Marco lists his 5 ways to "fix" social security. Some ideas have merit, but Marco ignores the obvious one, which is to take the cap off of earnings and to lower the amount of the tax for both employees and and employers.
As far as the rest of Marco's plan, I am willing to bet that most, if not all of the teapartyconservative posters here on OPP, would scream, whine and cry if any of Marco;s plans would actually affect them.
After all, teabagconservatives will always claim, "it's MINE, I worked and paid for it". "I don't want the government to interfere with my money and my freedom."
Too damn bad this idea comes from a teabag party favorite, Marco Rubio.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/14/retirement/rubio-social-security/index.html?iid=HP_LNhttp://money.cnn.com/2014/05/14/retirement/rubio-social-security/index.html?iid=HP_LN
BoJester wrote:
Marco lists his 5 ways to "fix" social security. Some ideas have merit, but Marco ignores the obvious one, which is to take the cap off of earnings and to lower the amount of the tax for both employees and and employers.
As far as the rest of Marco's plan, I am willing to bet that most, if not all of the teapartyconservative posters here on OPP, would scream, whine and cry if any of Marco;s plans would actually affect them.
After all, teabagconservatives will always claim, "it's MINE, I worked and paid for it". "I don't want the government to interfere with my money and my freedom."
Too damn bad this idea comes from a teabag party favorite, Marco Rubio.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/14/retirement/rubio-social-security/index.html?iid=HP_LNhttp://money.cnn.com/2014/05/14/retirement/rubio-social-security/index.html?iid=HP_LNMarco lists his 5 ways to "fix" social s... (
show quote)
Sen Rubio is propsing changes to Social Security that've been proposed in the Past...
But just like in the Past, Sen Rubio doesn't get into Specifics of Ages & Amounts & Rates & THAT'S WHY I'M SKEPTICAL...
Does Social Security Need to be Re-Adjusted?!? YES... But I want to know EXACTLY HOW before I Give My Enforsement...
BoJester wrote:
Marco lists his 5 ways to "fix" social security. Some ideas have merit, but Marco ignores the obvious one, which is to take the cap off of earnings and to lower the amount of the tax for both employees and and employers.
As far as the rest of Marco's plan, I am willing to bet that most, if not all of the teapartyconservative posters here on OPP, would scream, whine and cry if any of Marco;s plans would actually affect them.
After all, teabagconservatives will always claim, "it's MINE, I worked and paid for it". "I don't want the government to interfere with my money and my freedom."
Too damn bad this idea comes from a teabag party favorite, Marco Rubio.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/14/retirement/rubio-social-security/index.html?iid=HP_LNhttp://money.cnn.com/2014/05/14/retirement/rubio-social-security/index.html?iid=HP_LNMarco lists his 5 ways to "fix" social s... (
show quote)
Here is one area where we seem to be on common ground. Social Security has an identity crisis. It is a social system, wrapped in a capitalist model, and bound by a socialist bow tie.
The idea was to create a safety net to a populace not known for being able to or willing to save sufficiently.
But then it got modified so that the more you put in, the more you got out of it.
That being said, you only get it until you die... aside from your spouse, none of your heirs see a dime of it (pardon me... except for a paltry funeral allowance). Any "remainder" goes back in the pot. While improved health choices are making the reception period longer than anticipated, when originally designed, it wasn't projected that people would live long enough to collect on what they put in.
To my mind, if you want it capitalistic - then wh**ever is in the account should be available to you... if you croak, it goes to your estate. If you outlive your actuarial projection... too bad.
If it is a social system... everyone contributes and everyone gets the same payout (monthly). Contributions are a % of wages in total - no cap. As you said, that would lower the rate for everyone.
Had a client I did some administrative work for while in college. It was humorous - she was a semi-retired doctor with two houses (Malibu and Beverly Hills) fully paid for and many investments. She threw a sh*t fit if SSA didn't keep her at the maximum payout each year. And yet her gardner (also semi-retired) could barely qualify for the minimum due to low earnings all his life. Wouldn't you think he needed a bigger safety net than she did (joke was that other than this she was ultra liberal)?
Currently the more you make, the more you qualify for. But if I make $100K a year and you make $20K a year... isn't it more likely that you will rely more on your social security than I will at retirement?
Tyster wrote:
Here is one area where we seem to be on common ground. Social Security has an identity crisis. It is a social system, wrapped in a capitalist model, and bound by a socialist bow tie.
The idea was to create a safety net to a populace not known for being able to or willing to save sufficiently.
But then it got modified so that the more you put in, the more you got out of it.
That being said, you only get it until you die... aside from your spouse, none of your heirs see a dime of it (pardon me... except for a paltry funeral allowance). Any "remainder" goes back in the pot. While improved health choices are making the reception period longer than anticipated, when originally designed, it wasn't projected that people would live long enough to collect on what they put in.
To my mind, if you want it capitalistic - then wh**ever is in the account should be available to you... if you croak, it goes to your estate. If you outlive your actuarial projection... too bad.
If it is a social system... everyone contributes and everyone gets the same payout (monthly). Contributions are a % of wages in total - no cap. As you said, that would lower the rate for everyone.
Had a client I did some administrative work for while in college. It was humorous - she was a semi-retired doctor with two houses (Malibu and Beverly Hills) fully paid for and many investments. She threw a sh*t fit if SSA didn't keep her at the maximum payout each year. And yet her gardner (also semi-retired) could barely qualify for the minimum due to low earnings all his life. Wouldn't you think he needed a bigger safety net than she did (joke was that other than this she was ultra liberal)?
Currently the more you make, the more you qualify for. But if I make $100K a year and you make $20K a year... isn't it more likely that you will rely more on your social security than I will at retirement?
Here is one area where we seem to be on common gro... (
show quote)
But at $100K a year vs $20K a year, you're putting 5 times as much into Soc Sec...
If this were 401K's, would you think the $20K Person should get more of a return on THEIR Investment than You?!?
JimMe wrote:
But at $100K a year vs $20K a year, you're putting 5 times as much into Soc Sec...
If this were 401K's, would you think the $20K Person should get more of a return on THEIR Investment than You?!?
Yes, that is what I am saying. It is a social safety net, not a retirement account. All recipients should receive an identical amount.
The more you earn, the more likely you can build a retirement savings. At $20K that is difficult, plus you are perpetuating their financial class position.
If it is going to remain a capitalist structure as you suggest, then our estate should be able to get a rebate when we croak.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.