Re: Thoughts?

On Jul 8, 10:37 am, David Hartung <d_hart...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> maxwel...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> > On Jul 6, 11:47 pm, David Hartung <d_hart...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11553.html
>
> >> If he can do it, he just might avert the train wreck that is coming.
>
> >> Right now, I am 12 years away from full Social Security.
>
> >> There is no way that the government can pay full benefits to those
who
> >> will be retiring in the next 20 or so years. Something will have to
be done.
>
> >> I propose that beginning immediately, anyone under 60, must wait
until
> >> 68 to collect partial benefits, and 70 for full benefits.
>
> >> This may not be enough, we may have to push it back to 72 for
partial,
> >> and 75 for full.
>
> >> Before anyone brings it up, this is not a Republican problem. Every
> >> president since Eisenhower had a hand in the creation of the problem.
>
> > It is everyone's problem. The difference is how you approach the
> > problem. Your proposal sounds like something Bush might want
> > to do. The problem is how do you tell the guy that is one day
> > younger than 60  that he has to wait another 6 years to get
> > partial or another 5 years to get full benefits beyond the current
> > ages?  Hardly seems fair when he paid just as much into the
> > system as the guy that is 60 years old to the day. Remember
> > people have to have time for planning.
> > This is the kind of logic that I would expect from you and
> > the kind that the people of the US have had to get acustom
> > to over the last 7+ years.  Don't feel bad, a similar
> > proposal was made by a republican senator (Grassley?)
> > He and Bush are constant reminders that to be
> > a senator or even president, you just have to get elected.
>
> There is nothing fair about the current Social Security problem.

Should it be fair? yes or no?

> The challenge is to actually fix it, not just push the problem back for
> future generations to deal with.

What if all income were subject to SS taxes? Isn't that
fair? It is a lot better plan than what you came up with.
It would hurt practically no one.

> What I propose will seriously affect me.

What if the military just decided to change their retirement the
same way you are proposing? Would you still agree? What if
you lost all other sources of income would you still feel the
same way? Oh wait those things won't effect you so who
cares? Screw the people that don't have anything else right?

>Right not I am 12 years away > from qualifying for full benefits.

If that is the case then you were born between 1943-1959 and
you won't be able to collect full benefits until you are 66 years
old.That would make you 54. Did you even realize they had
already raised the full benefit age?

>Unless something drastic is done,
> there will be no benefits for anyone. Delaying the payment of benefits
> may not solve the whole problem, but it should reduce the growth of the
> beneficiary class.

They have already raised the full benefit age so they have
done something similar to what you are talking about only
with a lot more common sense. What needs to be done next
is to raise the income limit so that it applies to all income.