|
|||||||
 |
|
 |
|||||
|
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
52 Responses to “Social Security Reform”Discuss This Solution |
Loading ...
 |
||||
 |
||||
 |
||||
 |
|
|||
 |
||||
The views expressed on the Solutions Factory website do not necessarily express the views of Rep. Cantor; the site is a public forum for the discussion of conservative solutions and is an expression of user opinion.
Paid for and Authorized by Cantor for Congress
www.EricCantor.com
www.EricCantor.com
April 23rd, 2008 at 4:00 pm
I think that “wealthy” people should be phased out of the Social Security program. If you have more than enough money to live in comfort, those social security entitlements can be better spent elsewhere, rather than to increase the inheritances of the wealthy persons beneficiaries. I also believe the same should apply to Medicare!
June 13th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
This solution does make sense, and I think it should be combined with a private investment plan that encourages young workers to split up their Social Security payroll tax to put up to 50% of their withholding into an IRA or similar retirement account. This could be voluntary in the beginning, just as the option for retirees would be optional.
June 13th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Offer one solution with everyone having an option to choose or not. Congressional trustees have betrayed their fiduciary responsibilities by spending retirement funds, if they were a private corporation, they would be in jail or in front of Congress explaining how they could in good conscience spend their client’s monies.
Find a way to privatize social security and offer the option to everyone and require congressional participation.
June 13th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
The opt out idea makes no sense. A check is always worth more than a deduction since the tax rate is WAY less than 100%. In fact the marginal tax rate is rarely (never?) more than the high 40%. An opt out is just a contribution to the Treasury, already an option.
June 13th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Define ‘wealthy’ people. I am sick and tired of the division caused by people who think the other person should pay. Take SS and allow everyone to put their own money into a retirement fund, not funded by the government. We worked several jobs so that we would have a retirement and because we did, the gov. taxes use and takes some of the money they took from our pay checks and takes it back.
June 13th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
I think any one who wants to invest their money instead of paying FICA should have that option. If you are a money manager you can do it much better than the goverment.
June 13th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
To Sandy Cope… stop and think about what you just said about taking away social security benefits from “wealthy” people” from the perspective of original American concepts. That ‘wealthy person’ paid into the social security system just like everyone one else. He or She is not free loading off of you. Why do you have such animosity for the fortunate citizen who has worked hard to provide an inheritance for their family? That should be taught to each American citizen from nursery school through post graduate education to be one of the highest and most honorable, and noble goals of any ethical and honorable human endeavor. Think what a difference in societal good it would make if we were taught that, instead of how your good if your poor and your evil if your rich; that the only reason your are poor is because those rich white people got money that need, and you’d have it if it weren’t for their selfishness. That’s Cain and Able envy, and it’s roots, and it’s fruits are pure poison. The money paid into the social security trust fund was not created for, and should never be used for “general transfer of wealth’ from the general revenue fund. Even the general revenue fund was not intended in the beginning, and should be reversed, as a vehichle of transfering wealth by government to others that ‘government’ deems more deserving. That is pure Marxist Socialism, the forerunner of Communism. And, it is that mindset that is spreading like a cancer, or a killer virus throughout America. And if not reveresed, it will be our downfall! Those who have inherited, or worked, invested, sacrificed, and planned for financial independence and security are entitled to their reward, not the “State .” And, not any other citizen’s! It’s that individual’s personal property! Holy Toledo! Let us regroup and get back to basics!
June 13th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Good start.
Also allow younger people in the workforce to opt out of SS and “opt in” to a personal retirement plan like Fed Employees have.
June 13th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Sounds interesting. But MUST BE VOLUNTARY ONLY by each entitled social security beneficiary. It should NEVER BE MANDATORY, because who determines the amount considered to be “wealthy?” Also, it MUST BE A MANDATE that it ONLY BE VOLUNTARY, ABLE TO BE CHANGED AT ANY TIME ( in event retiree’s circumstances & wealth change), AND IT MUST BE EASY & QUICK TO OBTAIN AT ANY TIME, for THE RETIREE if he ELECTS TO BEGIN RECEIVING IT!
It is a great idea to give those who opt not to receive their entitled social security benefits that equal amount write off.
June 13th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Better yet, adopt the FairTax Act (H.R. 25) so that all new purchases made by the “wealthy” or anyone else, pay for SS and Medicare.
