Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would point out one thing though - by your own words, your husband contributed all that money into the system and got what out of if? Nothing.
I'm with those who feel Social Security is theft -
I am also sorry for your loss. He worked hard and paid into the system so you can also enjoy it.
You should never worry about YOUR money. Its yours, he paid into it for you to and you should be able to enjoy it.
SS was paid into with the idea it would come back.
Welfare is theft, SS is not. Plan and simple.
Welfare is full of fraud and needs to be totally banned. If you need welfare then you need to checked by multiple doctors to see why you cannot work.
If you pass the test, get a darn job!
Its sad when people think that you cannot have your own money back. What a twisted thought.
Obama loves welfare and freebies and hates to pay people who paid into something. No wonder I cannot stand the freakin nut.
First off, you husband contributed all that money and got nothing in return - and, think - if that money had been otherwise invested, you would be able to have the benefits of those investments.
Its theft because the feds tell you that you have no choice. That is not true.
And, think how much bigger those 401's could be if the average worker had the money they contribute to SS to invest in their 401"s?
Well if you think of SS as an insurance policy, it is not so hard to understand. With life insurance you have to die in order for your beneficiary to receive a payout. With SS, you have to live. What is so hard to understand. I bet you hate buying auto and HO insurance too, because if you don't have a claim the money you paid is gone. My main problem with the people who want to abolish SS is what I have brought up before and noone has addressed. If people won't fully fund (many don't put anything in) the 401Ks and IRAs that already exist, how are you going to prevent them being dependent on welfare in their later years? Just saying how much they would have if they had put the money in a 401 doesn't address the fact that most people DON'T. It also put the onus on the individual to invest wisely in order to grow the account. Please don't think that I am unaware of the problems faced by SS. However, you don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water. The program can be fixed - my suggestions--1) remove people from the SS rolls who have not made the necessary contribution. SS was not meant to be and should never be a welfare program. It was a retirement program for people who had paid in the required number of quarters. Although paying benefits to dependents of deceased workers until they finish college is laudable, it is not what SS was supposed to do. There is financial aid available for this purpose. There are many other ways that the SS program has been expanded since its inception, these are just two.
2) raise or remove the cap -- I know, I know. There is very good justification for this since salaries have increased dramatically since the last time the cap was raised.
Well if you think of SS as an insurance policy, it is not so hard to understand.
Thanks for your reply
The point is though, it is not an "insurance policy" -
It is a system that takes YOUR money supposedly for your "retirement". Why not provide to your dependents the ability to get money from YOUR retirement plan should you die before even using it?
I have not paid into SS for over 3 decades. I take the monies that would have gone into the system and invest them (in addition to other retirement plans). I can tell you that the amount I am going to get back, per month, exceeds what SS would have paid by a factor of +5.
AND, should I pass away, I can will the accounts to my spouse and children as well.
The point is though, it is not an "insurance policy" -
It is a system that takes YOUR money supposedly for your "retirement". Why not provide to your dependents the ability to get money from YOUR retirement plan should you die before even using it?
I have not paid into SS for over 3 decades. I take the monies that would have gone into the system and invest them (in addition to other retirement plans). I can tell you that the amount I am going to get back, per month, exceeds what SS would have paid by a factor of +5.
AND, should I pass away, I can will the accounts to my spouse and children as well.
Well congratulations to you! But my point remains the same - you still have not addressed my question of how you are going make people fund and wisely invest their private accounts. I realize that you have and to be honest, I have as well, but I believe that we are in the minority. SS is a safety net INSURANCE program designed to provide some income to those who have paid in.
I listen frequently to Dave Ramsey on the radio and watch Suze Orman on CNBC. On both of these programs it is clear that credit card debt and spending are out of control while saving is at record lows.
Please give me your solution.
I must add that I am a moderate - neither far right nor far left. I guess maybe that explains why I have never been overly concerned about the taxes that I was paying to support the Social Security system. I understood long ago that the Social Security checks I would receive would need to be supplemented by savings of my own. That is why I fully funded IRAs, 401Ks, and Roths when these products were developed. Before that I saved in individual accounts and bought stocks when they were offered by the company (XOM) I worked for. However being the moderate that I am, I also understand that not everyone has the same savings ethic that I have or the skills/interest to wisely invest. Therefore I have no problem funding a system that is designed to provide a safety net for people who have worked all their lives and paid into the system. I would much rather fund SS than welfare. That being said since both my husband and I both paid into SS all our working lives, I have no problems with receiving a monthly check.
I must add that I am a moderate - neither far right nor far left. I guess maybe that explains why I have never been overly concerned about the taxes that I was paying to support the Social Security system. I understood long ago that the Social Security checks I would receive would need to be supplemented by savings of my own. That is why I fully funded IRAs, 401Ks, and Roths when these products were developed. Before that I saved in individual accounts and bought stocks when they were offered by the company (XOM) I worked for. However being the moderate that I am, I also understand that not everyone has the same savings ethic that I have or the skills/interest to wisely invest. Therefore I have no problem funding a system that is designed to provide a safety net for people who have worked all their lives and paid into the system. I would much rather fund SS than welfare. That being said since both my husband and I both paid into SS all our working lives, I have no problems with receiving a monthly check.
Exactly, and Obama wants to non-tax social security recipients earning less than $50,000. Why should we be taxed on a tax - a tax we paid for many years?
What I support is allowing workers to be able to invest a part of their Social Security contributions into 401K type programs. Perhaps allowing 10% of their total social security contribution going into this 401K program
I am not suggesting to eliminate Social Security but, I favor giving workers a choice.
What I support is allowing workers to be able to invest a part of their Social Security contributions into 401K type programs. Perhaps allowing 10% of their total social security contribution going into this 401K program
I am not suggesting to eliminate Social Security but, I favor giving workers a choice.
That was Bush's plan that he couldn't get any traction with. I seem to remember that the analysis at the time showed that the numbers didn't add up. That people would be better off just staying with SS.
well this is definately an issue Obama can run on attracting more mid-age to elderly support. Talks of raising the age to get social security would get my attention.
I don't know why everyone, who can handle their retirment saving has to pay or be trapped in a system with people who can't save. Just because people will make mistakes and/or are too careless to care about retirment doesn't mean everyone else has to pay for their problem.
Leave people alone. I think its time seniors money, that they invested in social security be given back to them while young people be given the right to invest their money as they wish. The old system worked for old generation but the new generation needs a new system and young poeple need to take responsibility.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
