Shouldn't Social Security be payed out based on your net worth?

Question

-- Give out social security depending on your assets-- If you are well off, you get less, if you are poor and desperate, you get what you need to live.
Right now, at taxpayers expense,( POOR taxpayers taken out of payroll taxes)--
Rich people are collecting much more than they need each month and poor are still barely scraping by.
Is it fair that Poor taxpayers have to contribute to padding old geezer's wallets? --While they don't need it and are collecting well past what they ever put in as the years go on....

Answer 1

No it isn't fair, it's kinda the same as republicans complaining about welfare, they say (repubs) that welfare if for lazy people and we have to pay, so wouldnt it just be the same thing? repubs are all about the rich, which is why you tend to see rich white people as rebubs, I know thats not all the way true, but it is the majority

Answer 2

Social security is not intended for you to live on it is just a supplement.Everyone who pays into Social Security are in titled to get what they put into. We all have the freedom to make all the money we want in our life, some do ,some don't.Some have more, some have less, bottom line is collecting SS doesn't penalize someone who has done well in there life and it shouldn't . It is there for them because they paid into it ,what they have doesn't matter. The RICH pay a lot more taxes than the poor. and the Rich Keep the poor working , if the poor are scraping by it's there fault. and the poor get plenty of help that the the middle class keep paying for. It's the middle class that bare the burden in this country , not the poor or the rich. Just for the record I'm not rich but if I were, I would most likely give to charity anyway but that would be my choice and not because I have to........

Answer 3

I would suggest 2 alternatives:

1. Get rid of Social Security altogether. That way everyone (even the poor) get to keep their money. This is the best way to keep the greedy and corrupt politicians from spending the money on other things.

2. Make SS voluntary. Rich people don't need it, so give them the option to not participate. This means they don't pay SS taxes, and they get no benefits.

These are just my two suggestions, but just about anything would be better than what we have now.

Answer 4

Although I can see some logic in what you ask, I can't agree. I worked for a government agency, until I was forced to retire on a small pension. In order to support my family, I worked two and sometimes three jobs, in which I paid Social Security. Now I'm told that I cannot collect my full SS amount due to having worked for the government. After I make my Medicare payment, which is arbitrarily taken from my SS money, I collect less than one dollar a day, from Social Security. If I worked for the benefits of Social Security, and paid in the full amount, why can't I collect the full amount?

Answer 5

I know I will not get your vote for best answer because I disagree with you.

Social Security Insurance was never designed as a pension program. SSI was specifically designed to be a curb against inflation, which is the greatest danger to a retired person in terms of net worth depletion. That is why the rate of return for SSI is consistantly around 4%, because that is the average rate of inflation for the past 50 years.

Do you ever refuse a raise at work because you do not need the money? Who are you to determine what some people need and others do not?

The only way anyone gets SSI benefits is if they pay into a system. The SSI system is point based, so the more you pay in, the more you receive. SSI is set up so that you are paying into the system to support the current population of retired and in the future workers will pay in to support you based on what you contributed to the system. How is it fair to tell someone that they have to pay into a system that they never see a dime back on?

I can accept that property taxes fund police and fire, which is why I pay property taxes, so as to gain that benefit.

If you want to establish SSI as a pension program, which is fundamentally different than its current structure, you are essentially saying to the American People that they are not responsible for saving for retirement. The American People will fund their retirement.

However, if you wanted to do as such, you would first have to raise the taxes collected on everyone for the retirement fund. That would fund it at a level to allow it to pay out at a flat annuity rate, itemized for individual needs. There are two ways of funding it. The first is through flat tax ratios which compels all citizens to contribute the same in dollars. This would hurt workers, the people you seek to benefit. The second is through a progressive tax which would require rich people to pay in more than they will ever get out. This punished rich people and rewards workers. The problem with punishing rich people is that you will havea capital flight.

France has a system that you are reccomending, and they are loosing a millionaire a week to flight. Rich people are leaving France, and coming to nations without such systems. You can see the stagnation in their economy as a result of capital flight. This creates further problems on two lever. Workers have to pay out more to meet the demand of the entitlement, therefore it hurts them in the pocketbook anyway, and second, without a wealth base, new jobs do not emerge. Afterall, it is not poor people that sign paychecks.

Probably the best solution would be to create a tax free retirement account for every American Citizen, similar to a ROTH. You eliminate the amount that people can place into the account, and do not tax them when they withdraw it at a set age. Then you combine it with a standard IRA by allowing pre-tax dollars to prevent any form of taxation on the money. It pools as one big account, which leverages risk for individual investors, and then cashes you out at a certain age. The government keeps 1% of the account as a maintenence fee.

Government gets revenue to ccover cost of the system, people get tax free money when they retire. If they do not save, tough. They brought it on themselves. If they were to poor to save, they should have found a way to improve themselves so they could get better jobs, or they should have gone into business for themselves.

Answer 6

It looks good on paper but will never happen, the capitalist philosophy of greed is the reason. It is a shame in America the richest country in the world that American people have to eat dog food and live under bridges for shelter or die young because they can no longer afford the health care system. It is the greed in this country that makes some of us rich, but at the expense of others and that is not right.

Answer 7

Republicans have a right to complain. They shouldn't be expected to subsidize the incomes of people who can't or won't do anything for themselves. There should be an incentive to work hard and better yourself. If the poor can't find a job that pays enough, let them get a second job.

Answer 8

Good old time Communist Plan.
Failed everywhere. Would fail here.
Communism failed. Give it up.
Check out why the Soviet Union failed.

Making the people who work poor, doesn't help anyone. You end up with a whole nation of poor, which is the goal of Communism/Socialism.

Answer 9

that is a noble idea
the blue collar dollar has fed social security for years
why should the rich ride on his back

Answer 10

Yes. In fact it should be done away with and privatized. Is it my fault that others don't invest for their future? I think anyone 40 or below should be responsible for their own retirement from this point on.