Are the Republicans afraid to privitaze social security?

[tec699]

Has anyone seen the polls lately on Bush's first term? He has failed or has broken even on all domestic issues. The one main issue that caught my immediate attention was social security. They had the president at an 87% disapproval rating! 87%! Bush doesn't care because this is his last term but the Republicans have to be worried. They risk pissing off 35 million (+) senior citizens! This has to be a concern and I had just read yesterday that disability checks might be on the cutting block as well! Therefore, the Republicans risk pissing off their main voting blocks, which are the senior citizens!

If the President attempts to privatize social security, I will guarantee you that this will be a great victory for the Democratic Party. The majority of the senior citizens that have been polled want no part in Bush's grand scheme to fix social security. In addition, from what I've read social security isn't even in that bad of shape. Bush is using another scare tactic to try to persuade the American public to approve his attempt to change social security.

If you don't think the Republicans are worried about the fallout from this then you haven't been following the news lately. The Republicans are worried and are split on what should be done and even Rush Limbaugh has been a critic and is against reforming social security the way that Bush wants to.

 

[Tom]

Privatization of Social Security is an elaborate fiction.

1. It isn't designed to actually improve the retirement possibilities of young workers, what it's really designed to do is use the illusion of BIG STOCK MARKET PROFITS FOR ALL as a way to shift blame for the lousy situation they will be in fifty years from now, away from those of us who haven't done the right thing with regard to paying for the government we want, and on to these currently young workers themselves.

Because when it turns out that they are all living on bread and water, it won't be our fault.. it will be THEIR OWN FAULT for not making better investment decisions with the fabulous private retirement accounts we created for them.

btw, nobody has the slightest idea what will happen in the 3rd quarter of 2005, let alone 2055..

 

[Train]

current and soon to be seniors will be "grandfathered" in.

Total privatization will not be overnight, it could take decades.

 

[rickn]

we aren't getting any younger

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Train
current and soon to be seniors will be "grandfathered" in.

Total privatization will not be overnight, it could take decades.

It won't happen.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: Tom
Privatization of Social Security is an elaborate fiction.

1. It isn't designed to actually improve the retirement possibilities of young workers, what it's really designed to do is use the illusion of BIG STOCK MARKET PROFITS FOR ALL as a way to shift blame for the lousy situation they will be in fifty years from now, away from those of us who haven't done the right thing with regard to paying for the government we want, and on to these currently young workers themselves.

Because when it turns out that they are all living on bread and water, it won't be our fault.. it will be THEIR OWN FAULT for not making better investment decisions with the fabulous private retirement accounts we created for them.

btw, nobody has the slightest idea what will happen in the 3rd quarter of 2005, let alone 2055..

w0rd.

 

[Genx87]

They had the president at an 87% disapproval rating! 87%

You can take this a couple of ways.

1. People dont like that he didnt do anything to address the problems within the organization
2. People dont want him to touch it.

From there you can take a couple of conclusions.

1. People dont like it and want him to work on it and that is why he got elected.
2. People dont him to touch it but dont give two shats about it and elected him again.

Either way i dont know how judging from that information Repubs should be fearful. 87% disapproval rating on this issue and he got elected. You cant get much worse than that.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Train
current and soon to be seniors will be "grandfathered" in.

Total privatization will not be overnight, it could take decades.

Decades, eh? So I should plan on the system falling apart just about the time I retire I suppose.

Actually, my plan is to consider the money I'm spending on SS through taxes long gone, like I burned it in my fireplace. I'll retire independent of it, because I'd hate to try and rely on it.

 

[ILikeStuff]

I really wish people would actually PLAN for their retirement instead of expecting the government to take care of it for them. I for one, have zero faith that I will get anything useful out of SS and have been funding my 401K since I was 21. I just wish I could drop out of the system all together.

 

[DealMonkey]

Has the Bush plan for reforming SS been made public yet? I want details...

 

[daveshel]

How funny it would be to see retirees have to vote like people who work for a living!

One of the disadvantages of living in Tucson is all the retirees who keep voting down the freeways (we have none). When you sleep 'till 11 and have nothing better to do all day than sit in traffic you just can't comprehend the reality of being a commuter.

 

[SuperTool]

I love how republicans are so confident about their SS ideas, yet they want to delay them because they don't want their politicians to pay the price for their decisions.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Actually, my plan is to consider the money I'm spending on SS through taxes long gone, like I burned it in my fireplace. I'll retire independent of it, because I'd hate to try and rely on it.

Probably a wise plan, I must admit..

 

[SuperTool]

If you roll over and play dead while Republicans take away SS benefits after raiding SS funds, then you'll definitely not see a penny of SS. If you want something, you gotta fight for it.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: ILikeStuff
I really wish people would actually PLAN for their retirement instead of expecting the government to take care of it for them. I for one, have zero faith that I will get anything useful out of SS and have been funding my 401K since I was 21. I just wish I could drop out of the system all together.

You may not have thought of this, 401K PLANS ARE GOVERNMENT PLANS ! What do you think the "401k" part comes from, Microsoft ?

In all seriousness, you are right everybody should plan for their retirement, every Democrat and Republican politician for the past 30 years has said that.

The issue is should there be some sort of backup for people who had some kind of misfortune, or just never made enough money to plan properly, a back up plan that they paid for other people, meaning they deserve the same from other Americans, and to have a modicum of dignity about it at the same time.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: ILikeStuff
I really wish people would actually PLAN for their retirement instead of expecting the government to take care of it for them. I for one, have zero faith that I will get anything useful out of SS and have been funding my 401K since I was 21. I just wish I could drop out of the system all together.

You may not have thought of this, 401K PLANS ARE GOVERNMENT PLANS ! What do you think the "401k" part comes from, Microsoft ?

In all seriousness, you are right everybody should plan for their retirement, every Democrat and Republican politician for the past 30 years has said that.

The issue is should there be some sort of backup for people who had some kind of misfortune, or just never made enough money to plan properly, a back up plan that they paid for other people, meaning they deserve the same from other Americans, and to have a modicum of dignity about it at the same time.

Uh? 401(k) is the tax code that allows for people to privately save tax deferred money from each paycheck.

Next thing are going to try to say are 527 groups are the government because 527 is the tax code that allows them. Etc etc.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
If you roll over and play dead while Republicans take away SS benefits after raiding SS funds, then you'll definitely not see a penny of SS. If you want something, you gotta fight for it.

Thats funny because all the plans Ive seen dont effect anyone over 50, and may or may not effect those in the 30-50 range.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: ILikeStuff
I really wish people would actually PLAN for their retirement instead of expecting the government to take care of it for them. I for one, have zero faith that I will get anything useful out of SS and have been funding my 401K since I was 21. I just wish I could drop out of the system all together.

You may not have thought of this, 401K PLANS ARE GOVERNMENT PLANS ! What do you think the "401k" part comes from, Microsoft ?

In all seriousness, you are right everybody should plan for their retirement, every Democrat and Republican politician for the past 30 years has said that.

The issue is should there be some sort of backup for people who had some kind of misfortune, or just never made enough money to plan properly, a back up plan that they paid for other people, meaning they deserve the same from other Americans, and to have a modicum of dignity about it at the same time.

Uh? 401(k) is the tax code that allows for people to privately save tax deferred money from each paycheck.

Next thing are going to try to say are 527 groups are the government because 527 is the tax code that allows them. Etc etc.

If you are opposed to goveernment involvement in retirement planning and think it should be up to the individual, then you should oppose 401k plans. Any time the government decides one kind of transaction should not be taxed, and another kind should be, then the government is involved.

What your replies suggest you beleive government subsidies should be reserved for the wealthy or those with high enough incomes they can afford 401ks, but everyone else is on their own.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: SuperTool
If you roll over and play dead while Republicans take away SS benefits after raiding SS funds, then you'll definitely not see a penny of SS. If you want something, you gotta fight for it.

Thats funny because all the plans Ive seen dont effect anyone over 50, and may or may not effect those in the 30-50 range.

So SS is good enough for people 30 and older, but too good for us younger people?

 

[irwincur]

So SS is good enough for people 30 and older, but too good for us younger people?

God, some of you really lack common sense.

For beginners, the slow shift will be to protect those that expect something out of the system soon. If they just shut off the flow of money, you would screw a lot of people. The goal is to phase in the program, starting with the youngest investors.

A bit more advanced (libs may not understand this). At about age 40 is probably will not matter much whether you are dependant on SS or get your private accounts. The power of COMPOUND INTEREST growth in based in time. The longer you have the faster the growth.

Example...

Start at 40 retire at 70, $35000/yr (lifetime average), 10% return, 10% investment = $702,835 - not much better than the average SS payout if you lived 12 years after your 70th.

Start at 30 - same scenerio = $1.979 million - you would have to live to about 104 for SS to catch up to this.

Start at 20 - same scenerio = $5.347 million

Do you now understand the power. Starting work at 16 would net even more money, we are talking in the range of $10.000 million. Even a small weekly contribution of $10 would be worth thousands if compounded over an entire lifetime. People also fail to realize that when you are withdrawing during retirement, personal accounts still accumulate money, so in scenerio on you retire with $702,000, live for 30 more years, at the age of 100, you die with a value of still $1.650 million to pass on. Whereas with SS you did with nothing.

 

[Genx87]

If you roll over and play dead while Republicans take away SS benefits after raiding SS funds, then you'll definitely not see a penny of SS. If you want something, you gotta fight for it.

Doubt I will see it either way. But I definately wont be counting on it and you shouldnt either.

 

[Tom]

Given the size of these accounts minus fees etc I think a person would be fortunate to see 3-5% rates of return on average, not 10%.

Additionally, Social Security provides other benefits besides retirement, so to have even equal protection a person is going to have to buy disability and life insurance, assuming the benefit levels for these portions of Social Security are also cut.

The bottom line is that Social Security is a very efficient program, it isn't going to be easy to outperform it and I don't think that's even the intention of making a change. The intention is to get rid of the whole concept and go back to the good old days of the 1800s, when 11 year olds worked 60-70 hours a week for 6 cents an hour and poor old people just died.

 

[irwincur]

Tom, the market average over the last century has been 11%. There is no reason to suspect that the next century will be different. That average also includes the Great Depression to give you an idea of how easy the 10%+ mark is to hit. But play with the numbers, even at 5% you can beat SS by a lot given time. At 3% you are in CD/Money Market range - you should be able to beat that. A really safe investor should have no problems pulling 6% his entire life out of the bond markets. 6% - 12% is not out of the question for private accounts over the long term.

The bottom line is that Social Security is a very efficient program, it isn't going to be easy to outperform it and I don't think that's even the intention of making a change.

??? You can outperform it with a 2.5% CD. Hell a 1.5% Savings account will get you close. Why are there so many people that have no clue about the earning power of safe investments. A SPDR will get you between 8% and 12% a decade, bonds are almost guaranteed at 6%. I don't get how people think SS can beat private investment.

The intention is to get rid of the whole concept and go back to the good old days of the 1800s, when 11 year olds worked 60-70 hours a week for 6 cents an hour and poor old people just died.

That statement is insane. I think I know where you are coming from now, you are nuts.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Tom
Given the size of these accounts minus fees etc I think a person would be fortunate to see 3-5% rates of return on average, not 10%.

Additionally, Social Security provides other benefits besides retirement, so to have even equal protection a person is going to have to buy disability and life insurance, assuming the benefit levels for these portions of Social Security are also cut.

The bottom line is that Social Security is a very efficient program, it isn't going to be easy to outperform it and I don't think that's even the intention of making a change. The intention is to get rid of the whole concept and go back to the good old days of the 1800s, when 11 year olds worked 60-70 hours a week for 6 cents an hour and poor old people just died.

I'm not so sure I agree with you here. The idea is to go to a system that doesn't borrow against future generations. Your 3-5% number is rediculous. The government TSP system is given as a model for it and it even the most coservative fund it offers gets about 5%. The other funds have had returns that historically yeild 10%. While, I concede that a more conservative investment scheme may be appropriate, there's no reason to believe it would do worse than 5%.

The lower middle class and above will do quite well under retirement accounts. The question you should be asking is how will the poor do? How much money could people expext that make minimum wage? Lets take some basic numbers. Assume, someone makes 6.50 an hour. And they work 40 hours. We will look at saaving 5% of their income and 10% of thier income with 5% return rates and 10% return rates.

Total yearly pay 13520 dollars. Starting at age 18 going to age 68 (50 years)

saving 5% at 5% return=$150,503
saving 5% at 10% return=$978,126
saving 10% at 5% return=$301,006
saving 10% at 10% return=$1,956,252

Now, agreeably, expecting better than 5% involves assuming some risk which may be a bad idea with safety net like this, and they probably can't afford to save more than 5% of thier income. So we have $150,000 as the amount a poor person would have for retirement.

Out of curousity, I put the $150,000 number into the annuity calculator for a single person to see what type of guaranteed annuity could be purchased for this price. Starting at age 68, you would receive, $1162 per month which is $13944 per year. Thus, they'd make the same income they made when they worked. Now, I didn't adjust for inlfation. So the amount you made should go up with time and increase your savings, but additionally, the cost of living would also go up. Just some numbers to think about.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: irwincur

So SS is good enough for people 30 and older, but too good for us younger people?

God, some of you really lack common sense.

For beginners, the slow shift will be to protect those that expect something out of the system soon. If they just shut off the flow of money, you would screw a lot of people. The goal is to phase in the program, starting with the youngest investors.

A bit more advanced (libs may not understand this). At about age 40 is probably will not matter much whether you are dependant on SS or get your private accounts. The power of COMPOUND INTEREST growth in based in time. The longer you have the faster the growth.

Example...

Start at 40 retire at 70, $35000/yr (lifetime average), 10% return, 10% investment = $702,835 - not much better than the average SS payout if you lived 12 years after your 70th.

Start at 30 - same scenerio = $1.979 million - you would have to live to about 104 for SS to catch up to this.

Start at 20 - same scenerio = $5.347 million

Do you now understand the power. Starting work at 16 would net even more money, we are talking in the range of $10.000 million. Even a small weekly contribution of $10 would be worth thousands if compounded over an entire lifetime. People also fail to realize that when you are withdrawing during retirement, personal accounts still accumulate money, so in scenerio on you retire with $702,000, live for 30 more years, at the age of 100, you die with a value of still $1.650 million to pass on. Whereas with SS you did with nothing.

Are you including adjustment for inflation in your average SS payout?
I am still waiting for a name of FDIC insured bank that pays 10% interest.