It's documented in the annals of the congress. The politicians are raping the SS 'sinking fund' to finance their pork bills and leaving jack for those who paid (by coercion) into it all their working lives.
Social Security is a socialist scam for the 'redistribution of wealth' from the people at large to the politicians (who are already stupid rich).
PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY NOW!
2007-04-23 05:33:47
·
answer #1
·
answered by credo quia est absurdum 7
·
5⤊
2⤋
Because too many people are staking their claims when they don't need it. Even TIME magazine has called Social Security an "insurance" program.
The whole concept behind "insurance" is that people pool their money and only stake a claim when they need to; but politicians have been too cowardly to insist on that, so the populace continues to steal from it even if they don't need it. Their argument is, "I paid into it, I deserve to get something back." No, folks: you pay car insurance and hope you never have an accident. You buy house insurance and hope you never have to file a claim.
NO ONE should collect Social Security until - or unless - they truly are in need. Why should a guy with two million dollars in the bank, a brand new Lexus, a $400,000 house, and a stock portfolio worth another million, be entitled to collect a $2,000-per-month Social Security check?
That "insurance" money should only go to those who need it for basic survival. That's what the whole concept of "insurance" is all about - and that's what politicians must return the Social Security system to, before it does go broke. -RKO- 04/23/07
2007-04-23 06:36:50
·
answer #2
·
answered by -RKO- 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
It has never been a "savings account." Social Security is paid by those working to those who have stopped working. When the ratio of those who have "retired" increases versus the workers, the program has to pay out more than it takes in, or increase the "contribution" it takes from the workers.
There are two possible solutions: 1) delay the age at which Social Security eligibility is attained (say, 67 years old), and/or 2) raise the SSI tax on workers.
Personally, I expect Congress to do what it does best (nothing) and for Social Security to become bankrupt long before I reach eligibility.
Whee.
2007-04-23 05:35:20
·
answer #3
·
answered by Grendle 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
With the curent system that is in play at this time, it will eventually go under, but that is not the problem. The problem is that our goverment is allowing non-US citizens to draw on our hard earned Social Security. Hell, right now, about 75% of the elderly are not able to live on what they draw as it is, not to mention that if most of them had not saved all of their lives, they would be live in poverty as some of them are now. I am a baby boomer and if something is not done by the time I reach retirement age, let alone when my kids and their kids reach that age, the system is going to be in serious trouble. It already is to some degree. But I think that the biggest thing condeming the system right now is that there is just not enough money going in, or at least not as much as is coming out and now there is talk of letting all of these hyspanics and other imigrants draw on funds that they did not help build and that is simply not right in my book. If the government tries to do this, we need to fight it, if we are given the option. If they did not put in, they should not be able to draw, period.
2007-04-23 05:51:44
·
answer #4
·
answered by golden rider 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Two reasons:
1. When it was first started, there were 15 workers to support every retiree. Now there are only 2-3 workers to support each retiree.
2. Since its inception, politicians have been taking money out of it for various reasons. Had they made a law that didn't permit the Soc Sec accounts to be used for anything but Soc Sec, we may not have as big a problem now.
I would rather see us scrap the whole system before the Baby Boomers get to it. As far as I'm concerned the Baby Boomer generation is more responsible than any other for the state of America today, so if they suffer without Soc Sec, too bad, they brought it on themselves.
2007-04-23 07:47:45
·
answer #5
·
answered by BOOM 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Social security has technically been broke since it was founded. It's a Ponzi scheme. The money that you are putting into the system isn't going into an account for YOU, it's going to people who today are taking money OUT of the system. At some point, all Ponzi schemes will collapse.
2007-04-23 10:16:07
·
answer #6
·
answered by jdkilp 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Actually Social Security isn't going broke. It is one of the few parts of the federal government that is in the black. However, you have greedy politicians robbing it. The problem we all have is Social Security. It should be done away with completely. Of course this would have to be done gradually so that the people who rely on it do not suffer.
2007-04-23 06:03:28
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
it has to. it's a upside down pyramid.
people are living longer.
when the plan was in place Americans life expectancy was mid sixties.
today average is 72 -76 yrs.
with the *15 million new illegal immigrations will swell the rolls . they will not put in enough money in SSI ,for the amount ,they will receive.
this is fact . not a racist.
the plan will changed to on need base and reduce the amount of people with assets.
2007-04-23 06:04:08
·
answer #8
·
answered by MADMAX 1
·
1⤊
0⤋
When your contribution from your taxes is paying for a current retiree and not your social security trust fund, no one is willing to work toward contributions to everyone's account comming to term so everyone gets what they contribute plus the interest earned, and outlaw raiding of such accounts that are mismanaged to begin with.
2007-04-23 06:07:27
·
answer #9
·
answered by Jorge D 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Because when it started there were 15 workers per 1 person receiving benefits. Now it is approaching 2 to 1. That isn't enough.
This was a plan made by people in government who suspected that by the time came for the system to crash, they would be long dead. They were right.
2007-04-23 05:32:27
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
8⤊
0⤋