Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So a retired American citizen that wins $2 million (a million clear) should no longer be eligible for the benefits he is rightfully due? Why should his winnings change anything?
So a retired American citizen that wins $2 million (a million clear) should no longer be eligible for the benefits he is rightfully due? Why should his winnings change anything?
Word, just like someone that happened to accumulate a decent amount of money for retirement. Is he not entitied to SS money all of a sudden?
Apples and Oranges.
Not really. You're saying because "he doesn't need" the money that he shouldn't keep taking the food stamps.
From the looks of it he informed the state about his windfall yet the system keeps giving him the food stamps. It's not like he's out there purposely hiding his money to keep getting the food stamps. Like a lot of people out there do.
It is not a loophole, the system is designed this way for a purpose, by very deceptive politicians as a way to get them reelected.Like I said, it's a loophole in the system
S.S. is a government forced retirement plan. Actually if you really study it, it was just another tax that nobody was ever expected collect on.
Welfare is a government program designed to feed the less fortunate during times of need. He obviously is not experiencing a time of need.
Like I said, it's a loophole in the system
S.S. is a government forced retirement plan. Actually if you really study it, it was just another tax that nobody was ever expected collect on.
So a retired American citizen that wins $2 million (a million clear) should no longer be eligible for the benefits he is rightfully due? Why should his winnings change anything?
how do you figure? it's been in place since Roosevelt and the New Deal in 1935 and this year is the first time there has ever been talk about reducing it. it's never been an issue until this last recession. it was instituted because of the stock market crash in '29 and economic instability that was surely going to follow it.
considering that wages have remained stagnant for decades, less and less employers are offering pensions and only 401K's and the service sector averages wages from $8-$14 more people in the future are going to rely on SS because they do not make enough in wages to pay bills and save any measurable amount of monies for the future.
decades ago it supplemented peoples retirement income from pension and or 401K's, etc. now it accounts for 40-90% of the retirement incomes of some of the ederly depending on their marital status etc.
Every OECD country has some form of social security for those no longer in the work force, it's not a US thing, it's a modern society thing...
at the current rate of inflation you pretty much need to triple the amount that you plan on retiring with with due to the loss of purchasing power from inflation. so if a person wants to retire with 1m dollars in 30 years they would need to have 3m to have the same buying power as today...
I don't get it. People seem to think it's written in stone to get freebies - and now not only that, winning the lottery should be not affect the goodies. Someone that is able to support themselves should not be able to get government goodies at our expense. Logic for this program has turned upsidedown and now people that are not even close to being in these situations have it that government programs are a right and should be given out on a whim. WHO IS PAYING FOR IT? Him? Yes. (in one lump sum) You? Yes. (over time) Are you getting the free bennies as well? NO.
And you wonder why we are going to shit in this country. Sure, there are a myriad of reasons, but this is a big one.
LAM, I think he said that because the age of death was allot lower back when it first started - hence they never figured many people would collect. At the rate as it is now, they will have to move it to 85 or older in order for it to equalize and gain again. Also, the SS impending disaster has been talked about for many, many years - not starting from this recession.
how do you figure? it's been in place since Roosevelt and the New Deal in 1935 and this year is the first time there has ever been talk about reducing it. it's never been an issue until this last recession. it was instituted because of the stock market crash in '29 and economic instability that was surely going to follow it.
considering that wages have remained stagnant for decades, less and less employers are offering pensions and only 401K's and the service sector averages wages from $8-$14 more people in the future are going to rely on SS because they do not make enough in wages to pay bills and save any measurable amount of monies for the future.
decades ago it supplemented peoples retirement income from pension and or 401K's, etc. now it accounts for 40-90% of the retirement incomes of some of the ederly depending on their marital status etc.
Every OECD country has some form of social security for those no longer in the work force, it's not a US thing, it's a modern society thing...
at the current rate of inflation you pretty much need to triple the amount that you plan on retiring with with due to the loss of purchasing power from inflation. so if a person wants to retire with 1m dollars in 30 years they would need to have 3m to have the same buying power as today...
It is not a loophole, the system is designed this way for a purpose, by very deceptive politicians as a way to get them reelected.
Since 1935 when Social Security was created, life expectancy has increased by 26% to age 78, while Social Security???s retirement age has gone up just 3 percent, to 67. The government was rolling the dice, when it was created the odds are you died before you withdrew your money.
You keep on believing your pipe dream. There are millions of other ways the government can waste his 'contribution' on. The only way that much money would feed a 1000 families is if it went into a legit charity - the gubment might make it to 100, but that may be stretching it with it's superior efficiency.
i know. the government is a money wasting crack whore. i should have said his million dollars COULD feed him and 1000 other families.
rightfully due? Cant that also be read "entitled"? The guy is a douche bag who found a loophole in the system. If he would have taken it as an annuity he wouldn't be getting the welfare.
I don't know if you have ever been to Saginaw, or Michigan for that matter, but there are plenty of mouths who could really use that $200 a month in food.
If there was enough public outrage about this, it would change.then the laws need to change.