I think there should be a chnage in SS

[heretheycome]

Not to start a war but, I have always had a good paying job. My husband died when my son was 6 and until he is 18 he will receive a SS check. Now many of you think he should get this as it was my husband's money. I have recieved so far over 100,000 dollars tax free threw the years. We have another year and a half to go. This money has allowed him several avantages. Private school, most of his attire and private tennis lessons. The SS dept checks on me once in a while to see if there are any savings or am I using it for the house. I always reply back no savings, using it for the house.

When I first stated receiving the checks I remember saying to my father, why am I getting all this money as I can afford to take care of my son. My dad explained SS was set up for wives who didnt work and it was up to the man to bring home income. So this is suppose to compensate for it.
If it wasn't for Reagan he would still be getting his check threw college. I think this will be one of the big changes in SS. If you make over 6 figures or have so much material things you should get denied a check. For the younger crowd below 30 they will get to invest their portion. I am not so sure that is a bad idea.

Us baby boomers do and always have been relying on our SS checks. I think it should only go to those who need it. If you own multiple houses and you have successfully invested in the stock market or something else then you shouldn't get one. Give more to those who need it.

Just my thoughts as unpopular as they sound.

[Bluebear]

1. Just take the cap off of FICA

Tax all your income, not just the first $80,000 or whatever the limit is. Then you will be taking back what you put in. The more affluent should not be denied checks, they paid into the system too.

Maybe we just stop spending like drunken chimps and protect our surpluses?

[heretheycome]

2. we pay taxes for all sorts of programs we don't qualify for

I understand the rich put into, but do they need it? Give it to someone who does. Maybe then SS wont be in such trouble

[InvisibleBallots]

5. I agree with you 100%

I don't want the affluent denied checks, because that turns Social Security into a charity or welfare system, and that's not what it's supposed to be. It's social insurance, and the closest thing we have to a public pension system in the country.

It's fine the way it is, all we need to do is remove the cap.

[0rganism]

14. You do understand that this will only exacerbate the problem, right?

The FICA is going directly to government bonds that appreciate with the growth of the economy (under competent administrations). It is not a direct transfer of wealth, per se, but rather a bonded trust the government sets up for citizens' "declining years". The FICA revenues are used to pay for today's maturing securities, in sort of a "roll over" process.

So a person who pays in the full FICA tax on a million-dollar income may well be financing more current retirees, but is still going to have more benefits available upon retirement. Your solution results in huge returns for huge incomes.

Means-testing the benefits is the best way to mitigate the problem the original poster brings up.

[FarLeftRage]

3. My thoughts

1 - The stupid ass chimp b*sh should NOT touch SS

2 - The repuKKKe controlled gov't should resign en mass and work menial labor jobs to pay back the PEOPLE'S money they stolen

3 - POWER TO THE PEOPLE, the Nazi/repuKKKe elite can go to hell...

[TexasSissy]

4. I think the SS $$$ is for your husband's child, not you.

The question is NOT whether you absolutely need the $$ to make ends meet, but whether your son lost his father's income when his father died.

Are you saying that if your husband were still alive, and both of you were working, that you would give away your husband's salary, if you didn't absolutely need it to pay for essentials? Of course not. Likewise, the $$ benefits from SS for your son are there to aid in the cost of his upbringing, and better his life if possible.

And if the SS benefits are for you, too, then the reason is the same. Not to pay for your essentials to live, unless that is necessary. But to also aid in your support and well being, even if you are able to provide the necessities for yourself and your son.

If you had remarried, I think the benefits would have stopped. But I'm not sure about that.

And that is SOCIAL SECURITY SURVIVOR BENEFITS....not the retirement benefits portion that Bush is so concerned with. But if SS is privatized, even partially, then that might affect the funds that the death/survivor/disability benefits come from.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. My husband lost his father at age 14

and his mother was destitute after the death. She went back to work (she'd worked during WWII), and the only way my husband was able to attend tech school was through SS. So I understand why SS is important.

[heretheycome]

9. oh goodness so do I

I just think if one is well to do, then maybe they shouldn't receive the benefit.

My colleage at work has save 2.5 million for his retirement. I think that is pissa. I asked him if he would then give away his SS check to those needy, and he flat out said no flippen way! Now there are elderly widows, widowers who are eating dog food cause their check is so very little. Why must this be!? give them more out of those who already have too much

In your case the check was a neccessity

[prolesunited]

10. Because Social Security is *not* a form of socialism

or wealth redistribution — no matter what the opponents try to say.

[newyawker99]

11. Hi heretheycome!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Warpy]

7. you have a good job, and are luckier than most

surviving spouses with children. You're just making the mistake of thinking many people are as lucky as you are, or even that you were all that lucky, yourself.

Social security payments often make the difference between getting day care and working or going on welfare for the government's "generous" two years. Social security makes the difference between keeping your home and losing it. It makes the difference between a two room apartment in a bad neighborhood or a better apartment where there are better schools. Most surviving spouses need it. Even affluent people like yourself can afford prep school rather than public school, name brand shoes rather than cheap discount house shoes. I don't begrudge you that money, since it provided you with much of what your husband's earnings would have. Yes, you could have made do with less, but your husband had paid that insurance to make sure you didn't have to.

Maximum benefits are capped, as they should be. What should be removed is the cap on earnings, a laughably low $87,000 right now.

Alas, Bush has cheated his way back into office, and benefits will be cut and the rich will not be asked to pay back what they've stolen over the past few decades, even if it gives them that flat tax they say they've always wanted.

