[TheWatchGuy]

Originally Posted by NormanConquest

I got an idea, how about everyone who did not have kids don't get SS, because you know you got to save all that money : )

Originally Posted by cmyx6go

I don't understand. Are you saying that Sakhir is wrong? I don't have kids, I've worked my entire life and paid into SS. We're not talking welfare, we're talking something we paid into. Are you saying we shouldn't take our SS benefits?

No. This is what i had replied to that sakhir jumped into the middle of

Norman feels that since those that didnt have kids saved their money by not having kids, they shouldnt get SS.

[TheWatchGuy]

Originally Posted by hooligan_COLD

How about everyone who did have kids doesn't get SS because they don't *need* that money - they have kids to take care of them in their dotage?

Makes about as much sense as what you're proposing...

Makes more sense tbh

[Dagamus_NM]

Originally Posted by NormanConquest

I got an idea, how about everyone who did not have kids don't get SS, because you know you got to save all that money : )

So you want people who had kids to collect SS, but don't want people that have kids and live below the thresholds for government assistance to get it?

Most people that are of age to collect SS have their kids out of the house by then. Those of the rest of us just have our social security taken from our checks to give it to people that no longer need it because they aren't broke from having a bunch of kids in the house?

Taxes cover helping assist families that live below assistance thresholds, those that make more pay more (in theory). Social security is the same way but with a cap on how much an individual has to pay into it.

[NormanConquest]

Originally Posted by Dagamus_NM

So you want people who had kids to collect SS, but don't want people that have kids and live below the thresholds for government assistance to get it?

Most people that are of age to collect SS have their kids out of the house by then. Those of the rest of us just have our social security taken from our checks to give it to people that no longer need it because they aren't broke from having a bunch of kids in the house?

Taxes cover helping assist families that live below assistance thresholds, those that make more pay more (in theory). Social security is the same way but with a cap on how much an individual has to pay into it.

All of you failed to understand you paid into nothing, what your tax went to was those who are retire, SS expected an 8 paying into 1 to sustain. Those who are not having kids are not doing their part to ensure SS is sustainable . Which is why I said, since those brilliant people saved that 250,000 by not having kids they shouldn't need other people kids to substain their retirement.

[adc100]

Originally Posted by NormanConquest

All of you failed to understand you paid into nothing, what your tax went to was those who are retire, SS expected an 8 paying into 1 to sustain. Those who are not having kids are not doing their part to ensure SS is sustainable . Which is why I said, since those brilliant people saved that 250,000 by not having kids they shouldn't need other people kids to substain their retirement.

Your lack of understanding/logic is incredible.

[NormanConquest]

Don't be mad at me, that directly from Social Security, I'm just presenting the most logical solution. Singles save so much according to this topic by not having children, good then they can support their retirement without other people children paying for them to get a SS check.

https://www.ssa.gov/history/ratios.html

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v66n4/v66n4p37.html

[hooligan_COLD]

Originally Posted by NormanConquest

All of you failed to understand you paid into nothing, what your tax went to was those who are retire, SS expected an 8 paying into 1 to sustain. Those who are not having kids are not doing their part to ensure SS is sustainable . Which is why I said, since those brilliant people saved that 250,000 by not having kids they shouldn't need other people kids to substain their retirement.

I understand perfectly well how SS works.

Anyone who has not served in the military doesn't get any rights or protections provided by the Constitution. After all, they didn't do anything to protect and defend it.

That's your same "logic".

[NormanConquest]

Originally Posted by hooligan_COLD

I understand perfectly well how SS works.

Anyone who has not served in the military doesn't get any rights or protections provided by the Constitution. After all, they didn't do anything to protect and defend it.

That's your same "logic".

Citizenship is determine by the constitution and the standard set by the government is establishes. Currently military service for some does play a roll in acquiring that citizenship.

Meanwhile my example holds true, SS requirer a next generation to pay for the past. If the past generation failed to product a next generation then they shouldn't be eligible for SS. SS always focus on reducing benefits or increasing the age, I just focus on the root cause and remove it to those who failed to fulfill their civic duty to keep SS substainable.

I don't know why your all getting so defensive about it, you said childless couple have all this extra money laying around from not raising a kid so they ought to be fine.

[hooligan_COLD]

Originally Posted by NormanConquest

Citizenship is determine by the constitution and the standard set by the government is establishes. Currently military service for some does play a roll in acquiring that citizenship.

Meanwhile my example holds true, SS requirer a next generation to pay for the past. If the past generation failed to product a next generation then they shouldn't be eligible for SS. SS always focus on reducing benefits or increasing the age, I just focus on the root cause and remove it to those who failed to fulfill their civic duty to keep SS substainable.

I don't know why your all getting so defensive about it, you said childless couple have all this extra money laying around from not raising a kid so they ought to be fine.

Pointing out your illogic is not getting "defensive".

#1 - I made no comment about childless people having "extra money".

#2 - My retirement plans are assuming that SS will not be available to me.

Have a great weekend.

[NormanConquest]

Originally Posted by hooligan_COLD

Pointing out your illogic is not getting "defensive".

#1 - I made no comment about childless people having "extra money".

#2 - My retirement plans are assuming that SS will not be available to me.

Have a great weekend.

Quite logical, you can't collect unemployeement unless you meet certain criteria, so why not apply the same standard to SS?

[adc100]

Originally Posted by NormanConquest

Quite logical, you can't collect unemployeement unless you meet certain criteria, so why not apply the same standard to SS?

Are you feeling OK??