Pension plans are going the way of the doe doe bird.

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Genx87
There already is inheritance taxes which IMO hurt the middle class in this country more than anybody else.

Just looking for a clarification here. It was my understanding that you could pass up to a million dollars in assets to your heirs without incurring a tax penalty. How is that affecting the middle class more than anyone else since most of the elderly don't have a million dollars in total assets at the time of their death?

Sure they do but before this during clintons time in office this tax was on the first 600,000. Before Clinton I think we were around 300K. Easily attained by the middle class.

In 2011 that ceiling will be lowered to 650,000.

Middle class in the country with properties and modest 401K, IRAs, Roth IRAs, and other investments can hit that 1.5 million dollar ceiling.

You knock that down to 650,000 and put a tax of 55% on it who do you think gets hurt?
The rich have their ways either around it or have so much bloody money that 55% tax rates will still leave them multi-millionaires.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Genx87
There already is inheritance taxes which IMO hurt the middle class in this country more than anybody else.

Just looking for a clarification here. It was my understanding that you could pass up to a million dollars in assets to your heirs without incurring a tax penalty. How is that affecting the middle class more than anyone else since most of the elderly don't have a million dollars in total assets at the time of their death?

Sure they do but before this during clintons time in office this tax was on the first 600,000.

In 2011 that ceiling will be lowered to 650,000.

Middle class in the country with properties and modest 401K, IRAs, Roth IRAs, and other investments can easily hit that 1 million dollar ceiling.

You knock that down to 650,000 and put a tax of 55% on it who do you think gets hurt?
The rich have their ways either around it or have so much bloody money that 55% tax rates will still leave them multi-millionaires.

I'll agree that 650, 000 could be a bit low if you live in high value areas. However, I don't see a problem with 1 million, since as I said most of the elderly do not have a million dollars in assets at the time they die. Personally, though I don't see why we don't treat inheritance the exact same way we treat gifts while they're alive. Why should we make a distinctoin. Just tax them the say way you do gift taxes and abolish the estate tax.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Genx87
There already is inheritance taxes which IMO hurt the middle class in this country more than anybody else.

Just looking for a clarification here. It was my understanding that you could pass up to a million dollars in assets to your heirs without incurring a tax penalty. How is that affecting the middle class more than anyone else since most of the elderly don't have a million dollars in total assets at the time of their death?

Sure they do but before this during clintons time in office this tax was on the first 600,000.

In 2011 that ceiling will be lowered to 650,000.

Middle class in the country with properties and modest 401K, IRAs, Roth IRAs, and other investments can easily hit that 1 million dollar ceiling.

You knock that down to 650,000 and put a tax of 55% on it who do you think gets hurt?
The rich have their ways either around it or have so much bloody money that 55% tax rates will still leave them multi-millionaires.

I'll agree that 650, 000 could be a bit low if you live in high value areas. However, I don't see a problem with 1 million, since as I said most of the elderly do not have a million dollars in assets at the time they die. Personally, though I don't see why we don't treat inheritance the exact same way we treat gifts while they're alive. Why should we make a distinctoin. Just tax them the say way you do gift taxes and abolish the estate tax.

I find the estate tax completely repulsive. How can anybody have the gaul to tax somebody for dying? But if they are going to tax them, then tax them at capital gains rate of 15% on the profit made by the investments.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Genx87
There already is inheritance taxes which IMO hurt the middle class in this country more than anybody else.

Just looking for a clarification here. It was my understanding that you could pass up to a million dollars in assets to your heirs without incurring a tax penalty. How is that affecting the middle class more than anyone else since most of the elderly don't have a million dollars in total assets at the time of their death?

Sure they do but before this during clintons time in office this tax was on the first 600,000.

In 2011 that ceiling will be lowered to 650,000.

Middle class in the country with properties and modest 401K, IRAs, Roth IRAs, and other investments can easily hit that 1 million dollar ceiling.

You knock that down to 650,000 and put a tax of 55% on it who do you think gets hurt?
The rich have their ways either around it or have so much bloody money that 55% tax rates will still leave them multi-millionaires.

I'll agree that 650, 000 could be a bit low if you live in high value areas. However, I don't see a problem with 1 million, since as I said most of the elderly do not have a million dollars in assets at the time they die. Personally, though I don't see why we don't treat inheritance the exact same way we treat gifts while they're alive. Why should we make a distinctoin. Just tax them the say way you do gift taxes and abolish the estate tax.

I find the estate tax completely repulsive. How can anybody have the gaul to tax somebody for dying? But if they are going to tax them, then tax them at capital gains rate of 15% on the profit made by the investments.

Why would you tax them at the capitol gains rate? How is it any different from a gift? Why wouldn't you tax them at the gift rate (the receiving persons tax rate after gift deduction). By doing that you are not taxing them any differently because they are dead. That seems like the only fair way to do it that is completely blind of the fact they have died.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Genx87
There already is inheritance taxes which IMO hurt the middle class in this country more than anybody else.

Just looking for a clarification here. It was my understanding that you could pass up to a million dollars in assets to your heirs without incurring a tax penalty. How is that affecting the middle class more than anyone else since most of the elderly don't have a million dollars in total assets at the time of their death?

Sure they do but before this during clintons time in office this tax was on the first 600,000.

In 2011 that ceiling will be lowered to 650,000.

Middle class in the country with properties and modest 401K, IRAs, Roth IRAs, and other investments can easily hit that 1 million dollar ceiling.

You knock that down to 650,000 and put a tax of 55% on it who do you think gets hurt?
The rich have their ways either around it or have so much bloody money that 55% tax rates will still leave them multi-millionaires.

I'll agree that 650, 000 could be a bit low if you live in high value areas. However, I don't see a problem with 1 million, since as I said most of the elderly do not have a million dollars in assets at the time they die. Personally, though I don't see why we don't treat inheritance the exact same way we treat gifts while they're alive. Why should we make a distinctoin. Just tax them the say way you do gift taxes and abolish the estate tax.

I find the estate tax completely repulsive. How can anybody have the gaul to tax somebody for dying? But if they are going to tax them, then tax them at capital gains rate of 15% on the profit made by the investments.

Why would you tax them at the capitol gains rate? How is it any different from a gift? Why wouldn't you tax them at the gift rate (the receiving persons tax rate after gift deduction). By doing that you are not taxing them any differently because they are dead. That seems like the only fair way to do it that is completely blind of the fact they have died.

Gift taxes are like inheritance taxes. Anything over 1 million and it is taxed at upto 48%.

I find the shear % to repulsive. Let the people who worked their lives to gather wealth pass it onto their heirs. That will serve more good than to let some washington scum take it and build a half million dollar monument on some moutain dedicated to northwest spotted ferret bat that 3 people will care about in his district.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Gift taxes are like inheritance taxes. Anything over 1 million and it is taxed at upto 48%.

I find the shear % to repulsive. Let the people who worked their lives to gather wealth pass it onto their heirs. That will serve more good than to let some washington scum take it and build a half million dollar monument on some moutain dedicated to northwest spotted ferret bat that 3 people will care about in his district.

ok, fine. So lower the gift tax rate. But it still shouldn't be taxed any differntly just because they are dead. It should be treated as a gift because that is what it is.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: BBond
I'm not an AARP member but I will keep doing everything in my power to see that your generation of irresponsible, selfish pikers keeps those cards and letters coming.

I'd pay to see you pulled off life support.

Don't waste your money junior. I'm not on life support And you'll need the money just keep paying your FICA tax.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: BoberFett


Have them read stories to kids at the community center for a few hours a month. Perhaps start getting old people and young people back in touch.

Lord knows the country needs it. Look at what we've got for old people nowadays. Selfish jerks like BBond who wants to rape the country before his grandchilren get it because, goddamit, he deserves it!