Means testing is a bad idea as long as we're saddled with mean spirited, unchristian Repuglicans running the government. It''s probably a bad idea, period, as anyone who has paid insurance should be entitled to its benefit. Means testing would be like a car insurance company saying "Well, a drunk drove into your Jaguar, but you also have a Mercedes, so we don't have to pay."

[Divernan]

8. How do you know this will be "one of the big changes"?

I do expect that Bush will throw in a token change that can be bragged about as being against the interests of the wealthy, but on the whole, I expect him to propose drastic reductions in benefits across the board.
You COULD think of the SS checks sent for your son's benefit as paying for his basic costs, and YOUR "good paying job" as paying for the child care necessitated by your job and goodies like private school and tennis lessons. What would have happened to your son if you too had died? Or been struck down by a debilitating illness? Or your job was exported to India and you couldn't find another except at minimum wage?
I question your casual reference to those who "successfully invested in the stock market." Many people have lost their shirts, i.e., their lifetime savings/IRAs in the stock market, which is precisely the reason that allowing the "younger crowd" to invest in the market instead of the traditional SS arrangement is a high risk proposition.
What Bush/et al have proposed would mean that the workers never have direct control over their investment. SS deductions would still be made from their paychecks, but a portion would be turned over to investment bankers who would make very lucrative fees from handling investments, and there would be no guaranteed payback on the moneys. An additional cost to the taxpayer would result from the government no longer being able to "borrow" from the social security funds as collateral for government bonds at no interest. Instead, the government would have to go to (SURPISE! ! ! ) private bankers (can you say Bush campaign donors?) and pay substantial interest to float bonds. Ah yes! A veritable bonanza for private sector banking, and potential financial disaster for those who choose this option instead of the traditional social security.

[EVDebs]

12. Read Chapter 8 of "Perfectly Legal" ...

We subsidize the rich in the US through the SS system. They shaft us further with a "Flat Tax" tax system, when you add up all the state, local, federal taxes we all end up paying about 20% of incomes, rich middle class and poor alike. David Cay Johnston's book should be required reading in the USofA !

[David Zephyr]

13. The Answer Is Not To Pit S.S. Recipients Against One Another

I read your post and I was very happy hear another great story where Social Security made a difference.

Still, it is not right to take monies from those who have paid into the Social Security fund...above and beyond their Federal Income Taxes...to be deprived of their benefits either. That's hardly right. Regardless of their financial status, they paid into the fund, week after week, year after year and they deserve to receive their benefits, too.

The real problem is that the Social Security fund had a surplus, which Al Gore wanted to "lock box" away and secure the fund for decades to come for those who had paid into the fund and for those who had not. Now, because of Bush's foolish war in Iraq and tax cuts for Billionaires (approximately 1-2% of the population), there is a real gap in federal income and outgo for Social Security.

The answer is to roll back the Bush tax cuts, get out of Iraq and secure the promise of Social Security for those who paid in and for those who didn't, too. But the answer is not to rob those workers who worked long hours for decades of their investment in Social Security just because they were fortunate to have a little for themselves in retirement. Punishing the working class because of the sins of the ruling class, might make some of the unfortunate poorer classes feel good if they were prone to envy, but this is exactly what the billionaires love to do...pit the poor against the working class.

[Cleita]

17. Thank you David.

I didn't have the strength to fight this post as I will be facing my own SS problems soon. Thom Hartmann subbing for Randi Rhodes today dissected and blew away all the myths, including this one about SS today. Unfortunately the transcript isn't up yet.

[David Zephyr]

20. I'd Love to See the Transcript, Cleita.

And thanks for your kind comments. I shouldn't be, but I still am amazed at how easily it is for the super rich to pit the poor against the working class and the working class against the poor. Sadly, it's a formula that just never seems to fail. :hi:

[tsuki]

15. Why didn't you give it back?

[bpilgrim]

16. only to those who need it... i'd hate to be the Solomon to make that call!

let alone imagine some bureaucrat :scared:

who needs it?

most of us and since we are paying into the insurance system which, as you have discovered, is a very HEALTHY INVESTMENT for our society.

do you have homeowners ins.?

do you think you shouldn't be compensated when presented with a loss you paid money to covered under?

i think everyone should pay their fair share - unlike the rich who don't have to pay on any thing they make over 90k - and look on it as a blessing in their time of tragedy, shoot most of us are PAYING for it.

i certainly wouldn't trust it to wall-street and especially the chimp :crazy:

my 2 cents :hi:

peace

[Lydia Leftcoast]

18. The problem with means testing

Any program that has means testing becomes stigmatized as being for "lazy welfare cheats." Before Oregon changed from food stamps to a debit card, I used to see people make snide comments about anyone who used food stamps, as if recipients were all "deadbeats being supported by taxpayers."

The cost of keeping rich people in Social Security and Medicare is relatively small, and the fact that rich people are eligible makes them more likely to support its continuation. They also approve of the mortgage interest deduction and anything else that they are eligible for, even if it benefits people with lower incomes.

[idiosyncratic]

19. I agree some changes should be made in Social Security

I think means testing should be looked at. If very wealthy individuals would not be willing to forgo their Social Security payments because they don't need them for their survival, maybe they could at least be denied the "Cost of Living Allowance" each year, since they don't need that increase to cover their own cost of living.

It would be interesting to see how much difference such a small step like that would make.

At an increase this next year of $25.00 per month, that is $300.00 for the year. Multiply that times several million wealthy retirees and your talking some real money there . . .