Quote:
Originally Posted by MS Fowler
Its not that simple. Part of the reasoning that set the ages where they did was to promote opening up positions in the job market. Get the old people out of the way for the young ones to get jobs.
How does government have any credibility to change the system so that fewer qualify for benefits. I've been making payments for 44 years, and now you want to say I can't get benefits? The money was not not a voluntary contribution; its was confiscated with the promise that the government would pay. If I lose my SS benefits, then a LOT of politicians better lose theirs, first.
|
That's part of the problem, the SS system was originally intended to get the geezers out of the job market an open up jobs for others (including returning veterans). I'm not sure that model makes sense anymore, the "retirement" ages for SS are much too young; the system is supporting many people for 20-30 years after they stop working. It makes more sense for the economy to support geezers by keeping them in the job market, than to pay them to sit home and watch the home shopping network for 30 years.
If we are not willing to get rid of the current SS system (which is what I would like to see happen), we either need to raise the age significantly (maybe by 10 years) and/or means test everyone. I've also been paying the maximum contribution for many years and I don't expect to see a dime, sorry about that. This is simply an entitlement program for a nonproductive portion of the middle class (geezer welfare). It needs to be fixed.