other annuities and STILL collect Social Security is fair? Should these double dippers have their assets looked at and them not be collecting Social Security (ok Presidential Candidates, choke on that question because that would make all of you ineligible for SocSec!)
2007-09-28 13:45:56 · 8 answers · asked by Empress Jan 5 in Business & Finance ➔ Taxes ➔ United States
remember, that back during the depression when this system was started it was to help those that needed help, not to support those that already had money!
2007-09-28 14:35:45 · update #1
PS - I'm not lazy and yes I have worked and yes I've seen the rich hide their assets!
2007-09-29 09:27:41 · update #2
SS was not originated to provide old age assistance. Such programs were already in place when the SS Act was passed in 1935. SS has never been presented as a means-based retirement benefit, except for the fact that the high wage earners get a higher benefit than the lower wage earners.
Why would the government want high income taxpayers to be ineligible for SS benefits? They would be less economically dependent on the government. They would become political loose cannons. They would demand that they not have to participate in SS.
There will always be some benefits from SS to those that have contributed the most. The SS benefits have become much less important to the high income earners, both because of the amount of the benefits and because 85% of those benefits are taxed.
The ceilings for the SS payroll tax will continue to rise, the benefits may drop, and the level of taxation may go to 100%. But benefits will not entirely disappear for the high wage earners, not unless the whole system falls apart.
2007-09-28 15:12:27 · answer #1 · answered by ninasgramma 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What makes you think it's "double dipping?" They paid into the system just as you did so they are entitled just as you are! OK, maybe they did a better job of planning for their retirement than you did, but that's YOUR fault, not theirs!
FYI, people with significant additional income will pay tax on some of their Social Security benefits. That's penalty enough for their wealth. Pulling an entitlement because they did a good job of planning for their retirement (of which Social Security is a valid component!) is simply unconscionable!
So, yes, their collecting Social Security is COMPLETELY fair. If you'd like a piece of the pie, get off your lazy backside and plan for YOUR retirement. The choice between dog food and filet mignon is up to you.
2007-09-29 03:24:51 · answer #2 · answered by Bostonian In MO 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Double dippers? They pay into social security just like anyone else - but since they save a substantial sum for their retirement instead of living higher all their lives with the fanciest house and fancy car, nicest vacations, they should be penalized by not getting social security that they paid for? They should subsidize the guy who made the same amount as they did, but always spent every cent? Now there's a great idea!
That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the eventual, inevitable "fixing" of social securiy includes means testing.
2007-09-28 13:56:28 · answer #3 · answered by Judy 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Maybe we shouldn't give it to those that refused to save for retirement instead of punishing those of us that have sacrificed to save. I save about 50% of my income and don't get new cars or nice clothes so when I retire I won't need to live on SS but I have paid in for 40 years and without it I would need to save even more.
Even a million saved only gives a safe withdrawal rate of 40K a year so taking away the 12K or so of SS income would mean we needed to work years longer to retire without spending down assets. Retirement can be more than 40 years we won't retire if we don't think we can afford it. But with your plan those that didn't save anything will get money and retire before those saving retire.
2007-09-28 20:15:06 · answer #4 · answered by shipwreck 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Social secure practices administration could be greater useful positioned to apply in a privatized fund that would assure secure securities for investment and oversee the dealing with of those money. this could take the government out of the entitlement enterprise for our seniors and strengthen the return to the investor. An coverage coverage, which may well be paid for by skill of the traders, utilising a proportion of the investment to create a fund that covers a failure interior the equipment. This fund would desire to be dealt with by skill of any of various strategies yet by skill of no skill enable Congress have any enter interior the use or administration of the money. regardless of the downfall of the economic equipment, maximum companies if given of project by skill of Washington will proceed to exist and regrow their fee. as quickly as money is going to Washington, it is spent and wasted on beef barrel spending and welfare courses that return no longer something yet greater spending to cover greater debt. Any money invested could be extra to the fund of a individual's heirs if the form of their dying.
2016-10-10 00:07:42 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
SS was introduced to help those that need the cash. Those that paid in should get what they need from it. That's the rub, whose to decide what one needs. SS is an insurance program. If I pay insurance and break my leg, the insurance pays. If I don't break my leg but have still payed insurance, should I get payed? If I'm rich and don't need SS, should I get payed?
2007-09-28 16:14:19 · answer #6 · answered by charlie the 2na 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
you pay into social security for 40 or 50 years and you should be punished for saving money on your own..........THINK!
2007-09-28 16:48:03 · answer #7 · answered by richard t 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Find best solutions
2015-02-05 19:23:09 · answer #8 · answered by Brennen 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