Try the political quiz

639 Replies

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...9yrs9Y

No, this will disadvantage low income seniors whose life expectancy is lower than wealthier seniors

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...7yrs7Y

Yes, and eliminate the income cap on taxable earnings

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...7yrs7Y

No, eliminate the income cap on taxable earnings and stop spending current funds on other programs instead

 @9FX279RGreen from Maryland disagreed…2mos2MO

Removing the taxable maximum could weaken the link between the amount individuals pay in Social Security taxes and the amount they receive in retirement benefits if benefits are not adjusted upward to reflect tax contributions.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...9yrs9Y

Yes, but I would prefer to privatize it instead

 @9FQYF97Socialist from Washington disagreed…2mos2MO

People should just be able to get health care. Our current system is having us give money to insurance companies while they already get funding from the government. And they're entire job currently is telling us no to life saving medical procedures or medicine. Just give people what they need and have taxes fund it.

  @JonBSimConstitutionfrom Kentucky agreed…1yr1Y

Yes, but I would prefer to privatize it instead

The gov't shouldn't be involved in retirement funds, it's outside their role.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...9yrs9Y

Yes, people are now living longer than when the program was created

 @8D7X8VBNew Liberty from Pennsylvania answered…3yrs3Y

No, but Social Security should begin a 30-40 year phase-out program. this would allow those with immediate needs to obtain needed benefits while allowing those 30-40 years younger progressively paying less to zero into social security and allowing them time to make their retirement plans.

 @48MPJZTfrom Florida answered…3yrs3Y

Social security funds should be distributed at an age based on a formula that accounts for increased age of life expectancy. Future Options should exist not to pay social security and rather invest that money into a personal retirement fund or pay a tax on funds if you choose to cash them in ahead of scheduled retirement age. Not the government's job to make sure there is money for people to retire with, that responsibility should fall to each individual citizen

 @5L4VXDNfrom Ohio answered…3yrs3Y

The retirement age should be based on the health of the senior in question. The healthier the senior, the retirement age should be raised. It should not be raised for seniors who are not healthy.

 @48RLWN9from Virginia answered…3yrs3Y

Social Security was not intended to be a retirement program. Give every child at birth an account worth $5,000 and let it grow toward a retirement nest egg. Do NOT allow the government to be able to spend that money. Taxes would be paid on the original $5,000 when the senior retires and at a reasonable tax rate.

 @48QYZ62from Minnesota answered…3yrs3Y

No - many people are finding it difficult to continue physical labor type work even to the existing retirement age. Raising the retirement age will result in many more people filing for disability instead.

 @5B6J9Z4from Washington answered…3yrs3Y

Stop allowing people to collect at age 62. They have stopped paying in at a younger age and this further depletes money from social security. There are too many young retirees

 @48RBMZSfrom Maryland answered…3yrs3Y

NO, and we should transition Social Security funds into privately managed retirement accounts and away from congressional access and IOU's. Social Security withdrawal should be optional so that those who don't need it are not forced to take it, instead they should receive a tax credit for each year that they don't take it.

 @48PQCWTfrom Florida answered…3yrs3Y

The social security program no longer functions as was intended. It was suppose to be a safety net for those whose retirement plans failed. Now people are using it as their retirement plan. They should eliminate it.

 @4YMCK9Rfrom California answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, only if their health is taken into consideration. For those who are not as healthy leave it. For those who are healthy raise it.

 @487BQ3Tfrom North Carolina answered…3yrs3Y

Social security is a clear and perfect example of a ponzi scheme. This program should be phased out as quickly as possible and retirement planning should be up to the individual. This will increase financial literacy and further promote a strong capitalist marketplace.

 @4Z6FCFBfrom New Jersey answered…3yrs3Y

No, but SS should not be provided if annual income exceeds $75000.00 per year.

 @48WD9BSfrom California answered…3yrs3Y

You shouldn't be able to collect social security while still working in your previous career as it is supposed to be for retirement

 @48QD74Hfrom Virginia answered…3yrs3Y

No, not all at once, since it will take time to convince employers that those over 65 are employable. We have a serious age prejudice and discrimination in corporations, and need to enforce better age discrimination laws before we raise the retirement age; otherwise we simply create a bigger poverty stricken group, sooner.

 @5L56L57from Texas answered…3yrs3Y

No, living longer and healthier does not mean still able to perform work especially at the age of 70

 @5B46NT8from Virginia answered…3yrs3Y

 @4Z6FCX2from Louisiana answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, but only for those currently under age 55. The retirement age for anyone 55 or older should NOT be raised.

 @48MNYMDfrom Virginia answered…3yrs3Y

No, this will force companies, schools, and other work places to continue to employ workers who are possibly not as able or as interested in doing their work. Many places don't want employees who are only there for a paycheck.

 @48MD684from Texas answered…3yrs3Y

Regardless, social security should be eliminated because it is an unconstitutional transfer of wealth.

 @48S5J3Hfrom Pennsylvania answered…3yrs3Y

No, people worked a good bit of their lives keeping the country moving during their workable years. They should be allowed to retire while the Quality of life is still advantage0us. Living longer does not mean having a good quality of life.

 @983JVHZ from Kansas answered…1yr1Y

Raise it for higher income seniors, keep it as is for lower income seniors

  @VulcanMan6  from Kansas commented…1yr1Y

Why..? If anything, wouldn't it be better to do the inverse: keep the same for high-income and lower it for low-income..?

 @9D6TF22 from California answered…4mos4MO

People should be allowed to invest the funds taken for Social Security into their own retirement accounts.

 @TigerDanGreenfrom Georgia disagreed…4mos4MO

While it's true that personal investments can sometimes yield higher returns, they also come with higher risks. For example, those who had private retirement accounts during the 2008 financial crisis saw their savings drastically decrease. On the other hand, Social Security provided a safety net. Perhaps there's a middle ground solution? Maybe a portion of the funds could be invested, while the rest goes to a guaranteed source like Social Security? What do you think of this approach?

 @9FJSLTG from Massachusetts answered…3mos3MO

 @96259PT from North Carolina answered…1yr1Y

 @97BCCNB from New York answered…1yr1Y

Yes, but age should not be the only constraint, eligibility should also be based on health, ability to work, and annual income level.

 @9BQHHPZ from Michigan answered…7mos7MO

No, the social security administration is a dying program and will inevitably increase taxes for regular working Americans, so it should be disbanded and people should be more aware of roth IRA's and things of that sort.

  @VulcanMan6  from Kansas commented…7mos7MO

Yet social security has like >90% approval, so why would we want to get rid of it? Personal retirement funds are not an adequate substitute for social security...

 @9CKWJ27 from South Carolina answered…5mos5MO

Keep the retirement age where it currently is and allow people to decide if they want to contribute to Social Security or not.


It’s better to get rid of Social Security in general. Privatize it.

 @9HC2N7FRepublican from Texas answered…1wk1W

i feel like this is a bad idea because the higher the age gets leaves the elderly forced to keep working when its hard from them at certain ages already

 @9H9VJXLDemocrat from Pennsylvania answered…2wks2W

No. It is already too high considering workers pay into the system. It should be paid at whatever age a person decides to retire. There should also be a choice if either contributing to social security or cboosing private retirement plans.

  @9GYQVFG  from Pennsylvania answered…3wks3W

Social Security should be eliminated entirely. Workers should be allowed to opt-out and/or to move their "savings" into private equity accounts and/or cash. An off-ramp from Social Security needs to be established, leading to its complete elimination.

  @9GYQVFG  from Pennsylvania answered…3wks3W

Social Security should be eliminated. People should be able to opt out of Social Security, have their contributions transferred to private equity funds or cash, and an off-ramp for Social Security should lead to its complete elimination.

 @9GWD3TZ from Kansas answered…4wks4W

Social security should just be eliminated in general. Instead encourage investing at young age if they don't abide then thats on them.

 @9GSLXJMRepublican from Indiana answered…1mo1MO

Social security should no longer exist. Never before has it been easier to learn how to manage money and make investments. Citizens should be self reliant, not dependent on the government.


The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 


Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...