English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

In the annual report for 2006, Social Security Trustees stated that without changes the funds will go bust by 2040. In their conclusions they stated that either a 16% increase in payroll taxes, or a 13% reduction in benefits is required immediately to keep the fund solvent for another 75 years.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/trsummary.html

We need reform in this program. Privatization may not be the answer, but it was a good place to start the discussion. However, some people refuse any discussion on the matter period.

Do you believe that something must be done? and, what do you think the best solution is?

2006-10-09 09:28:53 · 8 answers · asked by Bryan 7 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

bulabate: The only moron I see here is you. Learn something about how money and economy works before posting on it and maybe you won't look like a fool next time.

2006-10-09 22:39:09 · update #1

8 answers

it is a lost cause and should be sucked dry and forgotten , i definately wouldn't want a 16% tax increase when i could put that money into a personal retirement . when my time comes and i get it great , if i don't i will be prepared as all people should

2006-10-09 09:34:12 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

How about we first take the cap off of SS earnings. Then everybody making over $35,000 a year has to have an extra $10 a week put in a commercial bank account that would go up to $20 a week over a 10 year period. Then when you get ready to retire the first money you get is your own. Think how much a 25yr old would have at 65 yrs old. This would eventually solve the problem without disrupting the existing system. I don't care if your retiring the next month after the system takes affect. the first $40 dollars you collect are your own. The next month it's $80 then $120 then $160. That is all money not coming out of the SS System. To allow people to take a portion of the SS they are already paying into private accounts would bankrupt the system even earlier. There is no way to make it right without causing pain but I believe this would minimize it.

2006-10-09 16:42:58 · answer #2 · answered by spicoli 3 · 0 1

I think if there were more childcare providers, larger numbers and choices, it would make the decision to either return or begin work a lot easier. Not everyone has the luxury of being able to ask family for help in looking after their children and would have to rely solely on registered providers.
As a single mom I would give anything to be able to work for my children. It would give me a great deal of self respect, aswell as, I think a sense of being a better role model for them. The options are so limited for me. I cannot afford a car so local providers are essential. I have three children aged 5, 10, and 12, and when I looked into it would have to find 2 or even 3 different childcare options because they have age limits. I feel so frustrated by this. I want to work for my kids, yet because of their ages and lack of choice, I can't.
Another problem I have to take into account is, how understanding prospective employers will be. If any of my children are ill, I would have to stay home and look after them. Will they think that I could be unreliable due to the fact, I may have to take sick days for not only myself, but for 3 kids aswell?
I think the childcare situation is improving, but there is a long way to go.

2006-10-09 17:50:18 · answer #3 · answered by stiflersmom29 3 · 0 0

the federal government does not control the printing of money. the federal reserve does. the federal reserve is a privately owned corporation with very few shareholders. congress passed the federal budget and send it to the president. the pres tells the sec of treasury to print up the federal bonds and take them to the federal reserve. the fed reserve prints the money and gives it in exchange for the bonds. the federal deficit it the amount due the fed reserve to buy back the bonds and pay the interest. if the US gov should ever default the fed reserve would technically own the US. how would they collect? rumors have it that haliburton is building "work" camps in remote places in the US to house workers that will be required to work off the debt. check out freedom to facisim with your browser. as far as social security, funny how the initials (SS) were use by another insane leader for a branch of his government, it was going broke back when my grandparents were collecting it. when i was a kid old people were taken care of by their family. people were encouraged to work and save because there were no safety nets like SS. SS was never meant to be a retirement program. it is supposed to supplement other retirement programs. is SS working? i say no. 90% of US citizens die dead broke. one congressman had the idea to put money into the market under each new born childs name. that money would not be available until retirement age. the biggest problem that seniors have is paying their medical bills and buying medicine. if the government wanted to help senior citizens with social services it should be with socialized medicine. i hate politics.

2006-10-09 16:58:55 · answer #4 · answered by handyman5218 3 · 0 0

Only morons & fools buy this Propaganda; The Federal Government prints money with a endless supply of paper & ink why not take pride in older citizens that have worked until being forced to stop. Raise there pay to acheive the American dream for once before they parish! The feds or Congress can seed anyone's pocket with money why not people who deserve it! This comment does not apply to freeloaders whom have abused the system!

2006-10-09 16:37:10 · answer #5 · answered by bulabate 5 · 0 1

They will continue to do what they've always done and make changes such as: have means testing, reducing benefits, raising payroll taxes & delaying the retirement dates.

I wish they'd at least give folks the option to control a portion of their s.s. taxes. By the way, the proposal was always to give the taxpayers the option...not to make it mandatory for everybody.

2006-10-09 16:39:36 · answer #6 · answered by derek 4 · 1 0

It needs to go back to being for retirement. All the disability to vagrants and other posers has drained it dry.

I mean really, when a bum can get a check because being a drunk is now a disability. Who the hell thought that up. Oh yeah and drug addicts, boo hoo.

2006-10-09 16:37:36 · answer #7 · answered by Have gun, will travel. 4 · 1 1

We need to stop relying on other people to support us. It takes 9 tax payers to cover one recipient. People need to take responsibility for themselves and invest.

2006-10-09 16:32:55 · answer #8 · answered by only p 6 · 1 2

fedest.com, questions and answers