Please correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it, all people who reach the age of eligibility, no matter how wealthy they are, receive a monthly Social Security check. I understand that everyone pays Social Security taxes, but it still seems absurd to me that the very wealthy get Social Security when the system is in so much trouble. Does anyone have any input or opinions on this subject? I appreciate all replies. Thank you very much.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

Well, for starters, they pay into it, so they simply get back what they payed. Secon,d the whole point from the start was that EVERYONE rich and poor would get SS. It was supposed to equalize. But the rich should still get it because it was their money.

But when it starts taxing a person for Social Security, the government has no way of knowing whether the person will be rich or poor when they retire. Isn't it fair to state that Social Security taxes should be paid by all to prevent poor retirees from going without? That would make it no different from welfare programs. I'd also be interested to know just how much money setting a maximum wealth at retirement standard would save.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

The problem is that many of the rich (close to 50%) weren't born into wealth, like you and the rest of the middle class got social security benefit that was deducted from paycheck. I think it's only fair that those ppl regardless of wealth get the money that they earned

__________________
In the land of the blind, the man with one eye is the king
- Nas

That sounds good in theory, but if that theory were followed absolutely there would be no welfare in the sense of wealth redistribution. To me, Social Security need not be a return on investment. Income taxes don't bring services proportionate to payment, so there is no reason that Social Security must pay according to taxation. Social Security was a terribly designed Ponzi scheme from the start, so converting it to a de facto welfare program seems like a practical and ethical way of averting a crisis.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

disagree that it is a "ponzi scheme". It is an insurance program not a welfare program. As such, it has always been very popular. It may hit a speed bump in the form of the large number of Baby Boomer retirees but that is a temporary situation and there are easy remedies. Turning it into a welfare program is the fastest way to evaporate popular support.

It is, technically, a Ponzi scheme that would be illegal for a private individual to provide. You may well be right about turning it into a welfare program hurting popular support, though.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

of the Ponzi schemes I have ever heard of ,depended for money making potential on the idea that a handful of people get money from an ever larger number of people. Inevitably, the whole thing falls apart. People at the top of the pyramid make out rather well. How is S.Sec a Ponzi scheme? Are Americans going to stop having children at some point?

It is a Ponzi scheme and would be considered criminal if offered by a private citizen:

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that involves paying abnormally high returns ("profits") to investors out of the money paid in by subsequent investors, rather than from net revenues generated by any real business.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

Social Security (except, legally, for the word fraudulent) fits that description even if the intentions of the people who created it were benevolent. Granted, as the article points out, Social Security is not a typical Ponzi scheme, but it is, technically, a Ponzi scheme nonetheless.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

It is my understanding that people paying into social secutiry are supporting the people currently on it. Therefore when you receive a soc sec check you are not receiving your money back but money that is currently being paid into it.

There in lies a problem. When social security first started the number of people paying into it far outnumbered the number of people receiving it. Now it is flipped. the number of people receiving it outnumber the people paying into it.

So it does make sense that if we eliminate some of the wealthier people from receiving it then there would be more for people who really need it.

I have heard of another problem too, but I dont know if it is true. Can anyone confirm this for me......

I was told that senators and congressmen do not pay into soc sec but retired senators and congressmen receive millions in soc sec every year. Is this true, because I see a big problem there if it is.

__________________
WMD
Writings of Mass Destruction