[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by MrFlorida

That would equate to distribution of wealth, that won't fly here.

The Medicare premium is already adjusted, based on income. It's called IRMAA. The Part B premiums range from $202.90 to $689.90 per month, for the exact same benefit. Part D premiums are also adjusted, based on income.

[Battlebasset]

Said it once, I'll say it again. SS needs to be sunsetted. Pick a cut off date for being on the current system/new system and over a period of 10 to 20 years, get rid of it entirely. Everyone responsible for their own retirement savings going forward.

For those that don't have enough/refuse to save, we have welfare. But it can be means tested and have work requirements, as well as lookbacks to see if someone has gotten rid of/hidden assets in order to get welfare.

[Rainger99]

Originally Posted by Battlebasset

Said it once, I'll say it again. SS needs to be sunsetted. Pick a cut off date for being on the current system/new system and over a period of 10 to 20 years, get rid of it entirely. Everyone responsible for their own retirement savings going forward.

For those that don't have enough/refuse to save, we have welfare. But it can be means tested and have work requirements, as well as lookbacks to see if someone has gotten rid of/hidden assets in order to get welfare.

Is there an age limit or health limitation for the work requirements?

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Battlebasset

Said it once, I'll say it again. SS needs to be sunsetted. Pick a cut off date for being on the current system/new system and over a period of 10 to 20 years, get rid of it entirely. Everyone responsible for their own retirement savings going forward.

For those that don't have enough/refuse to save, we have welfare. But it can be means tested and have work requirements, as well as lookbacks to see if someone has gotten rid of/hidden assets in order to get welfare.

So you're suggesting go we should turn the clocks back 120 years?

Instead of sticking with the other 169 countries in the world, that have a national retirement program?

Most folks feel society has progressed from the early 1900's.

The United States ranks 33rd out of the 50 ranked countries for National Retirement Plans ... surpassed by countries such as:
Chile, Kazakhstan, Kuwait & Malaysia. (Marsh CFA Institute Global Pension Index)

We're supposedly the greatest country in the world. The way Seniors are treated in the USA, is embarrassing.

[manaboutown]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

So you're suggesting go we should turn the clocks back 120 years?

Instead of sticking with the other 169 countries in the world, that have a national retirement program?

Most folks feel society has progressed from the early 1900's.

The United States ranks 33rd out of the 50 ranked countries for National Retirement Plans ... surpassed by countries such as:
Chile, Kazakhstan, Kuwait & Malaysia. (Marsh CFA Institute Global Pension Index)

We're supposedly the greatest country in the world. The way Seniors are treated in the USA, is embarrassing.

Except for confiscatory IRMAA and being taxed on my SS income after being taxed on FICA withholdings from my earned income back in my wage earning days I love the way I am treated as a senior in the USA which is the greatest country in the world. I am eternally grateful for not living in a country like Chile, Kazakhstan, Kuwait & Malaysia.

[Old Traveller]

The politicians will inflate the problem away, which they are doing now. No need to cut benefits, your buying power is going down.

[Teed_Off]

Originally Posted by Michael G.

If the doom and gloom is correct and Social Security is in trouble will be cut
by 2032, could you afford to stay in the Villages with a 20% cut in benefits?

When I was in my twenties I took sage advice to never rely on Social Security as my primary source for retirement. Therefore any reduction won’t affect me.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by manaboutown

Except for confiscatory IRMAA and being taxed on my SS income after being taxed on FICA withholdings from my earned income back in my wage earning days I love the way I am treated as a senior in the USA which is the greatest country in the world. I am eternally grateful for not living in a country like Chile, Kazakhstan, Kuwait & Malaysia.

Congratulations. You earn more than the average American. I keep having to look up IRMAA because it doesn't and hasn't ever applied to me or my household so far. If I win the lottery, I will gladly and gratefully pony up a significant chunk of my winnings in taxes. I will consider myself extremely privileged.

[manaboutown]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Congratulations. You earn more than the average American. I keep having to look up IRMAA because it doesn't and hasn't ever applied to me or my household so far. If I win the lottery, I will gladly and gratefully pony up a significant chunk of my winnings in taxes. I will consider myself extremely privileged.

The only lottery I ever won was being born in the USA where I could work hard, take financial risks and now reap the rewards therefrom. Perhaps if I had won money in a lottery I would feel as this poster but as I see it IRMAA almost always confiscates money from seniors who worked hard, prudently saved and invested for the remainder of their lives, not lottery winners for a single year.

[justjim]

Originally Posted by Battlebasset

Said it once, I'll say it again. SS needs to be sunsetted. Pick a cut off date for being on the current system/new system and over a period of 10 to 20 years, get rid of it entirely. Everyone responsible for their own retirement savings going forward.

For those that don't have enough/refuse to save, we have welfare. But it can be means tested and have work requirements, as well as lookbacks to see if someone has gotten rid of/hidden assets in order to get welfare.

No way will there be a decrease in current S.S. benefits. Politically not tenable. My best guess to make up the difference to keep S.S. solvent is to reshuffle S.S. (1) to increase the age to qualify, (2) significantly increase the top amount of income required to pay into S.S. and (3) finally close the loop
holes available to corporations and the 2% to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Would a major reduction of S.S. require my wife and I to leave The Villages - NO. However, there could be other circumstances where we would possibly leave The Villages.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by manaboutown

Except for confiscatory IRMAA and being taxed on my SS income after being taxed on FICA withholdings from my earned income back in my wage earning days I love the way I am treated as a senior in the USA which is the greatest country in the world. I am eternally grateful for not living in a country like Chile, Kazakhstan, Kuwait & Malaysia.

You're happy about how you're treated as a senior, but opposed to paying your fair share?

I won an award for an affordable housing project I developed. At the award ceremony, a blowhard Selectman gave a little speech. I remember it like it was yesterday. He started off by saying, "as we all try to climb that ladder of success, sometimes we have to look back and extend a hand, for those who aren't doing as well climbing the ladder".

The older I get, the more I realize he wasn't just being a blow-hard, he was right.

[Rainger99]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

You're happy about how you're treated as a senior, but opposed to paying your fair share?

Please define fair share.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by manaboutown

The only lottery I ever won was being born in the USA where I could work hard, take financial risks and now reap the rewards therefrom. Perhaps if I had won money in a lottery I would feel as this poster but as I see it IRMAA almost always confiscates money from seniors who worked hard, prudently saved and invested for the remainder of their lives, not lottery winners for a single year.

I wouldn't know. I've never earned enough money to take financial risks. I worked hard. Assuming that people who aren't wealthy didn't work hard, or that "work hard" is all you need in order to earn enough to save and take financial risks - is the epitome of myopic perception. I had a money market account, some mutual funds, and played around with short-term CDs back in the day of insanely high interest rates. Never earned enough to get out of the lower tax brackets though. It never stopped me from working hard. And I never cared about not being wealthy, because I was able to pay my bills, and truly live my life while I was still young and healthy enough to enjoy it.

[Worldseries27]

Originally Posted by justjim

no way will there be a decrease in current s.s. Benefits. Politically not tenable. My best guess to make up the difference to keep s.s. Solvent is to reshuffle s.s. (1) to increase the age to qualify, (2) significantly increase the top amount of income required to pay into s.s. And (3) finally close the loop
holes available to corporations and the 2% to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Would a major reduction of s.s. Require my wife and i to leave the villages - no. However, there could be other circumstances where we would possibly leave the villages.

of course it's not tenable. Any cut bipartisan or not would cause the party in power to be decimated in future elections.
Here's a thought. How about charging the free loader nations of the world who have survived only because of our nuclear umbrella for this service..how about we tack on a surcharge to their economies to pay down our own national debt in part created by defense of these freeloaders so that we can entertain a future of universal medical Care and improve social security benefits for our own citizens and pay down our own national debt. It's better than doing nothing.

[elle123]

Originally Posted by jimhoward

The median income in the Villages is around $80K, far greater than typical social security benefits. Plus the majority have substantial assets. Most could tolerate a SS cut if they had to. There are of course, some who are fully dependent on SSI, but no need broadcast individual circumstances in a social media post.

Household Income Distribution in The Villages according to Census.

• Under $50,000: ~30% of households
• $50,000 – $100,000: ~32% of households
• $100,000 – $200,000: ~28% of households
• Over $200,000: ~9% of households
(Note: Because The Villages is a master-planned active adult retirement community, a large portion of residents live on fixed incomes, pensions, Social Security, or retirement investments rather than traditional active-labor wages.)

More than 30% of The Villages population would be destitute if there was a 20% SS reduction.