WSJ on SWA/AT Merger

[waveflyer]

Not if I'm paying into it PCL- it shouldn't be retirement welfare- it should be govt mandated and controlled annuity as an economic safety net, not a social safety net

 

[PCL_128]

Not if I'm paying into it PCL- it shouldn't be retirement welfare- it should be govt mandated and controlled annuity as an economic safety net, not a social safety net

We'll just have to agree to disagree, as usual, wave.

 

[Sacha]

I am contributing to SS for my safety net, not someone else's.

What if someone CHOOSES to not contribute to his 401K and instead buys sports cars and goes on Ski vacations with the money instead and ends up with zip when he retires? Should he be entitled to SS as a "Safety Net" whereas I get nothing because I actually CHOSE to save, contribute and invest? My SS money is used for his benefit?

What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine.....The Liberal Mantra

PCL says " people with 5 million in a 401k shouldnt be collecting money from the government every month".....

You are confusing SSI with WELFARE. People who collect money from the Government every month are on WELFARE.........People who collect SS every month are getting back money THEY paid into the system. It is a Ponzi scheme I will admit. Like Defined Benefit Pension plans, the Mathematics will eventually be upside down.

 

[Luv2BFlyin]

Probably true. But then again, I don't think you and I should get it. SS should be treated as a safety net, not as a retirement plan. People with $5 million in a 401k shouldn't be collecting money from the government every month.

Why should I be penalized for being successful and not receive a benefit that I paid into just like every other hard working American (I actually have worked hard prior to and early on in aviation)? I don't care if 20 years from now it'll just buy beer, but I want it. Why do they call it SSI? If I pay premiums into an insurance plan, I expect to collect a benefit in one form or another at some time in the future (besides term insurance to provide for the wife and kids due to an untimely death, I really hope they don't have to collect on that ).

 

[SWA Bubba]

Probably true. But then again, I don't think you and I should get it. SS should be treated as a safety net, not as a retirement plan. People with $5 million in a 401k shouldn't be collecting money from the government every month.

That's an interesting theory--and one that goes against the original design of the plan. It was NOT designed to completely support everyone in their old age. Or even just the poor in their old age. It was designed to force a minimum level of self-responsible retirement planning upon everyone. Despite your suggestion, it IS, in fact, a retirement plan, albeit a government-mandated one. That's why you're only "taxed" up to a certain amount (indexed to inflation), and more importantly, why if you earn more and contribute more, you GET more when you retire. The limit on SSI contribution is due to the designers figuring that above that threshold, you're already covered.

People clamoring to "fix" Social Security by eliminating the cap on contributions forget that if you further increase required contributions above the cap, then the government is obligated, under the premise of the program, to give those people even more when they retire. That's why it's called Social Security Insurance, and not Social Security Tax. It's technically called Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI). That's also why your payroll deductions are called FICA (Federal Insurance Contributions Act), not tax. As a tax, the government can do what it wishes with the money. As insurance, the government is obligated to treat ALL the "policy holders" with fair and equal treatment under the rules. (I don't necessarily mean equal amounts of money, but rather everyone's "insurance payout" is calculated with the same rules.)

Your suggestion that the people who contribute the most shouldn't get anything, because they don't "need" it, even further flies in the face against the program's goals and stated criteria. In that case, it would be changed to be just be another friggin' government-mandated redistribution of wealth program. It's my opinion that we have too many of those as it is already.

Bubba

 

[SWA717]

Probably true. But then again, I don't think you and I should get it. SS should be treated as a safety net, not as a retirement plan. People with $5 million in a 401k shouldn't be collecting money from the government every month.

I've got news for you. If you want to give all your money to idiots who never decided to save a lick and instead spent everything they made trying to live well beyond their means, then by all means please do so. But stay the Phuk away from my money you socialist jurk.

 

[Ty Webb]

Probably true. But then again, I don't think you and I should get it. SS should be treated as a safety net, not as a retirement plan. People with $5 million in a 401k shouldn't be collecting money from the government every month.

Wow.

So, by your "logic", you think that the $8,500. a year (or so) that I have paid in every year shouldn't go to me, but should be diverted to a "safety net" for other people instead? Are you out of your %^&^&$ mind?

"Comrade PCL, the local tribunal has decided that your new Jaguar is really too nice of a car to be wasted on a young, single guy such as yourself. We'll be reallocating this asset to a "needy" family we've located. Nobody in the family is currently working, or looking for work, but we're certain that this is due to a lack of transportation. Please be sure to remove all your personal effects, we'll be picking it up tomorrow. Thanks for your contribution to the safety net.

Oh, btw, we have a homeless family that needs a house, as well. We'll be sending you more correspondence on that next week".

 

[redflyer65]

Maybe ALPA should increase their dues to 5% to help pay for the thin meals they are taking up in DC. Who can live on a 2 thousand dollar dinner! Spread the wealth....and the A1.

 

[Dan Roman]

Holy crap PCL, I agree with a lot of your positions on here. My politics lean left and I credit the "liberals" with creating the middle class and the opportunities in our country for the majority of the population. But your perception that someone should give up the SS investment they made while working because they worked hard and were successful is absurd.
If that concept ever gets seriously considered by democrats it will do more than divide our country further, it would render the Democratic party useless.

 

[Dan Roman]

I might even become a Tea party member and I wouldn't be surprised if Wave joined me!