Do you support 'means testing' for Social Security Insurance Benefits?

Social security pays benefits based on what people paid into it.

So if someone paid more they get more.

It was not meant to be redistribution Obama style.

Means testing means has been discussed relevant to Medicare so that if a person has an income over a certain level, he would not get Medicare at all.

Everyone who paid into SS gets some benefit according to your contributins (and your employers). If your benefit at retirement or when you become disabled is a certain percent below poverty line like 200% for example, you also get SSI from your county in addition to SS to raise your income to the federal poverty line.

Right now, Medicare has increased the monthly premiums for seniors who have over $85,000 a year in income. That will help a lot to save $$.

I also think that people earning over $106,800 should definitely pay into the Social Security fund like everyone else who earns less than that.

I support the immediate stop to Social Security. I would accept an mandatory IRA for all American with the same amount deposited with interest set at the current CD rate. Pro Rate SS payments by the number of years you put in or arrange a IRA transfer of a settled upon percentage.

Same effect but government cannot get its hands on it and banks now have equity.

Politicians have told us the SS is solvent, so there must be plenty left to make the payments.

Right? lol

1) They both paid in... they both cash out. 2) $350,000 sounds like a lot... but in retirement terms, it equates to an income of $35,000 for ten years... usually taxed as it becomes liquid. Retirement is trickier than most people think.

If A paid into social security A should get his money back. Same goes with B. Remember, A did work and he did put money into the economy.

Liberals fully support this.

Obama wants to banish the home mortgage interest deduction for hard- working Americans and forgive the mortgages for the people that were irresponsible and spent more that they could afford..

Liberals LOVE to punish the hard working and reward the irresponsible people.

Obama's new "Net Worth" tax fits your example as well.

The hard working person will have a higher net worth when they retire and therefore be punished/taxed for being responsible with their money.

No - They both put in their time and they both should be able to retire and live out their Golden Years.

Worker B harmed the economy by hoarding wealth instead of recirculating wealth back into the economy.

If you don't want to spend your money, you should give it to the poor.

Jesus didn't say that putting a lot of money in the bank will make it easier for the rich to get through the eye of the needle.

No, it would turn it into just another welfare program which could then be cut, because people would no longer support it, so even A would end up worse off.

Worker A and all his friends sure drive this economy.