^^^ Just look at what we have for young people these days. ^^^

I paid for my SS benefits and I'm not working to pay for something I already paid for.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: BoberFett


Have them read stories to kids at the community center for a few hours a month. Perhaps start getting old people and young people back in touch.

Lord knows the country needs it. Look at what we've got for old people nowadays. Selfish jerks like BBond who wants to rape the country before his grandchilren get it because, goddamit, he deserves it!

^^^ Just look at what we have for young people these days. ^^^

I paid for my SS benefits and I'm not working to pay for something I already paid for.

No, you paid into SS for somebody elses benefits, because the first people to collect didn't pay in anything. You'll be taking money paid in by people younger than you. Know what that's called?

Ponzi scheme
n. An investment swindle in which high profits are promised from fictitious sources and early investors are paid off with funds raised from later ones.

Those are illegal. SS needs to be dismantled.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: BoberFett


Have them read stories to kids at the community center for a few hours a month. Perhaps start getting old people and young people back in touch.

Lord knows the country needs it. Look at what we've got for old people nowadays. Selfish jerks like BBond who wants to rape the country before his grandchilren get it because, goddamit, he deserves it!

^^^ Just look at what we have for young people these days. ^^^

I paid for my SS benefits and I'm not working to pay for something I already paid for.

No, you paid into SS for somebody elses benefits, because the first people to collect didn't pay in anything. You'll be taking money paid in by people younger than you. Know what that's called?

Ponzi scheme
n. An investment swindle in which high profits are promised from fictitious sources and early investors are paid off with funds raised from later ones.

Those are illegal. SS needs to be dismantled.

Any adjustments made to SS (dismantling, changing, whatever) need to be done slowly. Whether you believe its a ponzi scheme or not, Americans over the age of 30 have expected to get this for retirement and have saved (or not saved as the case may be) accordingly. The sad truth is any plan to fix this must be born by our generation (under 30) we will continue to pay so that those older than us can retire on a system they always expected to be there. Without it and having not saved since they thought it was going to be here for them, they will not be able to support themselves. We in turn must forfeit our benefits (or at least most of them) so that our children and later generations won't be caught up in this. Sometimes a generation has to make sacrifices for the good of later generations.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: BoberFett


Have them read stories to kids at the community center for a few hours a month. Perhaps start getting old people and young people back in touch.

Lord knows the country needs it. Look at what we've got for old people nowadays. Selfish jerks like BBond who wants to rape the country before his grandchilren get it because, goddamit, he deserves it!

^^^ Just look at what we have for young people these days. ^^^

I paid for my SS benefits and I'm not working to pay for something I already paid for.

No, you paid into SS for somebody elses benefits, because the first people to collect didn't pay in anything. You'll be taking money paid in by people younger than you. Know what that's called?

Ponzi scheme
n. An investment swindle in which high profits are promised from fictitious sources and early investors are paid off with funds raised from later ones.

Those are illegal. SS needs to be dismantled.

Any adjustments made to SS (dismantling, changing, whatever) need to be done slowly. Whether you believe its a ponzi scheme or not, Americans over the age of 30 have expected to get this for retirement and have saved (or not saved as the case may be) accordingly. The sad truth is any plan to fix this must be born by our generation (under 30) we will continue to pay so that those older than us can retire on a system they always expected to be there. Without it and having not saved since they thought it was going to be here for them, they will not be able to support themselves. We in turn must forfeit our benefits (or at least most of them) so that our children and later generations won't be caught up in this. Sometimes a generation has to make sacrifices for the good of later generations.

But not BBond's generation of course. I say cut their benefits by 30%.

I have a question for you, BBond: How exactly is our generation "irresponsible"? I mean we could loot future generations dry like you have, but instead if this board is any indication people, both Dems and Reps, have taken it upon themselves to save for retirement.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: zendari
I have a question for you, BBond: How exactly is our generation "irresponsible"? I mean we could loot future generations dry like you have, but instead if this board is any indication people, both Dems and Reps, have taken it upon themselves to save for retirement.

