|
Post by Cнroмα on Apr 10, 2017 8:25:32 GMT -8
Whenever people retire from their job, they usually get retirement fundings. This wouldn't be a problem as it should not be very much, but even the little amounts add up incredibly fast. There are, however, other jobs which give out WAY too much money for retirements. For example, firemen. The system we have in place is easily abused, especially for them. When a fireman retires (I don't know about other states, but this is for California), they continue earning money, not just a retirement fund, but their highest annual salary for the rest of their lives. That is a LOT of money going to retirements. Because of this, they get to abuse the system and get away with it. For example, say they earn 150,000 dollars a year, and they are planning on retiring the next year. They will take overtime, work double, or even triple shifts, and earn a lot more money they do if they were to do their job normally. This means instead of earning 150,000 a year during retirement, they could be earning 175,000 a year for doing nothing. The system is even more corrupt for Senators, as they can work only ONE year and then retire, all the while continuing to earn their yearly salary for the rest of their lives PLUS getting benefits, all paid for by the US government.
If you believe that this system is just, then feel free to say your reasons below.
|
|
|
Post by UniversalAris on Apr 10, 2017 10:52:46 GMT -8
I don't like the idea of over payment for retirement. In America there is already a social security problem. By getting paid a full (above average) wage after retirement this is a lot of money that could go to helping other retirees. Firemen and other social workers of that caliber I do believe should have at least an average retired fund, since they do put there lives on the line every day to protect the lives of others. A more realistic approach may be a $75,000 annual retirement, which is the average for California residents. Same goes for Senators, but the wage should be dependent on the average of there district. This will prevent the need to raise the age of social security benefits.
|
|
|
Post by alex432 on Apr 12, 2017 12:31:39 GMT -8
Well actually you should get payed more than you normally do with Social Security. Social Security is a program that you pay into almost 15% of your income for your whole life and you can receive it when you turn 66. So it is understandable that it is higher than their normal wage because it has been collected their whole life. However, people have the option to collect it as early as 62 BUT, the benefits they collect then and in the future will be far less than if they wait till 66. The problem with SS is not that the government is just handing out money. The problem is that the government uses the money they collect for other things, and now the government is now starting to pay back all the SS they collected. More than often people don't get as much as they do pay into it. Also there is a cap when it comes to SS. Which for people like doctors who make a lot, is REALLY UNFORTUNATE because they most definitely don't get as much as they pay. With workers like firemen and police officers, they are given benefits and a pay that is higher than most. This represents the fact that they are risking their life, but when it comes to retirement it should be no difference. Now when it comes to government officials, their salaries are OUTRAGEOUSLY high for what they do. One House of Representative Rep. alone on Average makes $174,000. This does not even include full health care and a retirement pension that is provided to all government officials. These are all problems that really shouldn't be problems. If the government wants to step in and "secure" people's future with SS they need to be fair and use it for what it needs to be used for. This is a problem that is neglected, and government officials the people that make all these decisions should just stay out of people's pockets. Or if they want to ensure everyone's future then the should be focused on ensuring EVERYONE'S future and not just theirs.
|
|
|
Post by shadowtolight99 on Apr 13, 2017 13:04:38 GMT -8
Government spending is not the only problem when it comes to SS. We also have to take into account that SS is paid with payroll taxes taken out of the working class' paychecks and if there are fewer workers compared to retirees, then problems arise. The baby boomer generation is starting to come to retirement age meaning that more people will need to be sustained by SS. This wouldn't be a problem if people were having the same amount of kids that they used to have, but trends show that nowadays people are having fewer children and waiting to have children until they are older. Because of this, the amount of people supporting one retiree has significantly decreased since the Social Security program was started in 1935.
There is also the problem that when SS was put into place, people weren't living as long as they are now. With advances in medicine, people have begun to live longer and infant survival rates have also gone up which is contributing to the issue above where people are having fewer children and waiting longer to have children. In the 1930's, people weren't projected to live to their 80's or 90's. They were projected to maybe live to their 50's or 60's which meant that the age requirement for SS made sense since there wouldn't be as many people to support and adults were pressed to have children at younger ages and in larger numbers to ensure that some of the progeny would survive as infant survival rates were also pretty crappy.
|
|
|
Post by UniversalAris on Apr 13, 2017 19:05:10 GMT -8
Government spending is not the only problem when it comes to SS. We also have to take into account that SS is paid with payroll taxes taken out of the working class' paychecks and if there are fewer workers compared to retirees, then problems arise. The baby boomer generation is starting to come to retirement age meaning that more people will need to be sustained by SS. This wouldn't be a problem if people were having the same amount of kids that they used to have, but trends show that nowadays people are having fewer children and waiting to have children until they are older. Because of this, the amount of people supporting one retiree has significantly decreased since the Social Security program was started in 1935. There is also the problem that when SS was put into place, people weren't living as long as they are now. With advances in medicine, people have begun to live longer and infant survival rates have also gone up which is contributing to the issue above where people are having fewer children and waiting longer to have children. In the 1930's, people weren't projected to live to their 80's or 90's. They were projected to maybe live to their 50's or 60's which meant that the age requirement for SS made sense since there wouldn't be as many people to support and adults were pressed to have children at younger ages and in larger numbers to ensure that some of the progeny would survive as infant survival rates were also pretty crappy. Agreed. The solution to this problem is mot likely in finding a more effective way in supporting families to have children that'll enter the work force. In order to do this I think it would be interesting to see how family advertisements on media coverage does in increasing that statistic. In addition, maybe adding some memes about having kids to young adults. Of course all including having these kids in a well supported household, not just because of the parents 'passion.'
|
|