Social Security must be privilege not right. Rich must not be allowed to this in mos

Social Security must only be for people who need this. Millionaires should not be allowed to get Social Security. Eg. The Eagles Donald Hugh Henley (Don Henley born 1947 formerly of Shiloh), Bernie Leadon (Bernard Matthew Leadon born 1947) & Glenn Lewis Frey (born 194 should not be allowed to get Social Security but can collect, though all are millionaires. The Eagles should’ve retired in 1981 as their decade was the 1970s and people who’ve gone to their concerts since 1990s have spent money on musicians who are not in prime. Incidentally while Donald Hugh Henley is Irish, he is a bad Catholic & sinner if indeed he is Catholic while columnist Patrick J. Buchanan and Richard J. Santorum who are both part Irish are good Catholics.

Other people who must be disqualified from getting Social Security would be musicians Ke$ha Rose Siebert (born 1987), Katy Elizabeth Hudson (aka KatyE. Perry born 1984), Pit Bull (a/k/a Armando Cristian Ruiz), Justin Drew Bieber (born 1994), Lady Gaga (born 1986), etc. because these musicians are millionaires. Billionaire Donald J. Trump must not be allowed to get Social Security.

Social Security must be for those who need the $. People must be allowed to get Social Security @ 40, as 40 is old. Women with 4 kids must be allowed to get Social Security. The late Daniel James (DJ) White who was a Vietnam War Sergeant should’ve been allowed to get Social Security for him and his wife after he was paroled in 1984 as people were not willing to hire him. Social Security must be for people who need the money for themselves or their kids and minimum age should be 40 to collect if 1 has no handicaps and based on need. People who are rich must not be allowed to get Social Security unless they can justify why they need the $, such as if they have many kids to support, have gotten into $ problems, etc. Yes, the law allows rich people to get Social Security, but law needs to be changed. What do you think

 

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/10/thousands-of-millionaires-collect-unemployment/

 

It would be better for the overall health of the program if we raise the amount of income subject to Social Security tax and allow millionaires to still collect.

 

SSI and Medicare are government forced retirement plans. If you pay into it, you collect from it. Forcing the "rich" to contribute, and not collect is nothing but another tax on the rich to fund yet another entitlement.

In a steady state condition, people work from 20 to 65 (45 years) and retire from 65 to 80 (15 years - 80 is the average lifespan for someone that is 60), then those working must pay 1/3 of what the SSI recipient gets. Today, the average SSI payout is $1200 a month, so the average worker must pay $400 a month ($4800 a year, with an average income of $50K a year - 9.6%).

To see how good a plan SSI is, invest $400 a month for 45 years at 5%, and you can draw almost $6400 a month for 15 years, or almost $3400 forever.

 

Social security is not a handout. It's original purpose and intent was to be a kind of mutual investment insurance fund to ensure that people 65 and over could live comfortably. The fund was growing by leaps and bounds with an enormous surplus. Had Democrats not pillaged, plundered and stolen from the social security trust fund to pay for social programs to get votes, the average social security pension for an elderly person would be about $7,000 a month, and at no cost whatsoever to the taxpayer. And the elderly would not want or need Medicaid.

When Democratic President Lydon Banes Johnson found about how much the elderly were receiving, he is quoted as saying "Them old people make too much money." Thus he began to rape the fund to finance his "Great Democracy" program whose purpose was to rip off social security and give the money to black people so they would vote for him and his Democrats.

Since then, Democrat vote-hunters have whittled away at the fund -- awarding pieces of it to just about everyone who is even slightly disabled or distant relatives including children. The enormous surplus fund has been exhausted.

The irony is that old people don't know or understand what happened. Most people who reach the age of 65 and older are demented, senile or suffering from Alzheimer's and are surviving in a la-la land and think Obama is being good to them.

And as poster "Not Amused" says in his post above this one, Social Security is a forced retirement plan. But when it originated, it was one of those rare government "good things for mutual benefit of the people." It's intent was to keep old people from becoming heavy financial burdens on America. And would have easily worked had Democrat politicians not raided the fund to buy votes.

Why did the social security investment and trust fund have such an enormous surplus before being raided by Democrats? Mainly because it was paying investment interest and dividends and because people didn't live much beyond 65 years of age. By the time they could collect on the portion earned and owed to them ... they had died. Consequently, less than one half of those who paid into it never got to collect on their investments. Just as is commercial life insurance, those surviving reaped all the benefits and were living comfortably.

-30-

 

Do everyone a favor and get rid of it. No policy of this government hurts the middle class more then Social Security. None.