Not enough peopl are though. I'd love to see more legislation that effectively forces people to save for their own retirement. The savings rate is pathetic in this country. I waas reading the Washington Post last weekend and the current average savings rate by Americnas's is less then 1% of thier income! 10 years ago, it was almost 5%. We're at our lowest savings rate since the Great Depression. With such poor savings habits, its really hard to get people to save for thier own retirements.

 

[Jhhnn]

What's missing from this discussion is the relationship between governance at a corporate and federal level and how that relates to pensions and SS.

20 years ago, boomers accepted a huge increase in SS taxes on the basis of creating a trust, held by the govt, that would attempt to account for the obvious demographic problems. It seemed reasonable at the time, given that its safety depended only on solvency of the govt. That didn't, unfortunately, account for greed and deception at the top, the same greed and deception that's driven the collapse of corporate pensions. Increased revenues from SS were and are being used to finance fatcat taxcuts, and to borrow even more money... If SS were the only governmental debt, there would be no problem at all. We could easily meet those obligations. But it's not, it's only 1/5 of the total obligation, an obligation that's growing by leaps and bounds under successive Repub admins and congresses... even as explosively larger % of income and wealth are transferred into the hands of a very, very few. Supply-side economics are illusionary, as they've always been accompanyed by huge deficits, a way to partially mask the effects of growing inequality. There's no down in trickledown, only up.

Creative financing is the death of pensions in general, and will be the death of SS if allowed to continue on a governmental level. It's not SS that's a ponzi scheme so much as it is other debt- current debt maintenance costs us ~$330B/yr, at record low interest rates, over half of the current deficit, and every dollar borrowed just adds to the misery... but we're willing to vote for politicians who promise to cut taxes, even as they're cutting our financial future's throats in the process. But don't listen to me, listen to your usual pundits. Don't blame yourselves and your leadership, blame the little guy who's done everything he's been asked, and more, only to get chumped in the end...

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: tss4

Not enough peopl are though. I'd love to see more legislation that effectively forces people to save for their own retirement. The savings rate is pathetic in this country. I waas reading the Washington Post last weekend and the current average savings rate by Americnas's is less then 1% of thier income! 10 years ago, it was almost 5%. We're at our lowest savings rate since the Great Depression. With such poor savings habits, its really hard to get people to save for thier own retirements.

It's hard to get people to save for their retirement because the government is already skimming 15% off the top for their pyramid scheme. SS is a form of forced savings, unfortunately it was ill-conceived and was destined to become bankrupt from the beginning. Had it been started as a forced savings account where the funds belonged to the owner where they get to choose where to invest it, it might still be a viable system today instead of the colossal blunder we have now.

 

[Jhhnn]

Bit of false attribution there, Boberfett- claiming that SS isn't viable today. It's quite viable, and provided over $150 to the treasury last year alone, as well... It's projected to remain a cash cow until ~2018, when the demographic balance tips the other way, where it will require increasing repayment of the funds allegedly held in trust...

Which is why current deficits are so dangerous and must be curtailed- we'll need our good credit rating and all the resources we can muster to provide for honest people who've done their part, supported their seniors, even tried to set aside a trust to help care for themselves, something never done before... of course, they've been dumb enough to vote Republican often enough to get themselves into this jam...

 

[zendari]

It's only viable today because the damn government keeps cheating and raising the FICA limit. Have your upside down pyramid scheme about to collapse? Just take a knife and slice part of the younger part of the pyramid.

Text A real example of SS looting. Nobody wins, everybody loses. Unless you live until you are 90+ that is.

Better to vote Republican and let the system die a fiery death due to failed mathematics than to vote Democrat who will continue to skyrocket the FICA cap and rate.

Why not to hike the FICA cap.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: zendari
It's only viable today because the damn government keeps cheating and raising the FICA limit. Have your upside down pyramid scheme about to collapse? Just take a knife and slice part of the younger part of the pyramid.

Text A real example of SS looting. Nobody wins, everybody loses. Unless you live until you are 90+ that is.

Better to vote Republican and let the system die a fiery death due to failed mathematics than to vote Democrat who will continue to skyrocket the FICA cap and rate.

Why not to hike the FICA cap.

While you may want SS to die quickly, it just isn't going to happen (again quickly) from either party. Too many "baby boomers" lurking around the corner with eyes on SS and the government is going to have to just keep collecting until they're through the system (or borrow more against the deficit, which is already completely out of bounds as it is).

Is it worth borrowing against the deficit? I say not. While I like the idea of privatized accounts (under MY control, not government controlled), I don't think that they'll happen any time soon as the reasons I stated above. If the government could reign in the deficit spending (even to a surplus), then it could happen. Until then, dead on arrival.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Bit of false attribution there, Boberfett- claiming that SS isn't viable today. It's quite viable, and provided over $150 to the treasury last year alone, as well... It's projected to remain a cash cow until ~2018, when the demographic balance tips the other way, where it will require increasing repayment of the funds allegedly held in trust...

Which is why current deficits are so dangerous and must be curtailed- we'll need our good credit rating and all the resources we can muster to provide for honest people who've done their part, supported their seniors, even tried to set aside a trust to help care for themselves, something never done before... of course, they've been dumb enough to vote Republican often enough to get themselves into this jam...

Yeah, pyramid schemes are great, as long as you're at the top and not the last person to jump in.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: BoberFett


Yeah, pyramid schemes are great, as long as you're at the top and not the last person to jump in.

You seem to be quite on the outs with the Republicans' legendary standard bearer, BF.

Ronald Wilson Reagan on Social Security

 

[zendari]

Reagan's second biggest mistake was not squashing Social Security while the baby boomers were young, in force, and throwing money into that black hole.

While you may want SS to die quickly, it just isn't going to happen (again quickly) from either party. Too many "baby boomers" lurking around the corner with eyes on SS and the government is going to have to just keep collecting until they're through the system (or borrow more against the deficit, which is already completely out of bounds as it is).

I don't see any other option. I can't see anyone, even Bush, borrowing $450+ billion to finance SS each year. That doubles the defecit by itself. And I don't think Republicans would raise the taxes on young workers already strained by the system. What other options are there? The system has nowhere to go but down.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: zendari
Reagan's second biggest mistake was not squashing Social Security while the baby boomers were young, in force, and throwing money into that black hole.

While you may want SS to die quickly, it just isn't going to happen (again quickly) from either party. Too many "baby boomers" lurking around the corner with eyes on SS and the government is going to have to just keep collecting until they're through the system (or borrow more against the deficit, which is already completely out of bounds as it is).

I don't see any other option. I can't see anyone, even Bush, borrowing $450+ billion to finance SS each year. That doubles the defecit by itself. And I don't think Republicans would raise the taxes on young workers already strained by the system. What other options are there? The system has nowhere to go but down.

Borrowing when? In the future? The $100 plus billion surplus each year until 2018 is also too good a basket for either party to give up now. The general revenues need it to keep those half trillion deficits from appearing......whoooops....they already have.

 

[imported_tss4]

lol. As much as we made fun of him, Gore's lock box idea was actually on to something. It may not have been the complete or best solution, but at least the trust fund would have existed instead of being imaginary.

 

[Jhhnn]

If it weren't so serious, it would be amusing to watch the Rightwing look right past the central issue, which is fiscal irresponsibility on the part of their chosen govt officials. In the terms of one nobel-winning economist, it's a form of looting.

The answer, of course, is to curtail unnecessary govt spending (Iraq, NMD, Corporate pork, Huge military) actually enforce the tax code on very high incomes, and to raise taxes on those who can best afford it. Balance the budget, and do more- use the SS surplus to pay down debt, forcing capital out of hiding and into the market.

