What is the most significant reason to keep or not keep Social Security?

1. 29

   bradmasterOCcalposted 10 months ago

   What is the most significant reason to keep or not keep Social Security?
   
   Your retirement benefits are based on your LIFETIME SS Tax contributions. Doesn't that make it more like a waiting for God scenario than a Retirement?
   It is 2017 not 1935
   most Americans are getting somewhere between $750 per month($9000 yr) and $1,800 per month$21,000yr) this year. the Avg being $1360 a month(
   416,320)
   
   Keep in mind that the cost of "living" varies state by state, county by county. But it is doubtful that any of these benefits will be a living amount.
   
   You have to pay for your Medicare insurance, and supplemental insurance out that money if you have no other income. .
   
   

   replyreport
2. 83

   gregasposted 10 months ago

   Social Security works if the politicians would keep their hands off and not allocate it for other "projects". There would be plenty of money for the retirees if the politicians hadn't "borrowed" from it and never put the money back.

   replyreport
   1. 29

      bradmasterOCcalposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Greg
      The SS Trust Fund has been raided for decades. But is SS worth waiting a lifetime, (the govt uses lifetime) for poverty level retirement benefit. What is your most significant reason. Works is an ambiguous term.
      Thanks

      replyreport
3. 90

   Ken Burgessposted 10 months ago

   Sadly, we do not provide enough in SS to those who have worked until old enough to collect it, and this has significant consequences that affect us all.
   
   The changes to SS should be simple, if you have substantial income through work, retirement or just because you happen to be filthy rich, then you should not receive SS.  If you don't have a six figure salary coming in every year through a nice pension or retirement plan, then SS should be there for you.
   
   If SS was more capable of supporting those who receive it, then those people would likely not be working, however, as it stands now:  Beginning with the month you reach full retirement age, your earnings no longer reduce your benefits, no matter how much you earn.
   
   Why would this help?
   
   When a person who is past the full retirement continues to work they are effectively taking up a job that a younger person could fill, this in turn keeps younger people from filling jobs and themselves earning income and contributing to SS and other taxes... SS should be there for those who need it, not those who do not.
   
   When there is ANY talk about not having enough money for SS, one should get ill or annoyed at who-ever is saying such rubbish... if we have money to pay illegal aliens and refugees, if we have enough money to provide housing, welfare, and other support to those who do nothing at all (other than have kids to collect more welfare and support) then as a country we damned sure have enough money to continue to provide SS to those who worked for it and paid into it.
   
   Its not a question of should there be SS... the question is why doesn't it pay MORE to those who need it, and why does it pay out to those who have NO need for it.

   replyreport
   1. 29

      bradmasterOCcalposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Ken
      
      Sadly, I must disagree with you.

      replyreport
4. 82

   Diana Leeposted 10 months ago

   If taken care of as it was intended, Social Security should never run out. Most don't live long enough to ever collect and their spouse can only collect if they are not collecting their own, as the rule goes they collect the higher one and it doesn't matter that they both paid into the system for many years.

   replyreport
   1. 29

      bradmasterOCcalposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Diana
      
      Thanks. I would have to disagree. The laws regarding the Trust fund are proof, it was not ever going to be run right.
      I am not sure whether you are for or against SS as it is today?

      replyreport