Juliuscaesar
Closed Account
:eek:
-
Do you have credits to spend? Why not pick up some VOD rentals? Find out how!
Should we make it legal for people to opt out of Social Security?
- Thread starter Juliuscaesar
- Start date
Juliuscaesar
Closed Account
P.S
Social Security takes a chunk out of every working man's paycheck on the premise that people can't take care of themselves in setting aside money for their retirement.
Social Security takes a chunk out of every working man's paycheck on the premise that people can't take care of themselves in setting aside money for their retirement.
Juliuscaesar
Closed Account
The Social Security tax doesn't pay for that.
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
No, not if we want the program to remain solvent. And I'm not sure what this would accomplish. My assumption is, the type of people who would opt out would be the very people who do not save enough for retirement now (lower wage earners who are not very adept financially). Letting these people opt out would put another $30 or whatever in their pockets every pay period. But when it came time for them to retire (65 or so), they'd wind up collecting SSI/Supplemental Security Income (which is funded by general tax revenues) instead of Social Security. So the tax payers would have to make up the difference for those who did not pay in, but whose assets and retirement income qualify them for SSI.
IMO, what we should be doing is taking a closer (albeit painful) look at who is eligible for Social Security benefits. I'm FAR from any sort of expert on SS. But one issue I see is the number of people who are able to draw a SS check based on the earnings of just one person. If you take a guy (or gal, but usually it's a man) who has been married two or three times, at least 7 years (I believe) to each woman, by the time they all reach retirement age, you could have three or four people drawing benefits, when maybe only one of them ever had a job or paid into the system. Questions of fairness aside, to me it's a question of simple math.
IMO, what we should be doing is taking a closer (albeit painful) look at who is eligible for Social Security benefits. I'm FAR from any sort of expert on SS. But one issue I see is the number of people who are able to draw a SS check based on the earnings of just one person. If you take a guy (or gal, but usually it's a man) who has been married two or three times, at least 7 years (I believe) to each woman, by the time they all reach retirement age, you could have three or four people drawing benefits, when maybe only one of them ever had a job or paid into the system. Questions of fairness aside, to me it's a question of simple math.
Will E Worm
Conspiracy...
Opt out of income tax. 
StanScratch
My Penis Is Dancing!
Seeing that quite a few tea baggers are against social security - yet are of the age in which they collect social security, I've not seen any refuse it, nor Medicare, nor Medicaid. They are not against it, as long as the other guys don't get it. This is known as a "Greedy Socialist", for which many tea baggers fall under.
However, I am almost wanting to say "yes", then can opt out - with the understanding there is absolutely no way they can ever opt back in. Thus, let them become the insignificant outcasts of society in which they truly are.
However, I am almost wanting to say "yes", then can opt out - with the understanding there is absolutely no way they can ever opt back in. Thus, let them become the insignificant outcasts of society in which they truly are.
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
I had a similar thought about the health care reform legislation. Maybe people shouldn't be forced to take coverage. But if you chose to go it on your own, you couldn't get back in when you got sick. As well, I'd do away with Reagan's emergency room act. No cash, no insurance = no service. The option to have insurance coverage would be/was there, so if you chose not to take it (causin' your freedoms was a gettin' violated), you'd just be rolling the dice. If you take that chance and crap out, IMO, you'd just be screwed. Too bad, so sad. One less moron to breath my air, the way I see it (do I sound like Georges now?
). Maybe cover people up to 18 or 21, and then they'd have to make a choice: get open enrollment insurance or don't. :dunno: Opt out and you couldn't get back in on public open enrollment (no matter what) until say 30. Then again at 35, and every 5 years or so until age 62-65.But yeah, the number of tea baggers who receive "socialist" benefits is rather odd, if not humorous.
No_Man
Would you hit it?
It already is legal for a handful of people to opt out of Social Security. Anybody who 1) pays self-employment tax (SECA rather than FICA), and 2) belongs to a religious group that has a moral objection to either Social Security or Medicare can submit a waver opting out of paying for and receiving Social Security and Medicare benefits. This primarily applies to Anabaptists, Christian Scientists, and certain Islamic groups who object to insurance as a form of gambling, as well as some strict Christian monastic orders who consider investing money to be a violation of their vow of poverty.
I believe the same exemptions apply for the Obamacare individual mandate, btw.
I believe the same exemptions apply for the Obamacare individual mandate, btw.
Similar threads
- Sticky
