 because that affects everyone and it appears to be the way to make the thing stay afloat.

But, means testing is a non starter with me because it means the more you've saved aside from SS, the less SS you will get. I have a real problem with the notion that the people who contributed the most to SS would end up being paid out the least. Seems to me that concept would be particularly obnoxious in the eyes of Republicans.
Click to expand...

so as long as you get all your money you don't care what happens to the country?
 
#34
#34
lawgator1 said:
I save dutifully every month, as well, into my 401k and should be okay. But I am also paying the max social security tax you can each year.

I am okay with a raise in the eligibility year to 66 or 67 because that affects everyone and it appears to be the way to make the thing stay afloat.

But, means testing is a non starter with me because it means the more you've saved aside from SS, the less SS you will get. I have a real problem with the notion that the people who contributed the most to SS would end up being paid out the least. Seems to me that concept would be particularly obnoxious in the eyes of Republicans.
Click to expand...

I completely understand your frustrations.
 
#35
#35
utvolpj said:
so as long as you get all your money you don't care what happens to the country?
Click to expand...

I can't speak for him, but I don't think it's a matter of being selfish rather electing to pay the max into something only to collect the least amount available. That frustration makes plenty of sense to me. It's essentially a slap in the face and money you'll never see again.
 
#36
#36
xXRockyTopXx said:
I can't speak for him, but I don't think it's a matter of being selfish rather electing to pay the max into something only to collect the least amount available. That frustration makes plenty of sense to me. It's essentially a slap in the face and money you'll never see again.
Click to expand...

And we're back to SS sounding an awful lot like a tax, no?
 
#39
#39
xXRockyTopXx said:
I can't speak for him, but I don't think it's a matter of being selfish rather electing to pay the max into something only to collect the least amount available. That frustration makes plenty of sense to me. It's essentially a slap in the face and money you'll never see again.
Click to expand...

so since I am likely to never seen any of it I guess I'm getting kicked in the junk. I'd gladly trade a means test if it means I'm getting some of it returned. Of course I don't think it should exist in the first place

volinbham said:
:yes:

whatever happened to "those who can afford to should pay a little more"?
Click to expand...

everyone's all for taxing the rich extra until the gov't decides to include you in that group
 
#41
#41
hndog609 said:
I'm assuming what Droski means, and this has been touched on in other threads, is that there isn't some LG or vol_in_il account up there in DC faithfully holding your money for you. You are paying into something where the money goes nowhere but to pay out somewhere else. At least in that regard it sounds an awful lot like a tax.

As I understand it there is no pile of money set aside for any of us nor a guarantee of how much, if any, we're entitled to down the road.
Click to expand...

out and out theft that's taken place ...

to the OP, it makes you wonder what the social unrest will look like when Soc Sec is exposed for the ponzi scheme that it is .. you'll have those who have set nothing aside on one side and those who will be expected to pick up the slack on the other side ...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top