Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

2 Bumps

Should Social Security be optional? Means tested?

I think so. It could very well save the program. People should learn at a young age how to save for retirement. I'd definitely choose to save on my own as we have been.

Answer Question
 
itsmesteph11

Asked by itsmesteph11 at 2:25 PM on Mar. 1, 2011 in Politics & Current Events

Level 39 (113,405 Credits)
Answers (13)
  • I personally have always thought on what ever we put into social security it should be saved for us when he are old and need it, so pretty much like retirement account.. From the way things are going it's not going to be around when I am old so i will be screwed if I don't save money in a retirement.
    mommy_of_two388

    Answer by mommy_of_two388 at 2:26 PM on Mar. 1, 2011

  • I would much rather be in charge of my own retirement than have to funnel my money into a government program meant to do the same. I'm of the generation where we take care of ourselves and don't rely on others.
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 2:28 PM on Mar. 1, 2011

  • If it were optional, which generation gets to choose that they will not only contribute, but be the first to not receive?
    There will have to be at least one 30 yr generation to contribute and not receive, which will it be?
    We have enough problems convincing citizens today that the Nation is broke, let alone the states are too.
    WI wants to recall politicians and protest over a few bennies, and an imaginary " right " to collective bargaining-what kind of outrage will result when 100 million americans or more, find out they get to pay for SS and not receive and pay for their own retirement on top of that?
    Means testing is the beginning, and will have to be implemented soon. Sad but true.
    I think it will have to be implemented for SS, and Medicare.
    Not everyone is savy enough Steph to save as you have. If they could, foreclosure wouldn't be a national problem right now. 40 Mil are on Food Stamps right now.
    jewjewbee

    Answer by jewjewbee at 2:31 PM on Mar. 1, 2011

  • I think that if the government was reliable with money and saving then their wouldn't be this problem with ssi, but since we have people working in our government that cant balance their own check books we are screwed. The sad part is, is that some dont have the means to save for retirement.
    mrssundin

    Answer by mrssundin at 2:34 PM on Mar. 1, 2011

  • JJB raises an important point... who goes first? I doubt there is enough money out there to refund every penny paid into the system.

    I think the best fix is to raise the retirement age.
    gdiamante

    Answer by gdiamante at 2:47 PM on Mar. 1, 2011

  • I get you Jewjew but I don't see the system as any different right now. there is no way my children (or probably me) will receive SS as it is.
    They are paying in and will have no choice. Changes have to be made. I think it is time for a new generation of personal responsibility. It has to start somewhere. Having the option means those without the "means" will obviously choose the government savings plan. Maybe they will get the money when they need it. (Or maybe not)
    itsmesteph11

    Comment by itsmesteph11 (original poster) at 2:51 PM on Mar. 1, 2011

  • SS is a ponzi scheme.
    The first recipients didn't pay.
    The bottom tier pays and doesn't receive.
    Nobody wants to be on the bottom tier. Just ask Madoff.
    Means testing is being discussed on both sides.
    I don't like it, don't think it's " fair ".
    But, it has to be done.
    I never minded my tax dollars going to those who need it, I would have a bigger problem the money goint to those who Don't.
    jewjewbee

    Answer by jewjewbee at 3:05 PM on Mar. 1, 2011

  • . Having the option means those without the "means" will obviously choose the government savings plan.
    --
    There will have to be some who pay into it, with no option. With higher costs, longer lives, and less children paying into the system, the number of those paying will always have to be larger than the number of those receiving.
    If given the option at a young age, I fear many will chose Not to pay into the system, live foolishly and need it by retirement age.
    We actually have that scenario being played out now.
    jewjewbee

    Answer by jewjewbee at 3:09 PM on Mar. 1, 2011

  • Everyone should have to pay into the system. Not everyone should receive money though. I believe that there should be an income cut off for receiving both SS and medicare
    adnilm

    Answer by adnilm at 3:34 PM on Mar. 1, 2011

  • This is why FDR didn't do us any favors. Income tax was to be temporary. The participation in SS was voluntary and only to be paid to the primary earner plus the benefits weren't to be taxed. My how things have changed. Now, kids get SS, SAHM's who never contributed get SS, people who didn't live here when they were young workers get SS. There shouldn't be an income level. If you pay in, you get out. Why do we have a SS# if our benefits to be paid aren't tied to that number. Even I think I could keep track of who pays in when the contribution is made under their SS#.
    jesse123456

    Answer by jesse123456 at 4:46 PM on Mar. 1, 2011

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.
close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN