Former Member
inherit
guest@proboards.com
164531
0
May 5, 2024 11:37:40 GMT -8
Former Member
0
January 1970
Former Member
|
Post by Former Member on Dec 14, 2017 13:28:31 GMT -8
They focus so much on raising minimum wage. Those that make minimum wage have a choice, and a chance to get a better job. The elderly and the disabled do not have that chance, or choice. They need to raise Social Security payments significantly , and they need to do it now. Thoughts?
|
|
inherit
28486
0
May 4, 2024 18:48:12 GMT -8
Artemis
20,776
August 2004
lray2
|
Post by Artemis on Dec 14, 2017 13:47:54 GMT -8
I'm not sure why the two things have to be mutually exclusive. It's harder than ever to just "get a better job." I'm sure most people would love to just make more money, but it's often really difficult.
The Social Security problem is a tough one though. It'd help a lot of people to raise payments, but it's already facing a solvency problem. I know the problem won't be fixed here in GT, but at least from my perspective, it would help a lot to get rid of the tax cap and do more means testing of recipients based on wealth; that way all the people who need it most wouldn't see a benefits cut, and we could still close a big funding gap. But that's my not-an-economist perspective. A lot of things haven't been rising with inflation and it's hurting a lot of people, and it's awful that people who worked all their lives will suffer for it, too.
|
|
inherit
Dysfunctional Professional
137695
0
Nov 12, 2019 12:06:54 GMT -8
Søren
Totally zarjaz
6,334
February 2009
solicitudesilence
|
Post by Søren on Dec 14, 2017 13:57:30 GMT -8
I'm grateful to get anything at moment. UK seems bit hostile to those in benefit currently even MPs. Recent years my benefit been cut but care costs are sky high and this is just getting bare minimum I really need. Easy to say things need to be higher but it got to come from something
|
|
inherit
PBS Oscars: Best Debater 08 Oscars: Best New Member 2007
86462
0
Apr 24, 2024 6:39:42 GMT -8
HoudiniDerek
Capital Idea!
33,291
August 2006
houdiniderek
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Dec 14, 2017 14:38:27 GMT -8
They focus so much on raising minimum wage. Those that make minimum wage have a choice, and a chance to get a better job. The elderly and the disabled do not have that chance, or choice. They need to raise Social Security payments significantly , and they need to do it now. Thoughts? You have the opportunity to potentially apply for a better job, but that does not mean they will get one. That's not exactly a choice. It's not an either-or proposition as you seem to make it sound. Additionally, I see many elderly that still work. Why don't they have that chance or choice? As for Social Security, I made some comments in the Presidential thread. I think that whatever we have paid in should come back out to us. Period. How it is done is hard to determine for many reasons in my opinion, but the money should be paid back to the person who earned it.
|
|
Former Member
inherit
guest@proboards.com
164531
0
May 5, 2024 11:37:40 GMT -8
Former Member
0
January 1970
Former Member
|
Post by Former Member on Dec 14, 2017 15:00:36 GMT -8
They focus so much on raising minimum wage. Those that make minimum wage have a choice, and a chance to get a better job. The elderly and the disabled do not have that chance, or choice. They need to raise Social Security payments significantly , and they need to do it now. Thoughts? You have the opportunity to potentially apply for a better job, but that does not mean they will get one. That's not exactly a choice. It's not an either-or proposition as you seem to make it sound. Additionally, I see many elderly that still work. Why don't they have that chance or choice? As for Social Security, I made some comments in the Presidential thread. I think that whatever we have paid in should come back out to us. Period. How it is done is hard to determine for many reasons in my opinion, but the money should be paid back to the person who earned it. I said they had a choice, and a chance. Which they do. The elderly and the disabled do not. You seriously think an 80 year old man should have to work to get by? I guess they still have a choice and a chance. It's not right though. Work your entire life paying into Social Security to get a tiny bit of change every month that isn't enough to cover rent? What a way to live
|
|
inherit
PBS Oscars: Best Debater 08 Oscars: Best New Member 2007
86462
0
Apr 24, 2024 6:39:42 GMT -8
HoudiniDerek
Capital Idea!
33,291
August 2006
houdiniderek
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Dec 14, 2017 15:05:32 GMT -8
You have the opportunity to potentially apply for a better job, but that does not mean they will get one. That's not exactly a choice. It's not an either-or proposition as you seem to make it sound. Additionally, I see many elderly that still work. Why don't they have that chance or choice? As for Social Security, I made some comments in the Presidential thread. I think that whatever we have paid in should come back out to us. Period. How it is done is hard to determine for many reasons in my opinion, but the money should be paid back to the person who earned it. I said they had a choice, and a chance. Which they do. The elderly and the disabled do not. You seriously think an 80 year old man should have to work to get by? I guess they still have a choice and a chance. It's not right though. Work your entire life paying into Social Security to get a tiny bit of change every month that isn't enough to cover rent? What a way to live Personally, I agree with you. If an 80 year old does not want to work, they shouldn't have to. But since Social Security has been taken from for so long, now they are worried about solvency of it. That's a political problem though and hard to change. But to say they don't have a choice or a chance is technically incorrect was my point.
|
|
inherit
17836
0
Apr 29, 2024 15:20:43 GMT -8
daniel
27,203
December 2003
danielsmith
|
Post by daniel on Dec 14, 2017 16:08:20 GMT -8
I think that people ought to have more empathy, and certainly less antipathy, towards those on minimum wage. I haven't made minimum wage since I was 18, but others face more challenges or have less opportunity than I did.
Regarding Social Security, I think it should be pegged to inflation (we need the same thing for minimum wage...), but that it should also phase in differently. I'm not a fan of "You're 65, now you can retire and get free money." To be blunt, a lot of people are perfectly capable of working at 65. Maybe they can't work a high demanding job, but some job, some way to keep contributing... I would change Social Security so that it had a partial benefit earlier, say 55, so that people could semi-retire earlier, so that jobs could be opened for younger workers. I'd stretch the maximum payout to 70+ or have it based on medical/health needs.
The big thing about any of this is that it requires funding. Older people tend to vote republican. Republicans keep cutting everything... So, yeah, the younger generations want to give you more retirement money. We also want better healthcare coverage for ourselves. We're willing to put up our money and labor. How about it?
|
|
Former Member
inherit
guest@proboards.com
164531
0
May 5, 2024 11:37:40 GMT -8
Former Member
0
January 1970
Former Member
|
Post by Former Member on Dec 14, 2017 17:26:11 GMT -8
Regarding Social Security, I think it should be pegged to inflation (we need the same thing for minimum wage...), but that it should also phase in differently. I'm not a fan of "You're 65, now you can retire and get free money." To be blunt, a lot of people are perfectly capable of working at 65. Maybe they can't work a high demanding job, but some job, some way to keep contributing... I would change Social Security so that it had a partial benefit earlier, say 55, so that people could semi-retire earlier, so that jobs could be opened for younger workers. I'd stretch the maximum payout to 70+ or have it based on medical/health needs. The big thing about any of this is that it requires funding. Older people tend to vote republican. Republicans keep cutting everything... So, yeah, the younger generations want to give you more retirement money. We also want better healthcare coverage for ourselves. We're willing to put up our money and labor. How about it? Free money? We, the workers paid into that with every single paycheck. It's not free money. It's our money and the government needs to get their paws out of it and pay back what they've taken. That's another thread though. You mention the elderly at 65 still being able to work. They can. What about the disabled that cannot work? What about them? They paid into it and deserve more than the base payment so many of them receive. There should be more done for this. Every single one of us could have a stroke tomorrow and never be able to work again. Believe it or not, a stroke doesn't care how old you are. Everyone is able to have one, at any age. Think about it. You have a stroke tonight. Tomorrow you can't move your right side, walk, or maybe even talk. You apply for Social Security and get denied, so you have to hire a lawyer. Two, three years later you get approved. Now you can't work, you have nothing left because you lost it all waiting to get a settlement for money from a fund you paid into, and you finally start getting a check. $780 a month after Medicare, and before taxes. That's nothing!! That's the point here. Something needs to be done to change it
|
|
inherit
17836
0
Apr 29, 2024 15:20:43 GMT -8
daniel
27,203
December 2003
danielsmith
|
Post by daniel on Dec 14, 2017 17:34:49 GMT -8
You mention the elderly at 65 still being able to work. They can. What about the disabled that cannot work? What about them? They paid into it and deserve more than the base payment so many of them receive. There should be more done for this. Every single one of us could have a stroke tomorrow and never be able to work again. Believe it or not, a stroke doesn't care how old you are. Everyone is able to have one, at any age. Think about it. You have a stroke tonight. Tomorrow you can't move your right side, walk, or maybe even talk. You apply for Social Security and get denied, so you have to hire a lawyer. Two, three years later you get approved. Now you can't work, you have nothing left because you lost it all waiting to get a settlement for money from a fund you paid into, and you finally start getting a check. $780 a month after Medicare, and before taxes. That's nothing!! That's the point here. Something needs to be done to change it Um, it's right there: ______________________________ also there: Solving these problems, and many others, requires changing of voting patterns where people vote against their own economic interests. There can be no complaint about these issues unless you're actively voting against the people who make the problems worse.
|
|
Former Member
inherit
guest@proboards.com
164531
0
May 5, 2024 11:37:40 GMT -8
Former Member
0
January 1970
Former Member
|
Post by Former Member on Dec 14, 2017 17:43:10 GMT -8
Well it doesn't matter Republican or Democrat in this case. It's not the government's money and they shouldn't be touching it. Period
|
|
inherit
(?)?
188910
0
Jan 26, 2013 13:30:48 GMT -8
♥ ℒʊ√ ♥
Clouds float into my life no longer to carry rain or usher storm but to add color to my sunset sky.
