[folkh]

Originally Posted by onslowe

For those retirees with income in the hundreds of thousands, twenty or thirty thousand is not a meaningful subtraction - especially for the benefit of all other retirees. The problem is doing anything at all to tamper with those already participating in the system. Bad precedent for money hungry politicians and activists with all sorts of 'social' agendas.

As a matter of history and buyer's remorse I guess, wouldn't the formerly inviolate Social Security system be in better shape if LBJ was never elected in '64? The country bought a boatload of lies, and now is inheriting the wind.

Right LBJ was the problem, prior SS was a separate account not in the general fund.

[Rags123]

Originally Posted by janmcn

Great idea. Social Security, along with Medicare, is bankrupting this country, and action must be taken to reduce the national debt.

I assume that everyone is aware that "that there is now a move being put forward by fiscal conservatives regarding Social Security retirement payments." is NOT TRUE and was made up.

As is this...."This would, proponents say, reduce the national debt."

ALL MADE UP....not true. Simply, it appears, just stirring the pot and not even worthy, as it's not true.

[Ragman]

Sounds like good old election year third rail "scare the old folks" tactics

[njbchbum]

Concept has been batted around more than once and more than recently.

Here's a bit from a while back:
http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp...i-econ-sec.pdf

[REDCART]

Originally Posted by folkh

Right LBJ was the problem, prior SS was a separate account not in the general fund.

It's called creative accounting. By including SS in the general budget LBJ was able to take credit for a balanced budget. He offset the cost of the Vietnam war (on paper) with the FICA taxes earmarked for SS. It gave the impression that we had a balanced budget. There was really no other reason to consolidate SS into the federal budget, either then or now. As you know SS benefi payments are a mandatory obligation, not discretionary, and does not require annual appropriations by Congress.

[Rags123]

Originally Posted by njbchbum

Concept has been batted around more than once and more than recently.

Here's a bit from a while back:
http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp...i-econ-sec.pdf

No doubt....BUT

It was not covered "recently" in the Washington Post !!!

And to take an article on welfare fraud and turn it into something totally opposite, to me anyway, is stirring the pot for some reason.

Social Security was mentioned in passing in an article about the rules on welfare and a lady signing up in a new Mercedes because it is allowed to own that car and collect welfare.

Big difference in my opinion. If I have insulted you or anyone I apologize. Just seems to me that we need, not lies, but truth in discussion 1

[njbchbum]

Originally Posted by Rags123

No doubt....BUT

It was not covered "recently" in the Washington Post !!!

And to take an article on welfare fraud and turn it into something totally opposite, to me anyway, is stirring the pot for some reason.

Social Security was mentioned in passing in an article about the rules on welfare and a lady signing up in a new Mercedes because it is allowed to own that car and collect welfare.

Big difference in my opinion. If I have insulted you or anyone I apologize. Just seems to me that we need, not lies, but truth in discussion 1

Not worth the time to discuss. One must always consider the topic and the source. Do like me and go enjoy yourself!

[l2ridehd]

There is always talk about Social Security going broke, but you never hear we have to cut welfare because it's going broke. Guess it's because most of those that get SS paid into it, but most of those getting welfare didn't. Interesting.

[Villages PL]

Means testing already started a few years ago. If you earn a certain amount of money, you will pay a higher Medicare premium. The higher your income the higher your premium will be.

So, for example, if you sell a lot of stocks one year, taking big profits, you might expect to pay a higher Medicare premium the following year.

The problem with it is that it's not indexed for inflation. Right now no one cares because it only hits those who are considered wealthy. But as incomes rise for future generations, millions will be affected. This will be the same as the Alternative Minimum Tax. At first it was only designed to hit a few of the top income earners. But as years went by it affected millions of taxpayers because it was not indexed for inflation.

[coolkayaker1]

If there is a Social Security means test which may prevent some of those that have paid into it from benefitting from their forced past SS contributions during employment, isn't that, in effect, a tax?

Taxation without representation will go to the Supreme Court before ever being enacted.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by buggyone

I was reading recently in The Washington Post that there is now a move being put forward by fiscal conservatives regarding Social Security retirement payments.

The idea is to require a yearly "means test" that will adjust Social Security retirement annually based on other income such as company pensions as well as the amounts of assets a person has in the form of house, car, investments, and other assets.

This would, proponents say, reduce the national debt.

So, in the future, it will be more of a welfare program? Everyone must pay into it but you only get back what they think you need. Isn't that welfare?

[sunnyatlast]

The Congress could vote for all of us "constituents" in the country to have the same retirement and health/life/dental/optical/prescription/long-term-care insurances they have.

That would be a nice method of "means" testing: Anybody who's earned less pension and insurance than Congressional members earned gets the same package members of Congress get after being in office for 5 years......

Retirement Benefits of Congress Vs. You | Bankrate.com

[Steve9930]

Originally Posted by Papa Cuma

I say we take all the politicians to the back of the courthouse and shoot them.

That's too easy, make them work for a living.

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by sunnyatlast

The Congress could vote for all of us "constituents" in the country to have the same retirement and health/life/dental/optical/prescription/long-term-care insurances they have.

That would be a nice method of "means" testing: Anybody who's earned less pension and insurance than Congressional members earned gets the same package members of Congress get after being in office for 5 years......

Retirement Benefits of Congress Vs. You | Bankrate.com

You should run for office. I would vote for you.

[RVRoadie]

Originally Posted by Rags123

I assume that everyone is aware that "that there is now a move being put forward by fiscal conservatives regarding Social Security retirement payments." is NOT TRUE and was made up.

As is this...."This would, proponents say, reduce the national debt."

ALL MADE UP....not true. Simply, it appears, just stirring the pot and not even worthy, as it's not true.

In our politically divided country, it's no longer necessary for something to be true, it just has to sound like it could be true.