As to the comment from “Sandy Cope Says: April 23rd, 2008 at 4:00 pm ” Who are we to judge what is “wealthy”? It is their money anyway and no one should determine inheritances.
June 13th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Everyone should have the opportunity to opt out of social security. For those that are in social security, let them have a part in paying for their benefits as is the case with most retirement plans. Social Security funds have become over the years a welfare program. This should stop and hold funds for those who have paid in for their retirement years. In addition, congress should be prohibited from using social security funds for their own pet peeves i.e. pork barrel stuff!!!
June 13th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Everybody who works should get $1/hour that they work contributed from Social Security to their own retirement account. (Adjusted annually for inflation). Optionally, a person could contribute additional funds to this account. People could choose to have some government agency or private sector group manage the funds.
This way, the worker bee and boss who both work 2000 hours in a year, would get the same $2000 put towards their retirement.
Younger workers, who benefit the most from getting started on retirement savings would get started early. When they get near retirement, they wouldn’t need Social Security, just their retirement account.
The cost (about 1/3 of FICA payments) would be born by the excess funds in the current SS system. Instead of going to some bogus Social Security Trust Fund, the excess SS payments would go to actual working people’s retirement accounts.
As the population gets their own retirement accounts going, it would be easier to implement significant changes in Social Security to stabilize it for the long term.
June 13th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Social Security was a tax revenue raising venture by FDR. There was never any intention to make payouts of any size. The first payout was made in February, 1936. The payouts began at age 65 and retirement. The average life expectancy was 65 1/2. I want my Senator’s plan. Then the plan would not be constantly raided. (Thank you LBJ.)
June 13th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
I feel that if the Government had not spent part of the Social Security money years ago there would be enough. I also feel that everytime they give us a meager 3% increase, the Medicare should not go up enough to take it away. If we can afford a Stimulus Check, we should be able to do something about the cost of Medicare for those of us that are on only Social Security.
June 13th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
I’d like to see the Social Security program phased out entirely. As a 51 year-old, I was signed into this FDR-era Socialist program at age 12. My parents were told it was required when the SSA advises that it is NOT REQUIRED for Americans. There is NO WAY OUT of the “program”. The “eligible retirement age” was changed from 65 to 67 (for me) in 1984? and I can expect that it will change yet again under the next administration. The amount of money taken from my pay increases every year and the “benefits” projected do not. I have estimated that I will have “contributed” about $500K to this program based on the current “eligible” retirement age and will never live long enough to even break even! I would gladly give up all I have “invested” to just be left alone. At the current rate of real inflation, I’ll be lucky if the monthly check will even cover my food costs in the future.
June 13th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
I think it’s a GREAT idea for retirees who can afford it to opt out of Soc. Sec. and take a tax credit. It’s MUCH better than giving money to people who don’t need it. And the tax credit would STILL kind of even things out. I’m a retiree, and although I couldn’t afford to opt out, maybe some of the people who are rich wouldn’t mind as long as they can take it off of their taxes. We’re headed for bankrupcy in the Soc. Sec. section as it IS, so why give the money to people who’d NEVER miss it?
June 13th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
I agree with that, but I also think we need to take it one step further. SSI should be done away with completely for people under the age of 19. We Americans are paying to raise other peoples children through this program. If a child has ADHD the parents get over $695.00 a month… My child has ADHD and he is now 21… I paid to raise him, not my fellow Americans. Some people in America are raising their whole families on SSI, getting checks for each disabled child. I thought welfare was gone? Then the states give them medical, food stamps, and housing. Where does it end? I’m all for helping someone out thats in need, but get off your behind and go to work if you can.
June 13th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
I’d like to see social security phased out period. It’s a situation where we are robbing Peter to pay Paul. In fact, if an ordinary citizen came up with a similar scheme it would be called a Ponzi Scheme and the vice squad would arrest and jail him.
June 13th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
This sounds reasonable, but I don’t know how much savings would result.
In our case, the Social Security payment was figured in our pension plan and so we will need it to have sufficient income in retirement.
The fairness of the idea is that we have been required to pay money in, so the plan you suggest allows the person to still have some benefit by taking a tax deduction.
June 13th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Weaalthy people (of which I am not one) should not have to pay into Social Security if they will not collect it,
But they should be permitted to make the choice.
June 13th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
I think that makes good sense. It sure would leave more for the people who need it.
June 13th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
I am offended that social security is referred to as an entitlement. I paid into social security for fifty two years and deserve every penny I receive. An entitlement is rewarding a person with a welfare check every month for not wanting to work.
June 13th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
I don’t care about your wealth when recieving s/s checks. IF you don’t want nor need them, you can gift them to charity or whatever you decide. The program is in place, people are responsable. Once again, we do NOT need government telling someone how to do something.
June 13th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
I’ll “opt” out when you refund me all of the Social Security and Medicare I was forced to pay into the system. I’ll still lose all of the interest and time value of money. Let people opt out of the entire system, and if they opted out, they cannot claim benefits in the future.
June 13th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
When I retired from a good job after 31 1/2 years, my IRA had 269,000. I laughed at soc sec. I felt proud to be a person who would never need to file, I had done my part and had some left for the less fortunet. I felt like a good democrat. Eight years later, I was on the edge of losing my house and having a six month gap to minimum soc sec. That was 2005. With a lot of luck and help from my children I made it. I still feel bad each month when my check hits the bank. People who don’t need it should not get it, PERIOD. I am a Republican!!!
June 13th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Hi, I have to agree that the wealthy should’nt get Social Security checks. The poor have to be looked out for first.
June 13th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Hi , I believe that the wealthy should not get a social security check or medicare if they can afford their own insurance.
June 13th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Amen to this.
We also need to roll back the unsupported free expansions that have done nothing but render this ponzi scheme even more un-viable. Take it back to what FDR said it would be or better still repeal it entirely.
June 13th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
SS is the only gov. fund that is truly an entitlement payment fund. People who pay into the fund are entitled to draw from
it under the prescribed terms of the fund. Whether or not, a person needs the retirement payments is not arguable.
They paid into the fund, therefore they are entitled to receive their just return.
The idea; to opt out of the fund and deduct their calculated SS retirement return from their income is not the best approach. This would further expand the income tax structure and further perpetuate it. Thus, ignoring another system
to replace the income tax, which we should be actively pursuing.
Abetter possibility is; allow anyone to opt out of the SS program and transfer their balance paid in to an investment
account. The investment account would have to meet certain criteria and be able to demonstrate secure protection for
the SS funds transferred, ie: insurance or bonding. The transferred funds would be required to remain in an investment account for the a given length of time to protect and keep the principle intact. The retiree would draw interest or dividend payments from the account monthly “tax free”. The principle could be inherited by survivors or transferred to
a surviving spouse “tax free” upon the death of the account holder. Whether the principle was inherited or transferred to a surviving spouse, the principle would have to be held in or added to the same type of account. This would enhance
the value of the compbined principles and perpetuate the funding ability of the account.
June 14th, 2008 at 1:37 am
I think that if the government had not raided the Social Security reserves illegally and spent the money — and continues to do so — this would not be a problem. It is too late to hold the original thieves responsible, but it’s not too late to stop them now.
June 14th, 2008 at 2:32 am
I am tired of hearing how evil (The rich )is . They worked and was forced to put in the same as we were. They have the same right to S/S as we do. For christ’s sake quit deviding this country. When we let the government devide us by wealth ,race,religion,sexual orintation or any other way. WE lose our rights our freedom and our selfrespect. It is not (the rich) that is the problem its the egotistical, crukid idiots in Washington.
If it wasn’t for the (rich) none of us would have jobs, or our lifestile.
everyone is complaining about the rich. What about the generational problem with our welfare system. There are familys that have been of welfaere for several generations tought by there parent how to use the system
June 14th, 2008 at 9:49 am
I do agree that setting a standard for one who disqualifies for benefits should exist. But, more than that, I think this problem is much bigger and the only solution is to privatize the whole system and take government as much out of it as possible. The government has been using this as nothing but a money grab and political football for decades and anything we can do to take it out of their control is the only real solution. Our founding fathers warned us about such government control and the real danger it poses, but we never listen; same thing happen with the income tax itself where government controls on individuals is absolutely holding people down. But since i don’t hold out much hope in getting governent out of our lives when it somes to social security or income tax, I agree with the solution of not just making it an opt out for the rich, but a set limit.
June 14th, 2008 at 10:28 am
social security is on its way to being a welfare program with any one who saved throughout their working carear being means tested out
abolish the program and fund it out of general revenues and call it welfare
going forward have individual accounts with the employer match but owned by thw worker
June 14th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Social Security was a bad idea from the beginning. Though it started as an option for folks, it became mandatory because the government saw it as an added “cash cow”.
Since government started taking care of all of our needs (From cradle to grave), we have lost the American indipendence and inginuity. We have forgotten how to take care of ourselves and provide for our own futures.
For now your idea seems like a good starting point.
June 14th, 2008 at 11:49 am
I think the idea of opting out is great. We must remember that a lot of people who are now considered rich started out just like the rest of us. They paid their fare share of social security taxes to ensure they were covered when they retired, hopefully I will be in the position to opt out when my time comes. To phase people out because they are considered rich is un-American, same thing with Medicare. Perhaps the Government should stop draining our money out and then asking us to give it up, perhaps it would grow again, see they don’t worry because we pay them a healthy retirement and they don’t need Social Security, maybe they should get SS instead of our generous retirement package we are required to pay.
June 14th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
privatize SS so everyone has their own money with no gov’t interference.
June 14th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
What advantage does this solution have for the individual as an incentive to “opt” out? Why would one give up the difference between the tax deduction and the SS checks?
June 14th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Any person who has put money into Social Security, whether they be rich
or poor deserves the monies they put into the system. If a person decides
to opt out of Social Security that is their decision to make. To me Social
Security System is a perfect example of what happens when the Government
gets involved with something they have NO BUSINESS budding into.
June 14th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Anyone who is wealthy would know enough not to do this since they are giving up X amount of dollars in return for a reduction in their taxes of 0.4X or whatever their marginal rate would be. If you would give them a tax credit for the same amount as the social security check then they might do it but the treasury would not see any increase in income and the expense of administering a two tier sytem might even make it a liability.
The one way you might make a deduction work is if you offered them tax free returns on any investments made with the money as long as they can’t opt back into the program. You would still have to offer more than 0.4X as their savings though. That is too much to make up by tax free compounding for people at the ends of their lives. Since the government will not be able to meet its SS obligations in the future anyway you might be able to get away with offering them something less than the full amount. This way is better than using the retirement age or income levels to do it since it is voluntary. Whether it would be enough to save the SS Ponzi scheme beyond my knowledge.
Unfortunately, I think that all of the people who set up the Social Security system are dead and unable to be brought to trial for committing this fraud on the American people. All we can do now is try to clean up their mess for them.
June 14th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
The present system should be phased out and replaced with a privatised system. social security and medicare.
June 14th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Because many wealthy people have paid into social security they are actually entitled to it. If they choose to opt out that would be great but should not be required if they have paid in. That would hardly be fair especially if they suddenly lost all of their money because an investment company lost it for them, for example. This has been known to happen! The real solution to reform is to keep the government off of our money. I have never understood how the retirement we have paid into can be used for anything else! Having a person’s social security benefits go to a child with special needs if the person passes before the child, I can understand. However, there are many bogus reasons the government tapes into funds it should not be entitled to! Tell me how we stop this??
June 15th, 2008 at 6:54 am
Sound like a good idea to me including medicare. Why limit it to “wealthy” people, who are they and who defines them will become a constant fight and a means to kill the idea and it is discriminatory.
June 15th, 2008 at 9:15 am
I agree about “wealthy” people being phased out of SS - the idea of Bill Gates or Warren Buffett or way too many others to mention receiving SS benefits is ludicrous. The problem is, who decides what “wealthy” is? In the eyes of the government, that often means couples making over $200,000 a year, which is equally ludicrous, particularly if you’re living on either coast.
June 15th, 2008 at 10:59 am
I agree with the first idea and Sandy’s too. But the real effort needs to be placed on our younger workers to “push” them to “invest” for their own economic future. 401 plans are now so easy to acquire and if once started they can do wonders for a 40 or so years investment even in small income amount levels. The “rule of 72″ should be taught beginning with elementary math classes.
