Quote:
Originally Posted by August
Well if you want to change the contract at this late date then I don't see me getting interest for the money i've put in is unreasonable. You took my money for a particular reason. Through your mismanagement you are unable to meet the commitments you made. Had I been allowed to invest my money in the stock market I would be in far better shape for retirement than SS would ever leave me.
Note you can avoid all of this by meeting your obligation so I have no sympathy at all.
|
I agree that you should have been allowed to invest it 100%.
Regardless, something needs to be done, the bulk of our spending is on "retirement" programs. The claim that SS was ever "solvent" is bogus, as a ponzi scheme it was only working because there were more payers than payees.
What's with this "you took my money" crap? I didn't take it, I'll be subsidizing someone else's SS, actually. I don't vote for people who want to take it, though none have had the balls to do anything about it in either party (the dems don't WANT to do anything about it—they count on YOUR
leftist reaction to prevent any changes. It's funny, you want a privatized system (conservative), but whine like a b**** at the thought of delaying SS retirement when the current benefits are grossly in excess of what you should have expected when you paid in.
Meeting MY obligation? We pay a ton in FICA, and are in the range where we we actually get back less than we pay in. We are in effect being robbed, not like most who just get a guaranteed return—but a lower return, perhaps.
Regardless, you can whine all you want, but if the entitlements push the US over the brink, something will have to give. A small sacrifice on the part of younger workers—delaying their retirements on a sliding scale by a year or two—is hardly a draconian way to avoid insolvency.
Seriously, it's pretty whiny to complain about having to delay your retirement by a few years when it is 15 years away anyhow.
Again, as I said, the specifics of the retirement age increase could vary arbitrarily (everything else in SS has changed since you started paying in (benefits increased, etc), why is retirement age off the menu?). Maybe the switch from 65 to 66 happens after 8 years, then 67 in 4 more, then 68 in to more, etc. That would mean that people aged 51 would retire at 68. People like me would be stuck with 72.
Oh, wait, I guess what you prefer is for
my taxes to massively increase, instead. So there
is financial sacrifice in your world, it's for younger people to lose even more to SS than you did. Gotcha. I'm in favor of changing it so that my kids don't get stuck with the same problem. Cut benis slightly by raising the age, then cut the taxes once the bubble of boomers passes and go privatized (option) for the younger folks.
PS—the way medicare is going, good luck with finding a doc that will take it. My wife's group stopped taking any new medicare a few months ago, others have done the same, here in NM people on medicare now need to wait til they need an ER visit, or head to another state to see a specialist, lol (not sure they'll have much luck in other states as well). Oh, or they can go to the U I guess, they take indigents there.