Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Extras | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Changing Social Security would hurt society

April 7, 2013

Editor, OBSERVER: In her commentary “Political games and gains” in the OBSERVER on March 13, Vicki Westling defines an entitlement as “(......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(13)

MikeDavis

Apr-17-13 8:27 AM

So that's the answer yet again Judeye? Raise taxes? How about the GD politicians keep their grubby mitts off of the SS fund for a start, repay what they "borrowed" and no one has to take a cut or pay anymore into the system? And how about a means test for the millions being put on the permanently disabled rolls?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

Apr-14-13 9:22 AM

As someone who depends on social security I cannot agree more.

My husband and I have worked our entire lives, paying into social security. Neither of jobs, me in social service, he is a for profit gas company, have pensions. We had 401K which we did contribute to every pay. Still not enough, especially after 2008 when crooks on wall st stole so much of it.

Why not just raise the income threshold on ss? This would make it solvent for decades. Everyone talks about how we are living longer, well we also make much more money. When I first started working I do not think I knew anyone who made more than $100,000 a year. Now, that is almost common place especially outside of this area.

NO to any cuts in social security or medicare. We earned them...and yes, many of us really do depend on them to live.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Apr-11-13 1:47 PM

Did any of you expect Obama to do anything to help the working class? This is just the start of this man's agenda. Enjoy the ride down the drain, you voted for him.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Carlaw

Apr-11-13 6:53 AM

You are right Mr. McKenna! To take away earned benefits is criminal.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

whoseits

Apr-10-13 9:32 AM

I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THIS TIME TO THANK EVERYONE PLUS ARRP FOR SUPPORTING AND VOTING FOR OBAMA.YOU SHOULD BE CAREFUL FOR WHAT YOU WISH FOR,BECAUSE NOW YOU GOT IT ,FOR ALL OF US.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

whoseits

Apr-10-13 9:28 AM

WONDERFUL

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

killers

Apr-08-13 7:33 PM

Christopher try to think of this thought, "personal responsibility". You seem to always concerned about the poor, why not open your wallet and home and take care of as many as you can support.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DKexpat

Apr-08-13 8:57 AM

Actually, there already is a kind of means testing for Social Security.

According to the most recent Trustees Report, the first $767 of “average indexed monthly earnings” is credited at 90% for SS benefits. Monthly earnings of $767-$4,624 are credited at 32% - meaning your SS benefit increases at a lower rate. Monthly earnings of $4,624-$9,416 are credited at just 15%.

Therefore, all wages over $55,488/yr gain benefits at 1/6 the rate of the lowest wage earners. So the SS benefits formula is already a steeply-graduated form of means testing. SS replaces 58% of earnings for the lowest earners, 43% for “medium” earners, but just 29% for high earners.

High-wage earners get about 1/2 as much for their employment tax payments as low-wage earners. And with the tax code the way it is, approx. 30% of retirees, those who paid in the most and get a higher check, also pay income tax – again – on their benefits.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kristopher

Apr-07-13 7:52 PM

Great letter! In my opinion, the so-called "means testing" penalizes the people who go without many of the extras through life, in order to try to be in the position to, atleast somewhat, take care of themselves in retirement. It also rewards the irresponsible people who spend all their money on whatever they desire at that moment and are broke (and many times in debt up to their eyeballs) at retirement age.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Christopher

Apr-07-13 1:26 PM

TY Dkexpat for the remarks on 401K's. I have said this since their inception.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

commentor

Apr-07-13 9:39 AM

Mr. Moss this will never happen because it would probably work. The people making plans for farmers probably know nothing about farming.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DKexpat

Apr-07-13 8:55 AM

82% of union workers have pension plans vs. 21% in the private sector; 84% of public workers vs. 20% non-public.

So...if you're non-union or non-public, you're basically on your own.

The Pew Group says state pension plans are under-funded by over a trillion - a trillion - dollars, and only four states have fully-funded plans.

So...if you're a taxpayer, you'll be forever on the hook.

But...one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the private sector was the claim by big business the 401k/defined contribution plan is as good as a pension/defined benefit plan.

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Christopher

Apr-07-13 6:28 AM

When the politicians are done, mostly Republican politicians, we will once again return the elderly into the ranks of the poor, and in a society where families no longer live I the same states, let alone the same communities.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 13 of 13 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web