Since basically the only 2 ways to solve social security taxes are a.) either raise taxes or b.) reduce the amount income one receives, what would you rather do?
Would you rather pay more taxes now or cut the amount of income retirees would receive?
2007-11-03
01:53:28
·
8 answers
·
asked by
Glen B
6
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
There are other variables that play into but a good portion of retiree's and elderly people depend on this supplemental income as a means of life. It's a little late for them to start "investing."
2007-11-03
02:08:35 ·
update #1
Social Security is just a IOU trust fund.
http://www.livevideo.com/video/sm0ky/3D50E87595ED4964963EBEFEF3C71335/cafferty-government-lies-.aspx
There is no money in the SS trust fund...It's only government IOUs...If the money is placed in the proper areas, it could work.
It's just fuzzy bush math.
2007-11-03 03:48:55
·
answer #1
·
answered by done 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
neither . i would cut taxes and stop spending out on wars we should never have been involved in in the first place, second cuts would go on immigrant support or replaced with money to send illegals home- ensure the money already raised is better spent . I'd leave the retirees alone.
2007-11-03 09:02:30
·
answer #2
·
answered by bri 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
your limited choice question is in error.
***
like any invest for retirement scheme, there are other variables:
a) what you invest in
b) how successful that is
c) how old you are when you begin to draw on the income
d) how long you live after starting
e) whether your spouse in included in your retirement plan
f) whether or not insurance [annuity for life] is included in the plan or not
***
since your question's premise is fatally flawed, I can only assume that you are trolling for the answer you want, rather than honestly seeking
2007-11-03 09:06:06
·
answer #3
·
answered by Spock (rhp) 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
We wouldn't be facing this issue had the government not raided to SS trust fund to balance the general budget.
Our government simply cannot be trusted with society's retirement funds. It should be taken out of their hands and placed in the private sector, where at least it would be accountable.
2007-11-03 08:58:47
·
answer #4
·
answered by Perplexed Bob 5
·
1⤊
2⤋
How about a third way? Keep our frigging elected officials hands off the cookie jar. This is the bank congress takes its loans from, unfortunately for us, they don't repay the loans. It should be illegal for any branch of our government to touch social security.
2007-11-03 08:59:06
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
Actually, social security is in fine shape says Alan Greenspan, it is medicare that is a looming budget drain in epic proportions unknown to man.
2007-11-03 08:57:26
·
answer #6
·
answered by alphabetsoup2 5
·
1⤊
2⤋
How about letting me opt out of S.S.? Can I make my own decisions with my money? How about not forcing me to be an indentured servant to pay someone else's bills?
That is what I would rather have.
2007-11-03 09:02:21
·
answer #7
·
answered by sfavorite711 4
·
1⤊
3⤋
None.
2007-11-03 08:58:11
·
answer #8
·
answered by L 4
·
0⤊
2⤋