The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Retirement Discussions / Retire Well on Less
|Subject: Re: SS conclusion||Date: 11/11/2003 4:05 PM|
|Author: decath||Number: 223 of 1759|
Seattle is probably my favorite poster on these boards but when he talks about SS being means tested, I have to cringe a bit!
This argument reminds me of the Biblical story of the prodigal son where the irresponsible young son wastes away his inheritance on luxury spending and the oldest does the right thing and stays home working for his dad. In the end, the father rewards the young son with a ring, clothes and party when he returns home (after only being broke, busted and disgusted) while the “good son” basically eats crow.
Those of us on these boards are mostly responsible, hardworking, tax paying citizens that would be the “responsible son” in the Bible story.
Here is my solution!
If the government can't make its obligations when they come do then do the following:
Pay a fraction of the benefits. Perhaps 50% if that would balance the books.
If Mr/Mrs Saver should have gotten $1700 then give them $850. They can supplement their earnings with their savings!
If Mr/Mrs Spending should have gotten $1700 then give them $850. They can supplement their earnings as a Wal-Mart greeter!
|Copyright 1996-2017 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|