actors over 65

[LdiJ]

That is all part of what we have accepted in a civilized society. Those that "have" contribute to systems that aid those that "don't have".

@ Ron:

It isn't a matter of being penalized any more than you also are not able to obtain welfare benefits due to your income and assets. Just because the tax is specifically for the SS system doesn't make it any less a tax than one that contributes to the various welfare systems. Would you feel better if the specific contribution was removed and it all lumped into a general tax withholding?


@ commentator

we don't qualify people for myriad systems currently? Why would such a system be any more onerous than what is currently in place?

really? While I am not a conspiracy theorist, do you really think there is anything truly hidden from the gov at this point? Two simple words that allow an almost unfettered investigation into anything about anybody: Patriot Act. If they want to know, they already are give such leeway they can "legally" discover the info.

Yet, if it had not been for those that "needed it", it would never have been enacted. As with any welfare system (yes, it is a welfare system as it was created because of the "have not's" and their needs), if there is no need, it will not be created.

I don't totally disagree with removing or raising the cap on paying into the system as we have now but hey, who is willing to pay more, especially when those paying more are also those that would benefit the least, if at all from the increased contribution?

Its not a welfare system. Its a forced pension system. There is a big difference. There is nothing "welfare" about it.
If you want to consider something to be welfare, then consider the refundable credits that essentially pay back the social security and medicare taxes that people have paid in, as welfare. Its not just poor people who get refundable credits.

 

[justalayman]

Most of the whiners here seem to be people who haven't bothered to save (or perhaps even work) but still want their benefits.

In my place in the world, most of the whiner's I see are those that worked like dogs for a large portion of their life and have had the metaphorical rug pulled from beneath their feet by either an employer that has escaped paying the pension the employee understood they would receive either due to the employer filing bankruptcy and causing the pension fund to be assumed by the federal gov's pension guarantee system resulting in a drastic cut in benefits payable or by creative restructuring or terminations causing an employee to be subject to reduced benefits and in some cases, nearly eliminating them entirely.


Having met people that worked at Studebaker Corp only to lose any promised pension, then transferring to Clark Equipment to work for a period not great enough to earn pension benefits (or benefits of any level to provide any true level of support), and then transferring to Bendix Corp to experience the same thing as each of those two latter businesses closed or moved operations thus eliminating the jobs in the area, and then being told the social security system is in jeopardy, those whiners I see could not save as the progression of employment with the interludes of unemployment or underemployment caused them to drain every cent from any savings they had accumulated while working at these major employers all the while being promised the golden years of retirement supported by a generous pension program. (damn, that is one hell of a sentence). The SS system has become their de facto pension system, even though it is not intended to be that. They have reached an age where working is simply not an option yet, even though being promised the golden years, they have realized that the gold was simply an unsupported promise to cause them to labor on. Even worse, in some cases, it was a calculated and intentional act to defund the pension systems such that the retirees would be injured all in the name of greater profits for the company.

I would love to see the SS system terminated. The only way I can see that happening is the laws changed to require employers to provide pensions along with laws that mandated those pension funds being 100% funded so the employer could not dump and run as they continually do now. Other countries do have systems in place that ensure a person will not live in poverty upon retirement. Why is our country so lacking in providing for it's citizens, either through governmental programs or requirements imposed upon the employers that gain so greatly from the labors of their employers?

 

[TheGeekess]

In my place in the world, most of the whiner's I see are those that worked like dogs for a large portion of their life and have had the metaphorical rug pulled from beneath their feet by either an employer that has escaped paying the pension the employee understood they would receive either due to the employer filing bankruptcy and causing the pension fund to be assumed by the federal gov's pension guarantee system resulting in a drastic cut in benefits payable or by creative restructuring or terminations causing an employee to be subject to reduced benefits and in some cases, nearly eliminating them entirely.


Having met people that worked at Studebaker Corp only to lose any promised pension, then transferring to Clark Equipment to work for a period not great enough to earn pension benefits (or benefits of any level to provide any true level of support), and then transferring to Bendix Corp to experience the same thing as each of those two latter businesses closed or moved operations thus eliminating the jobs in the area, and then being told the social security system is in jeopardy, those whiners I see could not save as the progression of employment with the interludes of unemployment or underemployment caused them to drain every cent from any savings they had accumulated while working at these major employers all the while being promised the golden years of retirement supported by a generous pension program. (damn, that is one hell of a sentence). The SS system has become their de facto pension system, even though it is not intended to be that. They have reached an age where working is simply not an option yet, even though being promised the golden years, they have realized that the gold was simply an unsupported promise to cause them to labor on. Even worse, in some cases, it was a calculated and intentional act to defund the pension systems such that the retirees would be injured all in the name of greater profits for the company.

I would love to see the SS system terminated. The only way I can see that happening is the laws changed to require employers to provide pensions along with laws that mandated those pension funds being 100% funded so the employer could not dump and run as they continually do now. Other countries do have systems in place that ensure a person will not live in poverty upon retirement. Why is our country so lacking in providing for it's citizens, either through governmental programs or requirements imposed upon the employers that gain so greatly from the labors of their employers?

I'd rather have the $$ I've paid into the SS system placed into a private retirement fund that Congress can't touch and an employer has no power over. Bush proposed this during his term and was shot down.

 

[justalayman]

Its not a welfare system. Its a forced pension system. There is a big difference. There is nothing "welfare" about it.
If you want to consider something to be welfare, then consider the refundable credits that essentially pay back the social security and medicare taxes that people have paid in, as welfare. Its not just poor people who get refundable credits.

There is something "welfare" about it.

Hell, even Wikipedia gets it:

The Social Security Act, Pub.L. 74–271, 49 Stat. 620, enacted August 14, 1935, now codified as 42 U.S.C. ch. 7, was a social welfare legislative act which created the Social Security system in the United States

The Social Security Act was drafted during Franklin Delano Roosevelt's first term by the President's Committee on Economic Security, under Frances Perkins, and passed by Congress as part of the Second New Deal. The act was an attempt to limit what were seen as dangers in the modern American life, including old age, poverty, unemployment, and the burdens of widows and fatherless children. By signing this act on August 14, 1935, President Roosevelt became the first president to advocate federal assistance for the elderly.[2]

The Act provided benefits to retirees and the unemployed, and a lump-sum benefit at death. Payments to current retirees are financed by a payroll tax on current workers' wages, half directly as a payroll tax and half paid by the employer. The act also gave money to states to provide assistance to aged individuals (Title I), for unemployment insurance (Title III), Aid to Families with Dependent Children (Title IV), Maternal and Child Welfare (Title V), public health services (Title VI), and the blind (Title X).[2]

catch that last part there about the act giving money to the states to provide actual welfare benefits? What about, yes, the money was paid directly as welfare benefits means it was and is a welfare system don't you see as meaning it is a welfare system.

 

[justalayman]

I'd rather have the $$ I've paid into the SS system placed into a private retirement fund that Congress can't touch and an employer has no power over. Bush proposed this during his term and was shot down.

Oh, I would love a prohibition of the use of the fund as it is currently (ab)used but a private system is not likely the answer either, IMO. Our government is the proper controller and benefactor of sorts to operate such a system as our government has a unique ability and right to create money out of thin air effectively to be able to continue a system that would fail under a privately operated system. The SS system, just as any other welfare system, could not operate under a private system that is required to produce operating profits and was restricted to borrowing policies and other constraints that would not allow a practical operation of any welfare system.

 

[Onderzoek]

That is all part of what we have accepted in a civilized society. Those that "have" contribute to systems that aid those that "don't have".

But to what extent? That is the real problem. These have nots are in that situation for a reason - bad decisions, bad luck, bad genes - so how much do the lucky ones or the ones who made good choices owe to them? And who determines it? And who oversees it? Another cumbersome bureaucracy? SSA struggles to do the job they are tasked to do and get a lot of criticism. The IRS has a pretty bad reputation, and the newest massive federal program, Obamacare, is drowning in inefficiencies and poor planning.

I suppose if someone truly believes that socialism is the way to go, that everyone shares equally in the pot regardless of how much or how hard they work to contribute to it, then that sentence makes sense. I personally believe that effort should be rewarded not penalized. I also believe it is morally correct to help the needy. But up to what level?

There have never been any truly great socialism societies that have survived and thrived.

There is a small welfare component in the computation of Social Security benefits. The bend points. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/piaformula.html Lower income workers get a higher percentage return on their lifetime earnings than higher income workers. Making SS into a pure welfare program will bring it down much faster than it is already going. People will change their behaviors.