ALPA endorses Clinton

[PCL_128]

No, it SHOULD be a safety net. How many millions in this country use it as a retirement account?

And that's up to them. If they want to live a very basic life in retirement that they can afford on just SS income, then that's their choice. The point of a safety net is making sure that no one is stuck living on the streets in retirement, because they just become an even bigger burden on society in that case.

And should those who planned ahead and don't need that SS money be penalized for their forethought?

They get the same safety net that everyone else gets. That's not a "penalty."

 

[atrdriver]

And that's up to them. If they want to live a very basic life in retirement that they can afford on just SS income, then that's their choice. The point of a safety net is making sure that no one is stuck living on the streets in retirement, because they just become an even bigger burden on society in that case. They get the same safety net that everyone else gets. That's not a "penalty."

Yes it is a penalty in your scheme. They pay in vastly more money, they should get an equivalent amount back. In your wonderful world of percentages, if a rich guy pays 500% of what a poor guy does into SS, he should get 500% more back in retirement than a poor guy. But he doesn't, he gets just the same amount. That is called wealth redistribution, and it is not what this country was founded on.

 

[bpapaDC8]

Great thread....

 

[pilotyip]

Not true

Yes it is a penalty in your scheme. They pay in vastly more money, they should get an equivalent amount back. In your wonderful world of percentages, if a rich guy pays 500% of what a poor guy does into SS, he should get 500% more back in retirement than a poor guy. But he doesn't, he gets just the same amount. That is called wealth redistribution, and it is not what this country was founded on.

Not true if you do not exceed the yearly cap for SS contribution you will have prorated SS payout. My SS will be about 150% more than my wifes.