Personal Accountability.

[Willoughbyva]

I have a question. The Republicans say that people want personal responsability when it comes to social security. I was wondering why it would be so wrong to raise taxes so that social security stays stable? Isn't paying for your old age a good idea? People always bring up personal responsibility when the topic of social security comes up. Well I am 35 years old. There is no telling what the economy or my health will be like when I reach retirement age. I am willing to pay a few more dollars in taxes to see to it that I have a safety net there so that if I don't retire with a good insurance I will have something to lean on. Lets face it most employers are raising the insurance premiums these days. Plus the stock market hasn't been exactly wonderful over the past five years. So why not simply raise taxes so that social security will be there. Isn't it a reasonable thing to do?

Another thing the people paying into social security I think it is like 3 paying in to 1 taking out has been just about the same for the past 40 years. I think it did drop down to 2.5 or something, but taxes were raised in the 80's or 90's to fix that. I think Alan Greenspan was involved in that.. It seems that as a society we should pull together so that we all can have a half way decent life when we get older.

Most people try their darndest to get out of paying taxes. Taxes are something that I am not fond of, but I recognize that when I am paying my taxes I am paying into my debt to society for the living situations that I am living in so to speak. The government does provide service that no other entity can provide. I don't want any other entity to provide these things because I can hold my government responsiable the next time elections roll around. If it were privatized there might be private parties seeking emminant domain. Something reserved for the government.

Anyway just thought I would post this and get feed back.

 

[EatSpam]

Shh... Republicans think they do everything all by themselves and would have absolutely no problems if all government just disappeared.

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: Willoughbyva
I have a question. The Republicans say that people want personal responsability when it comes to social security. I was wondering why it would be so wrong to raise taxes so that social security stays stable? Isn't paying for your old age a good idea? People always bring up personal responsibility when the topic of social security comes up. Well I am 35 years old. There is no telling what the economy or my health will be like when I reach retirement age. I am willing to pay a few more dollars in taxes to see to it that I have a safety net there so that if I don't retire with a good insurance I will have something to lean on. Lets face it most employers are raising the insurance premiums these days. Plus the stock market hasn't been exactly wonderful over the past five years. So why not simply raise taxes so that social security will be there. Isn't it a reasonable thing to do?

Another thing the people paying into social security I think it is like 3 paying in to 1 taking out has been just about the same for the past 40 years. I think it did drop down to 2.5 or something, but taxes were raised in the 80's or 90's to fix that. I think Alan Greenspan was involved in that.. It seems that as a society we should pull together so that we all can have a half way decent life when we get older.

Most people try their darndest to get out of paying taxes. Taxes are something that I am not fond of, but I recognize that when I am paying my taxes I am paying into my debt to society for the living situations that I am living in so to speak. The government does provide service that no other entity can provide. I don't want any other entity to provide these things because I can hold my government responsiable the next time elections roll around. If it were privatized there might be private parties seeking emminant domain. Something reserved for the government.

Anyway just thought I would post this and get feed back.

What is that "safety net" you speak of? Do you honestly think one can safely retire on SS benefits alone? If you don't think you can make wise investment decisions, take conservative approach and invest your SS funds into Savings Bonds. How can you lose?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Do you honestly think one can safely retire on SS benefits alone?

My grandma does.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

I was wondering why it would be so wrong to raise taxes so that social security stays stable?

because increasing regressive taxes isn't, in my opinion, a good way to fund any welfare program.Time value of money as invested in something with only 5% instead of 2% return from your bi-monthly paycheck will, through privatization show you, 418% better return after a 40 year lifetime of savings.

The government does provide service that no other entity can provide. I don't want any other entity to provide these things because I can hold my government responsiable the next time elections roll around. If it were privatized there might be private parties seeking emminant domain.

letting people invest part of there social security check will lead to private entities having eminent property domain?

Maybe I misunderstand.

 

[Willoughbyva]

Before my mother and father passed away they both lived off of social security. That is why I think it is so important that it be there for people. We don't know what the future holds so why not have this safty net. Plus if people want more money for retirement then let them pay more taxes. Have a tiered system. A basic plan and a couple other plans that would allow for people to get more money in retirement. The basic plan would be something all americans who have paid into can get. The other plans would be where people would pay more in to get more out.

 

[Willoughbyva]

No I was reffering to someone being held responsable. Say people pay into a privatized account, and the money is invested into the stock market. Then something like enron or tyco or one of the other things that has been in the news lately. Who will be responsable to me as a payer into the system? If it is the government then I can vote my way to reform. If it is a private company then they could go bankrupt. I don't agree with the idea of the federal governement investing money for me into the stock market. Big corporations and political ties are bad enough as it is.

 

[Willoughbyva]

Well I am still thinking on this stuff so it seems like I contradicted myself. But really I just wanted to get some feedback and see what others think.

 

[Vadatajs]

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Shh... Republicans think they do everything all by themselves and would have absolutely no problems if all government just disappeared.

Except when people start f*cking each other in the ass. Then they want the government all over that.

 

[Willoughbyva]

Well I know most folks are down on the government, but I want the government there. Without it there would be chaos sort of like what is in Iraq or some other governmentally weak country. I do want a responsable government. I also support term limits for the presidency.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Say people pay into a privatized account, and the money is invested into the stock market. Then something like enron or tyco or one of the other things that has been in the news lately. Who will be responsable to me as a payer into the system?

there is a much larger problem with the united states than your retirement if you have invested in a diversified mutually fund and the whole thing goes under.

If it is the government then I can vote my way to reform. If it is a private company then they could go bankrupt.

diversified investment in stocks in bonds holds little risk.
With a 10% historical return on investment over 40 years if only 9% of your projected returns don?t fail then you will still make 418% more than 2% returns, we?ve got a much bigger problem in America than some older people not being able to not work at the age of 65 if that?s the case.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Willoughbyva
Before my mother and father passed away they both lived off of social security. That is why I think it is so important that it be there for people. We don't know what the future holds so why not have this safty net. Plus if people want more money for retirement then let them pay more taxes. Have a tiered system. A basic plan and a couple other plans that would allow for people to get more money in retirement. The basic plan would be something all americans who have paid into can get. The other plans would be where people would pay more in to get more out.

We already have a system like you describe. People automatically get Social Security when they retire. Also, you have the option of putting money into 401Ks, IRAs, etc.

I think Social Security is a fine program. Just fix the solvency problem (something private accounts won't do) and we're good. Part of the solution might be to invest the Social Security fund in stocks, but having 300 million tiny private accounts is only good for the stock brokers.

 

[Willoughbyva]

Well I said I don't like the idea of the government investing into the stock market because of corporate ties. However what if part of social security was set aside into an index fund? