It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by circuitsports
step 3 10% flat tax and lets get rid of these programs all together, invest your own money - lol and ruin the .gov's honey pot never going to happen.
done.
Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by dreamseeker
I knew for some reason I was not wrong to put "disabilities" in quotations.
Being an anxious, sad, sickly individual does not mean you deserve a life of retirement living off the wages of everyone else. A leech on the system, its people like you who take money from the elderly, who the system is for.
Get an at home job, you obviously have not even tried to look.. unless being sad prevents you from typing? Ohhhh wait... you're typing now..
Depression = disabled.. what a crock of *SNIP*
AND HAVE THE NERVE TO ASK HARD WORKING PEOPLE TO PAY 10% MORE IN TAXES, WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU?edit on 1/27/2011 by Rockpuck because: i needed to rant at the leecher a lil moreedit on Thu Jan 27 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: Mod Note: Do Not Evade the Automatic Censors – Please Review This Link.
Originally posted by Brown Bear
However, I am more disgusted to personally know (and often see) retirees (senior citizens) with substantial assets, fancy new cars, and big investment incomes still able to collect SS checks, and thus, the obvious first solution to saving SS is to establish a "means test" whereby those who realistically don't need it don't get it... regardless.
These days, the SS safety net is, in many ways, the only program holding our society together and without it the only alternatives for the desperate, hopeless, and elderly is crime or slow death. The "let them eat crackers and cat food" philosophy is already the norm for too many, just as is freezing in the winter.edit on 29-1-2011 by Brown Bear because: add content
Originally posted by 2manyquestions
Originally posted by Brown Bear
However, I am more disgusted to personally know (and often see) retirees (senior citizens) with substantial assets, fancy new cars, and big investment incomes still able to collect SS checks, and thus, the obvious first solution to saving SS is to establish a "means test" whereby those who realistically don't need it don't get it... regardless.
These days, the SS safety net is, in many ways, the only program holding our society together and without it the only alternatives for the desperate, hopeless, and elderly is crime or slow death. The "let them eat crackers and cat food" philosophy is already the norm for too many, just as is freezing in the winter.edit on 29-1-2011 by Brown Bear because: add content
I partly agree with you, but I have reasons to disagree as well. I agree that if people have the means to retire comfortably without dipping into SS, then maybe (on charitable grounds) they should leave it for those who need it more... HOWEVER... even if you are prepared for your retirement and you don't need SS to survive, you still paid into it your entire working life, and that is money you are entitled to. Nobody should be able to tell you "Well, you prepared for your retirement, so we're going to take your SS and give it to someone who didn't prepare like they were supposed to". That's not a very fair thing to do to somebody, just because they had the foresight to prepare. It's almost a punishment for having done what everyone else was supposed to do in the first place.
The Government severely mismanages the money that we put into SS, and end up giving us far less of it than what we put in. If they gave people all the money they put in during their working life, we wouldn't have senior citizens living off dog or cat food. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I look at it.
Originally posted by snowman9364
reply to post by alyoshablue
To oblige your opening statement ..,(and your 2nd is useless!!!) Yes "privatized".. would be the ONLY way...if it was "privatized" then... noone could touch it..(regauards to your source... FU) kinda like a savings account.... capiche??.. noone, not even our government could tap it.
it was meant for us who pay into it and only us..and if it was privatized such as... we wouldnt have corrupt civilian sucking and government sucking belowe the pond scum that eats fish feces taking OUR $$$$!!!!!!!
OP states she can only recieve $695.... and she' hopes' for a 2% -5% increase???? what???? BS BS... how long she been paying into ss??... she expects "us" as citizens to provide her life??? BS what about me???,and the deserving!!!!!! and whoever else is struggling..????if i was disabeled,(in which i could prove i am...anyone can...), even tho im NOT, because i choose to be from my last SS statement.. ( last week)... i would recieve $1209 a month... so... for her to say she needs more????.... only comes outta YOUR pocket and mine... To boot THE OP "works for almost half her income a month!!!! ( quoting her 40%))... ya know what... im not even sorry..... ive worked with people who have had cancer... undergone kemo... and still WORKED 40, 50 60 hours week!! most have died... few have not!!! ya they had "depression, lights hurt their eyes, their immune system was weak" did they stop and say hey??? "IM DISABELD"........ the answer is not no... BUT SUCK NO!!!... get over your pathethic ignorant selves of the backer and the OP...
Originally posted by Brown Bear
Originally posted by 2manyquestions
Originally posted by Brown Bear
However, I am more disgusted to personally know (and often see) retirees (senior citizens) with substantial assets, fancy new cars, and big investment incomes still able to collect SS checks, and thus, the obvious first solution to saving SS is to establish a "means test" whereby those who realistically don't need it don't get it... regardless.
These days, the SS safety net is, in many ways, the only program holding our society together and without it the only alternatives for the desperate, hopeless, and elderly is crime or slow death. The "let them eat crackers and cat food" philosophy is already the norm for too many, just as is freezing in the winter.edit on 29-1-2011 by Brown Bear because: add content
I partly agree with you, but I have reasons to disagree as well. I agree that if people have the means to retire comfortably without dipping into SS, then maybe (on charitable grounds) they should leave it for those who need it more... HOWEVER... even if you are prepared for your retirement and you don't need SS to survive, you still paid into it your entire working life, and that is money you are entitled to. Nobody should be able to tell you "Well, you prepared for your retirement, so we're going to take your SS and give it to someone who didn't prepare like they were supposed to". That's not a very fair thing to do to somebody, just because they had the foresight to prepare. It's almost a punishment for having done what everyone else was supposed to do in the first place.
The Government severely mismanages the money that we put into SS, and end up giving us far less of it than what we put in. If they gave people all the money they put in during their working life, we wouldn't have senior citizens living off dog or cat food. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I look at it.
I do think you're wrong. If cuts are to be made to save Social Security for everyone, then somebody must bite the bullet. Realistically who better to start chewing than the wealthy that have no real need, especially when cuts will come to poor retirees and disabled as well; and they will be hit very hard by them.
"Charity" has nothing to do with reality. Social Security and SSDI are insurance programs and all insurance is, and should be, paid based on true "need" and not on the amount of money paid for the premiums. Possibly you've confused SS with the concepts of a 401k or similar private investment schemes, which it is not. It's a "safety net" just like any insurance.
One important thing to always remember is that life is not based on any concept of "fairness" that we'd recognize, and whether the government "mismanages" money and programs isn't even a small consideration to the old, the poor and the disabled, and isn't the point when one falls into those groups. You'll see the point when your time comes as it may at any time. .edit on 30-1-2011 by Brown Bear because: add clifying contentedit on 30-1-2011 by Brown Bear because: add context
Recently, Bank of England (BOE) head Mervyn King came out with a very surprising warning to his compatriots, accompanied with an apology that our own Ben Bernanke will never offer, namely: "I sympathise completely with savers and those who behaved prudently now find themselves among the biggest losers from this crisis." Of course, the US central bank believes it has completed its third mandate job now that the US stock market, not to mention commodities, are starting to be reminiscent of the parabolic phase of the Harare stock market.
Originally posted by gougitousakusha
Originally posted by Rockpuck
People survived before ss was around, they'd suck it up and get along just fine without it in the future.
a lot of elderly in japan commit suicide because they dont have a source of income and only take away from their family. i wouldn't be surprised if taking away social security in america would have a similar effect.
Originally posted by trailertrash
reply to post by dreamseeker
Boy talk about unbelievable.... The republicans want to do away with social security so what do they do at election time? They talk about such things as "return to contitution", "free markets" "christian values" etc etc etc and how terrible the liberals are. Then after they get elected those things are not heard any more. Instead we hear about "austerity" which is code for "paying for the war" and social security has to be zapped because it's like welfare (which it is not).
What I want to know is simply how can any sane middle or lower class American even consider voting republican when they have to know that their potential life line to a secure retirement is what they are voting against. This is most amazing. If it wasn't happening I wouldn't believe it.
Originally posted by fixer1967
Originally posted by dreamseeker
reply to post by snowman9364
I only get $695 a month. It is not enough to live on. That is not even minuim wage. I have to work regardless. I work from home answering phones. There are rules set out by social security and I go by those. I am doing nothing wrong by collecting my benefits are working.
The way it works is for every $2 you make the drop $1 from your SSI check. If you do the math you will do a little beter than break even. Ok here goes.
SSI=$700 per month
Extra income=$300 per month
$300/2=$150 dropped from SSI check
SSI $700 - $150 dropped= $550 for updated SSI check
Updated SSI check =$550 plus the $300 from the extra income =$850 total
You made $300 extra but in the end out came out ahead by $150.
How do I know this? I have more than a few old friends that collect SSI and still have to work
edit on 1/27/2011 by fixer1967 because: spelling