8 Ways Deficit Panel Aims to Change Social Security

Reader Comments
Back to blog

No one should collect anything for drugs, alcohol, tobacco and similar related situations. These are choices made by individuals, not genetic or environmental caused things. All income should be taxed for the ss system. Cap the payouts. Very wealthy people will collect less proportionally, but if you are worth millions, then a few hundred bucks a month won't mean that much to you. Everyone who works should be in the system, no exceptions. Why is raising the age of retirement a problem for anyone? It would be phased in over a half century, not next year. Our biggest problem in america, besides useless politicians, is the "give me, give me" mentality of most people, while at the same time complaining about big government. You cannot have both a government that is intrusive and "protective" of us all, and a smaller federal government. make up your minds which you all want. I personally vote for the smaller, mind your own business, and I'll fend for myself or die trying, society.

DrJoel1 of OH 4:55PM December 04, 2010

I congratulate the panel for being honest. Americans are not French - and we need to get off the couch and back to work.
Given advances in medicine and lifestyle, the age to draw early benefits ought to move to 65 or 66 and full retirement to 70 over the next 20-25 years - not 40 years.
There should be no ceiling on FICA taxes, just as there are none on medicare. I don't like taxation, but this is a way to alleviate the funding problems without impacting the middle class - should be relatively painless.
Individuals bear some responsibility for their retirement. Government provides a minimum benefit, a safety net, and that's all that should provided without creating a moral hazard.

JRG of FL 11:14AM November 23, 2010

Let me get this right,you spend MY money and now don't want to give me back what I paid for and we agreed upon? BETTER CALL IN THE NATIONAL GUARD THEN!

fatjoey of DE 11:32AM November 22, 2010

My step-sister receives SSI benefits because she is disabled......her disability being drug dependency. She gets her SSI payment and goes out and buys more drugs.........social security?

john of CA 4:24PM November 19, 2010

First of all, the claim that SS was meant only as a supplement to personal retirement savings is not completely true; it was meant to provide income for those whose life's savings were wiped out when the banks failed in the Depression. Now, the biggest reason SS is in so much trouble is that rather than being a retirement system where what you draw out is proportional to what you put in, it has become an entitlement program where spouses, children, and the disabled are covered far beyond their input. Also, if you do the aritmetic, you need to be putting 25-30% of your income towards your retirement. SS kept payments at 1/2 that and become a Ponzi scheme dependent on an ever increasing number of workers.

PatsOpinion of AL 3:23PM November 17, 2010

I say eliminate the SS payment to people who receive benefits based on their spouses work record unless their spouse died and their benefit is higher than the surviving spouses.
Each persons benefit should be based on their own work record. There are people who hardly worked a day in their life because they are married to a high wage earner. The wage earner will collect on their work record while their spouse will collect up to 50% of their spouses benefit. If they could live on the one income before SS, they should be able to live on the one SS benefit after retirement (nto to mention the big pension they'll be receiving).

Dianna of WI 12:50PM November 17, 2010

If Social Security Fraud had been contained over the years a great deal of this would not be necessary! Add to it Medicare. This transcends multiple Administrations.

PCH of CA 9:14PM November 16, 2010

There are so many things wrong with the entire concept of retirement that unless we chnge the way we think and behave, nothing will fix anything for long. Social Security was supposed to be a suppliment to saving and investing, not the main source of income for retirees. The biggest problem with most folks who don't have enough money is the simple fact that they have spent the past 50 years or so spending more than they earned.
If anyone cannot put away enough to retire with in a half-century, there is something very wrong with that person. I've heard every excuse there is, but the facts remain: buying houses that you cannot afford, buying Lexus type vehicles instead of a Ford or Chevy, spending money on alcohol, cigarettes, gambling, and vacations that are over the top in cost (you know, god forbid you should stay at an inexpensive motel), eating out in fancy restaurants instead of reasonably priced ones, buying your kids 200.00 gym shoes and 500.00 games, and the list goes on forever.
I have friends that are barely making it, some are affluent, and some are quite wealthy. The ones who have little to nothing lived exactly the way I described it above. The others used much more sense and they wound up with something to use in their old age.
Luckily, I had great parents that had more common sense than most. they taught me to "spend some, save some" and that has gotten me to the point in my life that I don't have to worry, or take from others to support myself. I'm fairly affluent and got this way from sensible living for the past 52 years while working. Took vacations, spoiled the kids a little, gave to charity and most importan, I kept my pride and work ethic. That along with the lessons from my folks took good care of me and I don't need to be a burden to anyone.
Fix the SS system and those in the future will be OK. Play "politics" and there will be hell to pay down the road.

DrJoel1 of OH 7:55PM November 16, 2010

I work at a community college; I have paid all of my quarters into Social Secuirty; I will retire with Texas Retirement System; I cannot draw Social Security even though I have paid into it. Want to talk about "thievery"?

cjo of TX 2:58PM November 16, 2010

I am on Social Security and support all these changes, except for the New Claiming Strategies, which I don't get.
In addition, if they removed the social security tax on workers age 60 or 62, companies would benefit from hiring older workers. And older workers would have the chance to save a little more. Once they are on medicare, the companies would save even more by not having to provide health insurance.
I also agree with the previous responder that they should pass a law that congress cannot touch Social Security funds.

Nancy of WA 2:25PM November 16, 2010