Can parents cope with rising school fees?
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Topics
-
Popular Contributors
-
Latest posts...
-
-
31
Thai PM Assures Locals: No Israeli Takeover in Pai District - video
What happens mass of Pai Resident upset with them, started to display Swastika, or Hitler's images all over the town? -
143
Trump’s Proposal for Gazan Relocation makes perfect sense
They have began building villages in Chechnya to take in Palestinians Russia's Chechnya constructs Palestinian village for Gaza war refugees "We will continue actively promoting the adaptation of our Palestinian brothers to life in the Chechen Republic, including their employment," stated leader Kadyrov in his speech. https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-782139 -
39
Future Uncertain for Retiree Bank Accounts in Thailand
If this is a daily necessity for you Bob, then I can see your point. -
6
-
149
Musk targets Social Security with blatant misinformation
Many of your concerns are understandable, and I am not discounting their importance. The loss of contributions at death can seem unfair. The counter argument is that while the money may not be refundable, there are survivor benefits that will continue to benefit the spouse, divorced spouse, child, or dependent parent of someone who worked and paid Social Security taxes before they died. That is more than fair. In respect to the amount available to beneficiaries, the stark reality is that people will collect more than their contributions over time are worth. I think it is self evident that the current model is not sustainable. According to 2022 data, the United States (US) Social Security Administration (SSA) paid about 6.1 billion US dollars (USD) in benefits to 760,000 beneficiaries outside the country (LaPonsie, 2024). That is crazy. In respect to your argument that beneficiaries move elsewhere to get more "bang for the buck", that is their personal choice. If a beneficiary is only receiving what they contributed, then yes, you are right that the beneficiary should be able to live wherever they wish. it is their money. However, if someone is receiving more than they contributed, then it is reasonable that the funders be able to set a condition that funds be spent in the nation providing the additional benefit. Why should taxpayers be supporting a person in a foreign land? If the money paid to such people is spent in the USA, then there is an indirect economic offset to their financial burden. Social security payments were intended to assist destitute elderly and as as an income supplement for retired workers. It was never intended as a means to fund the retirement of people foreign lands, nor was it intended as a replacement for prudent retirement savings planning. FDR and the SS planners did not consider the impact of beneficiaries living outside of the USA.
-
-
Popular in The Pub
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now