Try the political quiz

431 Replies

@59NQL2VRepublicanfrom Florida  answered…2yrs

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

@5ZNDLBSRepublicanfrom California  answered…2yrs

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.

@59SMXPBLibertarianfrom Virginia  answered…2yrs

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.

@59S2273Democratfrom Minnesota  answered…2yrs

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.

@598CR4VConstitutionfrom North Carolina  answered…2yrs

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.

@59NF795Libertarianfrom Texas  answered…2yrs

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

@59XFBCTDemocratfrom California  answered…2yrs

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

@627GDY3Republicanfrom Louisiana  answered…2yrs

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

@oxfords-n-polaro…Libertarianfrom Texas  answered…2yrs

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

@627GDGCRepublicanfrom New Jersey  answered…2yrs

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

@59T6K4JDemocratfrom Pennsylvania  answered…2yrs

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.

@59NPZNFDemocratfrom Virginia  answered…2yrs

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.

@59RF85JDemocratfrom Virginia  answered…2yrs

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.

@6C57PV9Republicanfrom Virginia  answered…2yrs

@59SCP2TConstitutionfrom Maryland  answered…2yrs

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.

@59QRDXVDemocratfrom Florida  answered…2yrs

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.

@6C7KC25Republicanfrom Washington  answered…2yrs

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

@6M5WYFPGreenfrom Ohio  answered…2yrs

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.

@B3ZCML7Socialistfrom Guam  answered…1 day

No, it should be lowered and high earners should pay more social security tax

@B3Z9MBNSocialistfrom Guam  answered…2 days

No, decrease it instead and make high earners pay more social security tax.

@9HQN9ZCWomen’s Equality from Louisiana answered…2yrs

I do have an opinion on this matter but I'm not 100% sure how to word it so I am unable to answer this at the moment.

@9HP9TRJSocialist from Washington D.C. answered…2yrs

Yes, but only after a universal income and healthcare is passed to protect lower income seniors with a lower life expectancy are protected

@9HNXYTFRepublican from Michigan answered…2yrs

I think people should be able to determine when to retire anytime between 60-68 years old.

@9HL2KLHConstitution from Georgia answered…2yrs

@9HKYV9HLibertarianfrom Maine  answered…2yrs

Government should not decide whether someone can retire or not.

@9HHTKJKSocialist from Washington D.C. answered…2yrs

Yes, but only once universal healthcare is put in place to protect lower income people from having to choose between rent and medicine

@9HHHM7KIndependent from Illinois answered…2yrs

Raise the age above a certain pay threshold so as not to disadvantage lower-income seniors.

@9HG7Q33Libertarian from Colorado answered…2yrs

There should be no government. Also no SS. Taxation is theft.

@9HDMV6TVeteran from North Carolina answered…2yrs

No, and if a senior is a multi millionaire or billionaire they should get nothing.

@9H7KNZ8Democratfrom Montana  answered…2yrs

@9H72YMFGreen from Kansas answered…2yrs

@9H6P9KPSocialist from Ohio answered…2yrs

No, and make the government pay back what it has spent out of the social security budget.

@9H6CLYBConstitution from Alabama answered…2yrs

No, they should stop the program so younger people can invest the way they want to.

@9H669GGVeteran from Michigan answered…2yrs

No, I believe that the social security system should be moved away from the federal government

@9GMJ2NQVeteran from North Carolina answered…2yrs

Not exactly, instead move to a system that looks at factors outside of just age, such as the amount of time an individual has worked and paid into the system and criminal history.

@9GJ3NKRDemocrat from Michigan answered…2yrs

Eliminate Social Security entirely. The needy can be covered by Medicaid.

@9GG82KNLibertarian from Texas answered…2yrs

@9G9HMNZDemocrat from Georgia answered…2yrs

Yes, but only because that might be the only way to save it.

@9G4NJKBSocialist from New York answered…2yrs

No, but social security should go to lower-class retirees who depend on it for rudamentary things like rent and groceries, not to wealthy seniors who have enough money on their own to support their lifestyles.

@9FZP2MYIndependence from Massachusetts answered…2yrs

People with lower income should received it earlier then people with higher incomes

@9FXBHCPLibertarian from Idaho answered…2yrs

@9FXBC5MPeace and Freedom from New Mexico answered…2yrs

@9FC7MCCDemocrat from Michigan answered…2yrs

Yes, but only for those under 50 when the extension is implemented

@9FB58M2Republican from Missouri answered…2yrs

No, social security is a financially unsustainable system. Allow those currently on it to stay on, give those who are currently paying in the option to privatize, and privatize future citizen retirement funds.


The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart...