ChiefsPlanet Mobile
View Poll Results: Which do you prefer
Keep Social Security & All Other Welfare Payment Systems as-is 4 36.36%
Modify SS & Welfare and augment with a Negative Income Tax 3 27.27%
Abolish SS & Welfare and replace with Universal Basic Income 4 36.36%
Voters: 11. You may not vote on this poll
Page 1 of 4
1 234 >
Washington DC and The Holy Land>Which of these three is the best option
Discuss Thrower 12:54 PM 04-12-2019
Poll forthwith
[Reply]
IowaHawkeyeChief 01:27 PM 04-12-2019
None of the above. Adjust Retirement age for folks under 50. 69 is too young. When SS was started it it was age 65. The ave. life expectancy was at or close to the for men, who were the dominate wage earners.
[Reply]
ClevelandBronco 01:31 PM 04-12-2019
"Best" doesn't belong in the question.
[Reply]
Randallflagg 01:47 PM 04-12-2019
Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief:
None of the above. Adjust Retirement age for folks under 50. 69 is too young. When SS was started it it was age 65. The ave. life expectancy was at or close to the for men, who were the dominate wage earners.


I absolutely agree. I have said this a million times; if they want to abolish SS - that's fine. Simply done - children, when they reach the age of 18 would decide to either forego paying any SS tax for the entirety of their working lives - and could decide how to invest that money - or not.

That would all but end SS in the next 20 years. The people that are currently on - or about to be on SS would continue to receive THEIR money until their death (of which I am one) and I paid into that program for the last 60 or so years - based on the promise that FDR made to the American People.

Personally, I think it is a bad idea to end it - but this country has changed so much in the last 20 years, that I just don't know any longer.
[Reply]
displacedinMN 03:21 PM 04-12-2019
I don't want to teach until I die.
ever see the movie Teachers? Guy dies in his classroom and no one notices.
Fuck-that could be me.
[Reply]
2bikemike 03:26 PM 04-12-2019
Originally Posted by Randallflagg:
I absolutely agree. I have said this a million times; if they want to abolish SS - that's fine. Simply done - children, when they reach the age of 18 would decide to either forego paying any SS tax for the entirety of their working lives - and could decide how to invest that money - or not.

That would all but end SS in the next 20 years. The people that are currently on - or about to be on SS would continue to receive THEIR money until their death (of which I am one) and I paid into that program for the last 60 or so years - based on the promise that FDR made to the American People.

Personally, I think it is a bad idea to end it - but this country has changed so much in the last 20 years, that I just don't know any longer.
There would never have been a problem with Social Security if it had been set aside in an account labeled xxx-xx-xxxx for each individual as a retirement account, instead of being lumped into a giant pyramid of a slush fund.
[Reply]
Randallflagg 03:33 PM 04-12-2019
Originally Posted by 2bikemike:
There would never have been a problem with Social Security if it had been set aside in an account labeled xxx-xx-xxxx for each individual as a retirement account, instead of being lumped into a giant pyramid of a slush fund.

Couldn't agree more. I didn't create this problem. You didn't create this problem. The Congress created this problem by allocating funds to SS and then dipping into it from day one.

And why not? There's always next year, right?

That's why I always laugh each time I hear a Congressman tell the American people that "We created this problem".

Bullshit. the people do not pass legislation. Congress does.
[Reply]
Rain Man 03:37 PM 04-12-2019
Originally Posted by 2bikemike:
There would never have been a problem with Social Security if it had been set aside in an account labeled xxx-xx-xxxx for each individual as a retirement account, instead of being lumped into a giant pyramid of a slush fund.
Yeah, but I don't think it was ever intended to be an individual account. High income people pay more than they'll get back so the system can give enough money to low-income people to subsist on. Some people die early and their money is given to the 100 year olds who pull more out than they put in. I think it's always been meant to be social insurance more than a retirement plan. And I think that's the best way to do it, given that none of us know if we'll be that 100 year old person.
[Reply]
Randallflagg 05:51 PM 04-12-2019
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
Yeah, but I don't think it was ever intended to be an individual account. High income people pay more than they'll get back so the system can give enough money to low-income people to subsist on. Some people die early and their money is given to the 100 year olds who pull more out than they put in. I think it's always been meant to be social insurance more than a retirement plan. And I think that's the best way to do it, given that none of us know if we'll be that 100 year old person.


Please - PLEASE Mr Rainman!!! PLEASE don't let it out that the wealthy pay more in taxes that the rest of us.....Please stop this! The liberals heads will explode...you will be called a liar and a cheat. It's for your own good...
[Reply]
Over Yonder 09:47 AM 04-13-2019
Of your options, #1 is the best..... and it stinks.

First off, Social Security and welfare shouldn't be discussed together. They are not the same animals. Welfare needs eliminated cold turkey, right now period. Work or starve, those are your options. Or freeload off a friend or family member that works is also an option I guess.

Social Security is a mess, for sure. It never should of been invented to start with. But in the day of 401k's , 403b's, IRA's etc. etc, it is downright retarded. What I think needs done is pick a starting date and from that day forward everybody is required to put the same money they would of gave to SS into an approved retirement account like the ones I mentioned. Starting at 18 yrs. old that is. I know the employer pays part and the individual pays part. Leave it that way.

Those of us already in the system are just yucked IMO. I guess to keep us paid, the government will just have to add to the debt since the younger generations would no longer be contributing. Sometimes medicine is yucky, but you ain't gonna get better until you take it :-)
[Reply]
Just Passin' By 10:12 AM 04-13-2019
Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief:
None of the above. Adjust Retirement age for folks under 50. 69 is too young. When SS was started it it was age 65. The ave. life expectancy was at or close to the for men, who were the dominate wage earners.
A "none of the above" choice would have won the poll, overwhelmingly.
[Reply]
Eleazar 10:39 AM 04-13-2019
Three bad options, one false dilemma
[Reply]
BDj23 11:13 AM 04-13-2019
Originally Posted by Randallflagg:
I absolutely agree. I have said this a million times; if they want to abolish SS - that's fine. Simply done - children, when they reach the age of 18 would decide to either forego paying any SS tax for the entirety of their working lives - and could decide how to invest that money - or not.

That would all but end SS in the next 20 years. The people that are currently on - or about to be on SS would continue to receive THEIR money until their death (of which I am one) and I paid into that program for the last 60 or so years - based on the promise that FDR made to the American People.

Personally, I think it is a bad idea to end it - but this country has changed so much in the last 20 years, that I just don't know any longer.
So what happens to me? I'm just out all the money I paid into it?
[Reply]
Discuss Thrower 11:17 AM 04-13-2019
Originally Posted by BDj23:
So what happens to me? I'm just out all the money I paid into it?
It's not all about you.
[Reply]
BDj23 11:18 AM 04-13-2019
Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower:
It's not all about you.
I know. I love the idea of working til I die to foot the bill of boomer retirement!
[Reply]
Page 1 of 4
1 234 >
Up