[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJaihxVEkn4&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - Charlie Crist Proposes Amnesty To "Save" Social Security[/ame]
Last edited:
Crist on Social Security
- Thread starter 30ashopper
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
I really wish he'd get behind raising the age eligibility. It just makes sense. On the other hand, I'm a fan of his views on means testing, which goes against the basic mandate of ss, and I agree with a path to citizenship for illegal aliens.
All in all, Charlie is still a mixed bag for me. He doesn't seem to be capable of making the hard choices that need to be made.
All in all, Charlie is still a mixed bag for me. He doesn't seem to be capable of making the hard choices that need to be made.
Last edited:
TooFarTampa
SoWal Insider
That's an interesting argument. Do numbers back it up? I thought that Social Security was propped up (at least in part) by illegal immigrants with fake SS numbers who pay into the system via employers who use those fake numbers to file payroll taxes. But the illegal immigrants never see any benefits.
I still think workers should be able to take partial payments at 62 because so many are tradespeople who can't keep working until 65 or 70. So a sliding scale with full benefits at 69 or 70 for those born after a certain year seems to make some sense.
How would means testing work? Would it be related to net worth? It would almost have to, since "income" is so variable now that so many don't have pensions and there are varying requirements as to when you have to pull from your retirement accounts and how much you must take.
That seems like it would be a big change too, having to file your net worth yearly with the federal government.
I actually enjoyed this video because I have never heard Crist sound so intelligent. This is one reason why we need editorial boards and newspapers, folks - there's no subsitute for putting a candidate in a quiet room and asking him or her thoughtful questions in hopes of getting thoughtful answers. All the shouting and snark is making my head hurt.
I still think workers should be able to take partial payments at 62 because so many are tradespeople who can't keep working until 65 or 70. So a sliding scale with full benefits at 69 or 70 for those born after a certain year seems to make some sense.
How would means testing work? Would it be related to net worth? It would almost have to, since "income" is so variable now that so many don't have pensions and there are varying requirements as to when you have to pull from your retirement accounts and how much you must take.
That seems like it would be a big change too, having to file your net worth yearly with the federal government.
I actually enjoyed this video because I have never heard Crist sound so intelligent. This is one reason why we need editorial boards and newspapers, folks - there's no subsitute for putting a candidate in a quiet room and asking him or her thoughtful questions in hopes of getting thoughtful answers. All the shouting and snark is making my head hurt.
Why does means testing go against the basic nature of social security?
The whole idea of social security was to provide a safety net so that people could manage a minimal standard of living. Shelter and food instead of the poor house or streets.
It wasn't ever intended to be a retirement plan for those who could afford it and wanted more than that minimal standard.
I like the idea of raising the age AND allowing people who don't need it to opt out and receive a tax credit (perhaps to cancel out cap gains or something similar) for doing so.
The whole idea of social security was to provide a safety net so that people could manage a minimal standard of living. Shelter and food instead of the poor house or streets.
It wasn't ever intended to be a retirement plan for those who could afford it and wanted more than that minimal standard.
I like the idea of raising the age AND allowing people who don't need it to opt out and receive a tax credit (perhaps to cancel out cap gains or something similar) for doing so.
I would add that if you opt out you are reimbursed the amount you have already paid into the system.
I was trying to find a way to not drain the coffers and still have there be a financial incentive for people who can afford it to opt out. Since many who could afford to do so would have cash or retirement portfolios, I was thinking of some sort of cap gains or tax credits.
If the last couple of years have taught us anything, it is that there are no guarantees and sheet happens, so I don't want to make it that people can choose to not pay in or can take all their money out.
That was why I was thinking an annual credit or benefit of some kind - so you can get something if you choose to opt out, but the safety net is still there if something happens and you truly need it.
If the last couple of years have taught us anything, it is that there are no guarantees and sheet happens, so I don't want to make it that people can choose to not pay in or can take all their money out.
That was why I was thinking an annual credit or benefit of some kind - so you can get something if you choose to opt out, but the safety net is still there if something happens and you truly need it.
An annual tax credit would only dissuade the very wealthy. Most people will draw 15-20 thousand from SS and at that age pay nowhere near that in taxes. If you force people to take some 1,000 tax credit and refuse them their benefit you are denying them something they have been promised. However, if you are 62 and you want to take a payout of what you have paid in you will get more takers and reduce the liability of the Federal government. This is definitely an idea worth exploring though. Cutting the liability is vital to restoring fiscal health to the Federal government.
No, it would be a "you chose not to take X dollars in benefits, so we will credit you X dollars deal". Even steven.
hahahahaha,chuckle snort