10,458
January 2013
luv
|
Post by ♥ ℒʊ√ ♥ on Dec 14, 2017 18:25:40 GMT -8
The fact that this tax "cut" is being foisted on the public as a tax cut for the middle class is disingenuous.
It's for corporations, the 1% and Republican party donors.
What small tax cut the middle class might get will be phased out. The cuts for the corporations, the 1% and the donors are permanent.
And today, they decided to phase the middle class cuts out earlier. And why? So the corporations, the 1% and the donors will get EVEN more.
And, of course, this will be a wonderful tax cut for POTUS and his family. Talk about conflict of interest.
And then, should this cut go through, they're set to say we need to cut expenses because of the HUGE deficit this cut creates. So they'll go after Medicare, Medicaid and SS ~ even though POTUS promised not to.
They've already said disability is not a part of SS ~ and they are wrong, It is a program of SS and workers do contribute to it.
65/66/70. Age is relative to health. Some can work at that age; some cannot. They shouldn't be penalized if they fall into the "cannot".
An easy fix would be to remove the affluent from the SS payroll. That would save billions.
They need to reduce the deficit? The deficit they are set to add a trillion plus for the sake of making the wealthy wealthier!!!??
|
|
#FF6600
Closet Spammer
31801
0
1
May 5, 2024 7:42:46 GMT -8
wildmaven
Fear the Flying Flocks of Fiery Fury!!
35,602
October 2004
wildmaven
Wildmaven's Mini-Profile
|
Post by wildmaven on Dec 14, 2017 18:29:38 GMT -8
I'd stretch the maximum payout to 70+ or have it based on medical/health needs. Then you have a lot of people having to stay in jobs longer in order to get their full payout, thus forcing a workforce full of people who probably shouldn't be in jobs where mental acuteness is key. I certainly can't see me at 70 being responsible for injecting people with radioactive materials. Would you willingly hold out your arm to be injected by someone 70 years old?
|
|
inherit
(?)?
188910
0
Jan 26, 2013 13:30:48 GMT -8
♥ ℒʊ√ ♥
Clouds float into my life no longer to carry rain or usher storm but to add color to my sunset sky.
10,458
January 2013
luv
|
Post by ♥ ℒʊ√ ♥ on Dec 14, 2017 18:33:01 GMT -8
Additionally, if the age is upped to 70 or higher, in a world were automation will soon replace many jobs, incoming young workers will have a harder time finding jobs if the employment turnover from the elderly takes place at an older age.
|
|
inherit
17836
0
Apr 29, 2024 15:20:43 GMT -8
daniel
27,203
December 2003
danielsmith
|
Post by daniel on Dec 14, 2017 18:44:56 GMT -8
I'd stretch the maximum payout to 70+ or have it based on medical/health needs. Then you have a lot of people having to stay in jobs longer in order to get their full payout, thus forcing a workforce full of people who probably shouldn't be in jobs where mental acuteness is key. I certainly can't see me at 70 being responsible for injecting people with radioactive materials. Would you willingly hold out your arm to be injected by someone 70 years old? ^ a better society, one we should be working towards, would have jobs and roles available. The rate of technological and medical progress suggests that the human lifespan will increase. The average lifespan has already increased just in the few generations since Social Security. We need to start looking at that probability and peg benefits to current population trends, not ones from eighty years ago.
|
|
inherit
Resident Historian, Grammar Guru, Wildmaven's Knight
48377
0
May 5, 2024 6:29:25 GMT -8
Knightly Celt
The Squirrel Army, commanded by Knightly Celt, continues to defend PBGT
6,085
June 2005
fpq2
|
Post by Knightly Celt on Dec 15, 2017 15:14:08 GMT -8
Let's make one thing perfectly clear. Social Security is NOT an entitlement nor is it "free money." The funds therein are a retirement program derived from the Social Security payments withheld from worker's earning aa mandated by the government. You work, you pay, plain and simple. At it's core it was never meant to be used to fund other programs; unfortunately, various administrations have raided the coffers of Social Security and have never paid it back. The result is what we now see, the possibility of insolvency. Sure, increased lifespan and other factors have contributed, but they are not the primary reason. Robbing Peter to pay Paul and never giving the money back to Peter is.
daniel suggested a partial payment programs starting at an earlier age. This already exists. At age 62 one can start getting payments equal to 75% of the full monthly benefit. If you wait until to start, the percentage increases until you reach full retirement age (for me, 66). Waiting until 70 gets you 125% of the full retirement payment, but there's a twist As I said, I stated collecting 2 years ago, at which time I became part time. Social Security, however, puts a cap on how much you can earn each year without being penalized. Work too much and they take out $1 for every 2$ you earn above said cap. This continues, at a diminishing rate ($1 penalty for every $3 over, for example). Working part time, therefore, is not an attractive option for some, especially for those whose schedule may vary or earn more than the government feels you should.
I paid into it for almost 50 years. I had no choice. It's mine and I should get it.
wildmaven asked, "Would you willingly hold out your arm to be injected by someone 70 years old?" My answer is YES! You , and ONLY you, can needle me all you want, age not withstanding!
|
|