Which, of course, won't happen with the cut taxes for the wealthy and borrow more money repubs running the show. Want to understand the effects of trickle-down supply-side economics? Try this-

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/01/books...1114228800&en=4ea89edc5df4eee8&ei=5070

Or just keep up the diversionary whining about welfare moms and SS leeches whose payments average only $800/mo... gotta love it, when guys having a 99% chance of never reaching the 90th percentile of income are suckered into waving the flag for those in the top .01%...

 

[MonkeyK]

First, this topic started out being about pension plans going extinct.

Second, neither pension plans nor SS are pyramid schemes. Or at least if they are, so are annuities which are considered a legitimate investment. What sort of math are you all doing that lets you equate these things to pyramid schemes?

In a pyramid scheme, there are mulitple levels. In Pensions, and SS there are only two (worker and retiree). In pyramid schemes the top level gets exponentially richer and grows by the bottom level growing exponentially (ie the ratio of contributors to recipients must grow exponentially). In Pensions and SS this is also not the case since the ratio of workers to retirees does not grow exponentially. In fact, with very modest reform, the ratio could remain very close to flat.

Annuities (and insurance in general) behave very similarly to Pensions and SS. A company takes premiums, invests some for reserves, uses the rest to administer the system and pay out claims. I don't hear anyone claim that all insurance companies are inherently risky businesses. In fact many savvy investors use annuities as part of a comprehensive investment plan (which keeps the company that I work for in business).

There may be changes required to make SS and Pensions safer or more effective, but they are not inherently flawed as so many people here seem to insist.

 

[conjur]

ruh roh

Federal Pension Agency Faces Liabilities
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-5281319,00.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - The government agency that guarantees worker pensions could see its liabilities quadruple over the next decade, jeopardizing the benefits of millions of retirees, a new report says.

In a report made public Thursday, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation shortfalls will reach nearly $87 billion over the next decade, up from about $23 billion in 2004.

The report also predicted that PBGC liabilities could rise to $119 billion in 15 years and $142 billion over 20 years as it is forced to take over large pension plans in the airline, steel and other troubled industries.

``Based on this report, the choice is either for pensioners to lose over $100 billion in promised retirement benefits or for taxpayers to get slapped with a $100 billion bill for failed private pension plans. Neither is acceptable,'' said House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, R-Iowa.

The PBGC, created in 1974, guarantees payment of basic pension benefits for about 44 million workers and retirees in more than 31,000 private-sector defined benefit pension plans.

It receives no funds from general tax revenues, with operations financed largely by insurance premiums and investment returns.

The corporation was running a surplus through 2001, but its bottom line has taken a sharp turn for the worse with a rash of bankruptcies among large companies in recent years. Bankruptcy filings this week by Delta and Northwest could further add to its financial burdens.

PBGC executive director Bradley Belt issued a statement reminding the two airlines that ``nothing in the bankruptcy code requires companies to skip their pension funding payments.''

The PBGC estimated that Delta's pension plan is underfunded by $10.6 billion, and Northwest's by $5.7 billion.

The PBGC covers only part of the benefits due to employees who have contributed to failed pension plans. The current maximum guarantee for a worker who retires at age 65 is about $45,000 a year.

``The new CBO estimate would be bad news for taxpayers under any circumstances,'' said the Budget Committee's top Democrat, John Spratt of South Carolina. ``But the news is even worse because of record federal budget deficits that are growing larger with the costs of Katrina relief and the war in Iraq.''

Spratt noted that the CBO estimate of the corporation's shortfall over the next 10 years was up $15 billion from a report made to the committee three months ago.

Congress is currently considering various legislative approaches to ensure the long-term solvency of the PBGC while guaranteeing that workers will receive their promised benefits when they retire.

Steps being considered, including tightening up rules on how companies manage their pension plans and raising the premiums they pay to the PBGC, must be weighed against concerns that companies will drop pension plans for employees if they decide the costs are too high.

So, what do we do, Chairman Nussle? If both are unacceptable, what are the options? Commission a new report to give us a different answer? Ignore the problem? Pray?