Are you expecting social security to be important during your retirement? Many US citizens working full time have no other source of retirement income.
The Business Roundtable, the club for America’s most powerful corporate CEOs, is using its muscle to push for an increase in the retirement age to 70 and to recalculate inflation in a way that would further reduce benefits. Fix the Debt is another CEO-driven outfit that’s throwing around tens of millions of dollars in a campaign to cut Social Security and Medicare.
... it’s downright insane to even consider cutting back on benefits necessary to provide a dignified retirement for hard-working Americans.
The United States already has a poverty rate among the elderly of 24 percent. That puts us much closer to our southern neighbor Mexico, which has a 28 percent rate, than our northern neighbor, Canada, where only 6 percent of the elderly live in poverty.
If we’re serious about preserving Social Security for years to come, there are far more sensible approaches. One practical step would be to eliminate the cap on wages subject to Social Security taxes.
The Congressional Research Service has determined that such a reform would eliminate 95 percent of the expected Social Security shortfall over the next 75 years.
This is what you get for voting for Republicans. It all started with George Bush and it will not end until the rich don't have to pay any more taxes. Maybe it is time for a revolution, we need to have a revolt and vote every politician out of office and replace them with humanists.
There's a backdoor move to cut social security, message from Senator Bernie Sanders:
Republicans, some Democrats and President Obama are pushing the concept of a chained CPI, a backdoor way to make substantial cuts in Social Security and benefits for disabled veterans. Incredibly, they are arguing that the COLAs that seniors receive for Social Security are too generous. Bernie and many economists believe they are not generous enough.
If a chained CPI goes into effect, seniors who are 65 now will receive $650 less a year at 75 and would get $1,000 less a year at age 85. Veterans who started receiving VA disability benefits at age 30 would have their benefits reduced by over $3,000 a year at age 65. Bernie recently told the Associated Press, "I do not believe that the American people want to balance the budget on the backs of disabled veterans or widows who lost their husbands in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."
I just can't believe how idiotic these people are, except that election to public office more often involves charisma and manipulation skills, not intelligence.
Eliminating the cap on earnings is so obvious that there shouldn't be any argument about it at all. the $110,000 cap represented a HUGE salary when the bill was originally enacted; it's well within upper middle class earnings now.
Secondly, there never should have been a cap in the first place because everyone who contributes for the required number of quarters will draw out, regardless. I have a quibble with those who earn more drawing out more, because those are the very people who have had the means to contribute to their own retirement plans, including IRAs and investments. A better plan, in my opinion is to have a maximum benefit, so that high wage earners DO get more (or else they'll scream and throw tantrums, which end up being federal law), but so that there is no difference between the millionaire (of which there are plenty) and the multimillionaire and the billionaire.
And I have my own pissed-off item to throw out there, even though I know no one cares and nothing will be done. At some time, I believe in the 60's, it dawned on the govt. that military guys were enlisting at age 18, retiring at age 38 with a full pension, and then going on to work 20 or 30 years in the private sector and pulling a full pension there, too. That was in the olden days when there WERE private pensions. And this practice was called double dipping, and we CAN'T have THAT!
So then there are people like me. I went to college at age 18 (shoulda picked the military), spent 7 years getting a MA in special education, had a kid, worked at Social Security jobs, and did get my necessary 40 quarters (10 years). But in Nevada, we have a private pension plan, PERS. I worked 16 years for PERS, and 3 years for a different pension plan in Nebraska. So I put 29 years of work into the system, whatever that means. As it stands, I get a greatly reduced pension from PERS because I worked approximately half the 30 years that would have given me a full pension (although they DO let me participate in their health plan, if I pay 60%), I invested the grand $1500 from Nebraska, and here's the topping on the cake: Social Security is going to give me a whopping $200 a month, even though I worked 1/3 of my career in SS jobs. Why? Because I'm double dipping, horrors!
I think all this idiocy about Social Security is because it was never thought of as a long-term program -- it was enacted at a time when help for the genuinely poor was desperately needed, but no thought was given to how times change in the long run. And now that we have a plutocracy, things are not GOING to change. Les Miserables, here we come!