June 15th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Social Security has become a vexing problem because it is not now what it was intended to be. The concept of social Security was to provide a forced savings program run by the government to provide some financial security for retirement years. My mother described it to me as similar to a bank account where we would contribut money and our employers would contribute money to provide for retirement. Over time our Congress made the social security funds available for those who never put a dime into it. Our Congress has never faced up to their responsibility to keep social security funds separate from general government revenues. The social security system needs to be chnaged so that it is financially viable. That means that only the money put into the system can come out of it. The system should not be paying people more that they and they’re employers have put into it for them. The federal government should be held responsible for assuring a minimun market rate of return for the system as a whole and every participant in the system should receive an accounting of the status of their account on a quarterly basis, just like we get for our 401k programs. The Congress needs to return to the notion that this money placed in trust for the social security system is our money. It is not money that belongs to the federal government. It is not money to be spent on any other social welfare programs.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
This is a good, common sense proposal. When we worked as civil service employees the city opted out of social security. When we retired our social security was less but our pension was more as over the years more was invested in it. And I also agree with those who feel the gov’t should keep their hands off of social security funds meant for the recipients of social security funds.
June 18th, 2008 at 7:52 am
This is another complication and added accounting issue in the tax code. Why are the “wealthy” (and who are they, anyway?) always singled out for different, and usually disadvantageous, treatment? The wealthy are usually the ones who have maximum funded the Social Security system!
The solution is to raise the eligibility age for all Americans to 70 yrs. and allow everyone to fund a private retirement account as a part of their contribution. Also, how about taking a good hard look at the disability portion of SSI? That is a system replete with fraud. I know several people collecting disability pay who are thoroughly capable of working, and would be if not for that monthy dole.
June 19th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
There is little or no reason to give away what you are entitled to, SS is an entitlement that you paid for and will continue to pay for so why give it away? Does the Government stop handing out entitlement monies, they do not, so why should you not have control of the money which you earned under government decree and use it as you see fit?
The government it to large, to inefficient and inept, giving away your earned entitlement to them is encouraging the greed factor. We need to work on making this huge bueracracy smaller and more controllable to make it work for us.
July 6th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
these are all pretty good ideas but how do we get them past red nancy?
July 30th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Why are we fooling around and tinkering with a system that is guaranteed to go broke in ten years, and is a lousy investment under any circumstance? We can’t do as Chile did and outright kill it, divvying up the so-called “trust fund,” and requiring individual retirement accounts, because we’re in too far– the trust fund is chicken feed compared to the amount promised to current and future retirees. The ONLY way to solve the SS problem is to phase it out over the next 30-40 years. The easiest way to do that is with the FAIR tax. Under the FAIR tax, all SS payments stop immediately, and paychecks get bigger, so there is money that can be invested, and EVERY savings or investment account becomes a tax-free IRA. As contributions slow down, SS payments naturally get reduced until, in 40 years, our youngest workers are not entitled to benefits, having not contributed for the 10 years required. Those currently near retirement will get essentially full benefits. A perfect phase-out.
August 21st, 2008 at 9:50 pm
J. Ewing is RIGHT!! The Fair Tax would eliminate all payroll taxes. The money collected from spending those paychecks would result in all taxpayers paying the same rate. No loopholes for the wealthy, everyone pays, including those cash workers (such as illegals), including the drug dealers who don’t file 1040s on April 15th, and even including the guy next door who is running a small repair shop in his garage. Or how about the guy cutting your grass or cleaning your house. Are they claiming their income? Are they paying social security and medicare taxes? No way. The Fair Tax is a simple, efficient, and profitable system for all concerned. And the best part of it is: NO APRIL 15th!!!! We would file no longer. Everything is equal to all people. Lower income people and elderly are given monthly allowances. It’s a great idea and we all need to get the word out and become more informed about The Fair Tax. If you get paid $500.00 a week, your paycheck would be $500.00. No taxes are withheld. What would that do to the economy?
May 12th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Most people, especially wealthier folks, would figure their income both ways, and do whatever gets them the most money. Nothing wrong with that, but it means that the system would be gamed, thus making it less efficient.
As Ewing says, we’re only a couple decades from Social Security collapsing, anyway. I’m kind of upset that conservatives would advocate a wealth-based test for receiving benefits. The rich paid in more than the poor did. Social Security shouldn’t be yet another way to steal from the wealthy.
In fact, the wealthy should be able to opt out of PAYING INTO Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, and opt out of those systems entirely. That might end up being a revenue-positive position over their lifetimes, as even wealthy people are likely to use more services than they pay for.