 

Can't. The 54 million recipients won't vote themselves a pay cut.

The only way it will go away is when the government can't tax / borrow / print enough money to keep it going.

Then, a lot of people will be hurt.

 

You would think they could get their cash, and we could vote the other 250 million a pay raise.

 

No cash to get, gooberment spent it all....

Much is paid by payroll tax, what gooberment spent is paid by income tax, as is any shortfall (which is growing each year).

 

how about end all welfare, including public school, and you work or starve

 

No, we need welfare, Social Security for people who need this $. My view with changing Social Security laws is that Social Security, Unemployment Benefits for millionaires is welfare to the rich. We need public schools for education though public schools must stay out of politics and be neutral. Social Security, welfare and unemployment benefits must be for people who need the $ and most rich people don't need that $ to live unless they've had major finance losses which made them poor such as medical bills caused by deadly disease (not elective surgery) or bankruptcy from a catastrophe such as a tornado, hurricane, forest fires, etc. where they lost all.

 

exactly, everyone should pay the same percent per dollar as everyone else, there should not be a reward for making more then a certain amount, the reward was the making of lots of money in itself

- - - Updated - - -

they have that south of the border if anyone really wants it

 

In California, the teachers union wields huge power over politicians, so are guaranteed 40% of the state income. Their retirement is full medical, and 90% of their best year (of all income, not base income), and start collecting after 30 years of service (50 to 55).

Public sector unions will bankrupt CA....

 

no we dont

welfare = coruption

the super high price of medical prcedure is due to corruption

commodify capitalism mass produce

only fix that works

 

So what's the point of social security, why not just take the rich people's money and give it to poor people? Those millionaires pay much more into the social security pile than they are taking out of it, and now you are saying "well screw them, they shouldn't get ANY of what they put into it". Not only is this a completely fallacious argument with no rational logic behind it, but it also shows how little you understand about economics, business, finance, and the real world in general. Your arbitrary definition of "rich" along with your ignorance of how much work it takes to be rich (and how much harder it is with the government we live under, who takes a piece of your wealth every step of the way) tells me that you really need to educate yourself and learn to make a rational argument, instead of simply whining like a five year old.

 

Then SSI is another welfare program, and using the same logic, so is Medicare.

What happens when people realize they can vote themselves a pay raise?

Who is John Galt?

 

If we simply allowed folks to opt out of participating in social security, I think you'd get your wish. The problem is requiring someone to pay for a service and then denying them the use of it.​

 

This is idiotic. You will never get people to pay for a service that they themselves are denied access to. You are crazy. How about I force *YOU* to pay for a lawn mowing service, and then refuse to mow your lawn? What kind of a moron thinks that's a moral and ethical way to function? You people are nutz.

 

If they paid into social security, then they should be entitled to whatever legally they are entitled to.

Given worse case scenario, if any of the people above you mentioned were to lose everything they owned, this is the safety net they'd have to fall back on.

 

That's fine, if they need the $. If a millionaire were to lose everything but apply for Social Security, then it's fine with me if they get the Social Security $ if they need that to buy food, pay the bills. In most cases, this is not what is happening. There's no need for Donald J. Trump with the billions he has to get Social Security because he doesn't need the money to buy his food, clothes and housing. Social Security must only be for those who need the $.

 

What, in your mind, would be the cutoff for social security benefits for the well-to-do? Is it based on their salary? financial holdings? Property ownership? and what would be the monetary amounts? and how do you arrive at your conclusion?

 

With a millionaire getting Social Security, if a millionaire has lost everything and is now homeless, then of course he should get Social Security. As to what the $ is, that needs to be decided by an economist such as average living standard and so on. Economists debate things such as what minimum wage is, how much Social Security should be and so on. Can't give a $ amount, but there should be Federal Standard where economists from Federal Reserve will agree to how much minimum amount should be and so on. That's my best answer because my guess is $10,000 a year would be poverty level income as of 2012.

 

Pack your bags and head for Botswana, you can get that deal there....

 

The fundamental idea of income as a tax basis — that if I give Bob $100, you should get $30 of it — is ridiculous.​

 

So if you purchase an insurance policy on your house, and your house burns down, then the insurance company comes and says "Well if you are broke, we'll pay out. But if you have money, then we are canceling your insurance. Sucks to be you".

That works in your world? Because I'd sure like to sell you an insurance policy if that's ok with you.

So if you earn more than $10,000 a year, then it's ok for your insurance company to cancel your pay out?

Isn't it amazing how when people discuss other people's money, it's ok to deny anything to them... but when it's YOUR money suddenly it's non-of-ya-bidness.