Quote:
Originally Posted by drgoodtrips
That could be. But, I'm imaging a future where skyrocketing lifespans and improved medical technology (along with the baby-boomer generation) put an ever-increasing strain on the program. As such, I can easily foresee a future where the government makes the decision to tell those who don't really need SS for their retirement, essentially "Sorry, but you have too much money - we need these fund for those who don't."
|
This is already the case (at least in Canada). Social security is part of your taxible income. If your income is sufficiently high enough, you will pay most of the Social security income away as income tax. This is usually called 'clawback'.
Nothing wrong with this. It is the easiest way to apply a 'means test' to recipients without any forms or bureaucracy. Just let the tax system take care of it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by drgoodtrips
That is to say, I see a SS down the road, when I'm that age that opts out of paying some (those who don't "need" it). Either that, or they'll jack up the retirement age to an absurd one, and get out of paying me that way. Either way, I'm extremely skeptical that I'll see the benefits I would now if I were retiring, given my projected income and lifestyle.
|
Right. If you expect to have sufficient income of your own when you retire, you wouldn't really get your social security income anyways as it would be taxed away under the income tax laws. I see nothing wrong with that at all.
My mother receives her 'old-age pension' and it is 100% taxed away under income tax (since she has an income above $75k without it).
But she's still entitled to receive the cheque.