Skip to main content
AARPMiller
AARPMiller
Contributor ⭐
September 27, 2011

Share your concerns about Social Security

  • September 27, 2011
  • 337 replies
  • 187732 views

1)     In the article,  Social Security Fears, many Social Security myths are addressed. What concerns you the most about Social Security? 

      This topic has been closed for replies.

      337 replies

      Show previous replies
      J
      judyz82
      Contributor ⭐
      August 1, 2014

      My biggest concern is that our government become so corrupted that Wall Street is finally successful in privatizing SS.

      G
      GroveLady
      Contributor ⭐
      August 2, 2014

      1. The fact that this is dated a couple of years ago says no one will read this. 

      2. Disability is being decided on 1960s definitions.   Todays long term problems that disable people are things like Migraine and chronic headache that stops you from working for most of the year.  Yet is not recognized.   Lyme disease gives many disableing problems yet they are not considered.

      3. They only recognize something broken and cannot be fixed for disability.  They are now being fixed. 

       

      It makes no sense now if you read this in a few years you might understand our frustrations.

      N
      northrancher
      Contributor ⭐
      August 15, 2014

      I'm just confused about when to take benefits and what are the penalties for taking it early. I have two questions:

       

      1) If I take benefits at 62 and switch to spousal benefits (my husband) at 66, can I resume my benefits at 70?

       

      2) If I take benefits at 62 and I have no income, will I still be penalized if my husband makes over the allotted amount?

       

      Thanks in advance.

      drawpoker
      drawpoker
      Contributor ⭐⭐
      August 15, 2014

      ) If I take benefits at 62 and switch to spousal benefits (my husband) at 66, can I resume my benefits at 70?

       

         Answered over in the other thread. 

       

      2) If I take benefits at 62 and I have no income, will I still be penalized if my husband makes over the allotted amount?

       

          Never.    Soc Sec. is not like food stamps.  Or TCA.  It doesn't go by household income.  Only the beneficiary is subject to the rules of the earnings limits;   not other members of the same household,  so no worries there  you cannot be penalized.  Also,  if your husband lavishes you with expensive gifts,  diamonds,  furs,  Rolex  -  no matter,  it is not "income",   soc. sec.  doesn't care.  As long as he didn't acquire the money for the diamonds and furs by concealing income,  lol  

       

      Thanks in advance.

       

      You're entirely welcome !

      retiredtraveler
      retiredtraveler
      Contributor ⭐⭐⭐
      August 15, 2014

      "... Also,  if your husband lavishes you with expensive gifts,  diamonds,  furs,  Rolex  -  no matter,  it is not "income",   soc. sec.  doesn't care.  As long as he didn't acquire the money for the diamonds and furs by concealing income....".

         Hey, DW sometimes looks at these postings. You're a bad influence! 

      "...Why is everyone a victim? Take personal responsibility for your life..."
      M
      medtech87108
      Contributor ⭐
      August 18, 2014

      I'm not overly concerned about the system itself; I understand it is self-funding.  Working people pay the SS tax to keep the fund alive.  I think a concern of mine is if the younger people will not be able to find jobs that allow them to pay the SS taxes.

      E
      erniepectol
      Contributor ⭐
      August 18, 2014
      Keep it going!!!! Raise the limit on what is taxable. Cut out the fraud, esp. on disability claims!!!! I think you could double the limit and solve the problem. I've got to have Social Security to live in just a very few years!!!!
      ttryu
      ttryu
      Contributor ⭐
      August 18, 2014

      Due to funding issue, social security benefits would almost certainly be cut down the road.  This is a major concern.  This would put more financial burden on younger Baby Bommers and the generations that follow.  This means we must be more intelligent on investing for our retirement down the road.  Unfortunately, many people are not ready in the position to accept the challenge. 

      T
      trailsnet
      Contributor ⭐
      August 18, 2014
      That organizations like AARP, who are supposed to advocate for seniors, are allowing legislation like Government Pension Offset (GPO) and Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) rob hard-earned retirement income from middle class Americans. AARP always talks the talk about protecting Social Security, but when it comes to GPO & WEP, they certainly don't walk the walk.
      Trailsnet is a huge fan of trails: trail travel, trail commuting, trail recreation & trail building.
      G
      GeorgeBMac
      Contributor ⭐
      August 18, 2014
      Social security is under attack by Republicans who object to it on ideological grounds. They are not going to stop their attack and the only thing keeping them from bringing it down is that they do not control either the senate or the executive office.

      But they have convinced large numbers of people the it is "broken" and headed towards bankruptcy - even though neither of those allegations are true. But, they use their lies to convince people that the current system needs to be scrapped.

      If they succeed, the people of this country are in trouble.
        J
        jh1440
        Contributor ⭐
        October 24, 2014

        George -

         

        You are absolutely right about this. I wholeheartedly stand against Fred Griesbach's efforts (along with those of "The Can Kicks Back" the "Balanced Budget Amendment" and the like). The idea that a country with a fully fiat currency like the US Dollar might need to "cut SS to save it" is utter nonsense. If people understood how their own national currency works, Fred would not be able to mount this attack on Social Security. When we were on the edge of the Great Recession, the Gov't could have afforded to suspend payroll taxes (while making up the difference to the OASDI Trust Funds itself) and raise the minimum SS pay to $2,000/mo. 

         

        When a country uses a fully fiat currency that floats on the foreign exchange, the question is never about it's ability to leave enough of that currency in the private sector to support a brisk economy, rather it's a question of whether or not we have enough REAL goods and services to go around. The Federal Government should point it's efforts towards balancing the economy, not "the budget". Balancing the budget is for individuals, biz and local governments (i.e., users of the national currency). Not for the sole net issuer of the national currency.

        S
        scheloskejohn
        Contributor ⭐
        August 18, 2014
        Will they ever pay back the money they use out of Social Security for other reasons? That is like stealing our money that was suppose to support our retirement. If they would return that sum of money social security would be in great shape. By the way I work for over 40 years and paid all my taxes and they still would take care of foreign and welfare people before seniors would have work there whole life.
        J
        Jekbride
        Contributor ⭐
        August 19, 2014

        My major concern is that Congress will not fix Social Security until it becomes a true train wreck and becomes "unfixable".  For years they could have taken the limit off earnings to gain more income.  They could also make sure everyone pays in--all government workers and teacher organizations, etc.

        They could reduce "future" cost of living raises--this is not a decrease in benefits as described by some.  

        Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement