re the OT discussion about older people: it is NOT
Post# of 72447
(Total Views: 282)
Posted On: 07/01/2018 9:06:06 PM
re the OT discussion about older people: it is NOT TRUE that the current crop of 60-plus people are in some way taking advantage of the system. The difference between the baby boomers and their parents is that the baby boomers, like all subsequent generations, have paid (and are paying) Medicare and Social Security taxes all their lives. If that money had been put into an index fund in an IRA instead of going to the government (which spends it, rather than investing it for future liabilities), then people would have plenty of money to retire on. The benefits that the current crop of retirees and those soon to retire were PAID FOR by their taxes. And then the government just spent it.
The people who did not pay for their social security and medicare benefits were the baby boomers' PARENTS -- the "Greatest Generation" of those who lived through World War 2. I remember reading about a guy who worked for ONE DAY at a job covered by social security taxes, and he retired the next day. He was given full retirement benefits for the rest of his life. Likewise, that generation mostly paid very, very little in Medicare taxes, but got full coverage. It is not the BOOMERS who did not pay for these benefits, but their parents. The reason that many boomers were not able to save as much money as their parents did is very simple -- the boomers always had much less take-home pay, because they were paying higher taxes that ended up paying for their parents social security and medicare,.
That said, because the government has squandered that money over many decades instead of putting it in the "lock box" as some people incorrectly think happens, I do think that there should be a means test for social security, so that people who really do not need that money don't take it. Somebody is going to get screwed to right the ship, and it seems most logical that social security transitions to being a safety net for those who need it. I'd feel better about paying Social Security "contributions" if they were just up front about calling it a tax, and those who don't need it make the sacrifice for the good of the next generation.
And hopefully those of us who invested in IPIX won't need to take Social Security payments.
The people who did not pay for their social security and medicare benefits were the baby boomers' PARENTS -- the "Greatest Generation" of those who lived through World War 2. I remember reading about a guy who worked for ONE DAY at a job covered by social security taxes, and he retired the next day. He was given full retirement benefits for the rest of his life. Likewise, that generation mostly paid very, very little in Medicare taxes, but got full coverage. It is not the BOOMERS who did not pay for these benefits, but their parents. The reason that many boomers were not able to save as much money as their parents did is very simple -- the boomers always had much less take-home pay, because they were paying higher taxes that ended up paying for their parents social security and medicare,.
That said, because the government has squandered that money over many decades instead of putting it in the "lock box" as some people incorrectly think happens, I do think that there should be a means test for social security, so that people who really do not need that money don't take it. Somebody is going to get screwed to right the ship, and it seems most logical that social security transitions to being a safety net for those who need it. I'd feel better about paying Social Security "contributions" if they were just up front about calling it a tax, and those who don't need it make the sacrifice for the good of the next generation.
And hopefully those of us who invested in IPIX won't need to take Social Security payments.
(7)
(0)