should wealthy Americans be allowed to collect Social Security?

Of course the wealthy should receive SS benefits. They paid into it. To deny them benefits is outright theft. Our gov't already puts its toes over the line between collecting taxes and theft. You would have them cross over it simply because "they don't need it". So what? They paid in, they earned it, the same as the rest of us who spent a lifetime paying into the system.

The real question is whether those who have never paid into SS should receive benefits, to which the answer should be hell no.

Hell yes! At least we'll use it wisely, like country club memberships and some ass every now and then.

Hell yes! At least we'll use it wisely, like country club memberships and some ass every now and then. Originally Posted by Worldtravler

Meanwhile in the trailer park...

What about people who's income over their lifetime has been so low (or non-existent) that they paid next to nothing into SS, should they get to collect?

Jackie, if you had a TAX bill is well into 6 figures, you would have to be earning several million a year. at the least. you don't a "lousy" 2,500 a month to get by.
that's about the max cap anyone regardless of income can get. Even Bill Gates won't get anymore than i will.

right now, 10 years before i could draw at 62 the earliest which would be stupid of course, i'd have to live to 135 to get back what i've already paid in. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

I'm sorry, one too many Zeros. (I'm getting old, LOL). To be more exact, it was $132,000 and change, the vast majority of that derived from W-2 income, which, of course, you pay SS taxes on until you reach the cap.

Social Security is a scam.
Is it a retirement benefit or is it an insurance policy.
As an insurance policy, it is really expensive and the only one that I know of that you have to pay taxes on when you receive a benefit.
As a retirement benefit, it is barely enough for people to survive on unless they have accumulated enough wealth to supplement what you have.

Most people fail to understand that the tax is actually a bout 15% of your income. I personally would love to have 15% of my income in investments that allow that money to grow and to have started with my very first paycheck, I would be retired now and living on easy street. Instead, they keep pushing the carrot further into my old age and increasing the amount they take back if Ihave been smart enough to have saved for retirement.

SS was designed for people who were not able, or too greedy to set aside funds for retirement. It would still be solvent if not for politicians raping it to balance their budget.

I'm sorry, one too many Zeros. (I'm getting old, LOL). To be more exact, it was $132,000 and change, the vast majority of that derived from W-2 income, which, of course, you pay SS taxes on until you reach the cap. Originally Posted by Jackie S

fair enough. and i've been capped out for a long time as well. and will continue to be until i retire.

this poll was not about "Is Social Security a good thing?". it's a classic example of Government intrusion into people's lives. but it is what is it today. Does anyone remember that Georgie the Second in his second term i recall, tried to float the idea of allowing people to opt out? it went over like a Lead Zeppelin as that old saying goes.

if i had set the bar at 25 million net worth and above rather than 5 million?

and there's no "relative" to it here lol 25 million is exactly that.

SS was designed as a "floor", it was never meant for people to retire "rich" off of it alone. during the great depression old/retired people had it especially bad and many had no retirement funds or they lost it all in the stock market. The more people understand the historical reason for SS are more likely to support it.

Shouldn't matter what you make or what your worth, if you paid it, you draw it.

Of course the wealthy should receive SS benefits. They paid into it. To deny them benefits is outright theft. .

The real question is whether those who have never paid into SS should receive benefits, to which the answer should be hell no. Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

how is it theft? SS was intended to be Insurance.. if you paid into your Homeowner's policy and never used it, would you say the Insurance Company stole from you?

other than a small few, in specific circimstances, if you don't personally pay in to the SS system, you receive no benefits.. and btw, lots of you conveniently ignore one major piece of SS.. the people who died early and never collect a dime of what they paid in.. of course those people are statistically more often poor and minorities.. and what about people who work 7, 8, 9 years? no SS benefits for you.. and the wealthy bitch about not getting enough out of SS? how fucking disingenuous..

Social Security is a scam.
Is it a retirement benefit or is it an insurance policy.
As an insurance policy, it is really expensive and the only one that I know of that you have to pay taxes on when you receive a benefit.
As a retirement benefit, it is barely enough for people to survive on unless they have accumulated enough wealth to supplement what you have.

Most people fail to understand that the tax is actually a bout 15% of your income. I personally would love to have 15% of my income in investments that allow that money to grow and to have started with my very first paycheck, I would be retired now and living on easy street. Instead, they keep pushing the carrot further into my old age and increasing the amount they take back if Ihave been smart enough to have saved for retirement. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

well, to be fair, the 15% includes Medicare, which is where the OP's question would be more appropriately centered.. it is absurd for wealthy Americans to receive medicare.. I go back to the premise that SS and medicare are insurance vehicles, not entitlements. and btw, to be fair, not everyone pays tax on SS when they receive benefits, most do not.

Does anyone remember that Georgie the Second in his second term i recall, tried to float the idea of allowing people to opt out? it went over like a Lead Zeppelin as that old saying goes.
Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

I remember it well, Bush implied that creating a personal account would be a Stairway to Heaven.. the idea didn't look so good when the Market cratered for a couple of years.. he proposed the idea in 2000 actually, the first time.. remember that Al Gore was a strong advocate against the idea?

]

this poll was not about "Is Social Security a good thing?". it's a classic example of Government intrusion into people's lives. but it is what is it today. Does anyone remember that Georgie the Second in his second term i recall, tried to float the idea of allowing people to opt out? it went over like a Lead Zeppelin as that old saying goes.

if i had set the bar at 25 million net worth and above rather than 5 million?

and there's no "relative" to it here lol 25 million is exactly that. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

The problem is that most folks do not understand the history of SS and that Medicare is a huge factor in the equation.

No i do not think i should receive SS , when a person net worth drops below say your 5 mil hypothetical then it would kick back in.

But let me inject a thought...until we stop leaving iou's in that fund to pay for Defense spending SS will be a can that always gets kicked down the road with temporary fixes.

I started working in 1968 and (except for my couple of years in the military) paid in the maximum each year to social security. That money, and the money paid in by my employer, is MY money. In no way does it belong to the government. I don't care if you consider me, or anyone else, rich or poor, by whatever standard you might use to determine if someone is rich or poor. Social Security was set up as a forced savings program guaranteeing (I hope) people a level of income that was never intended to be the sole source of income but rather a supplement.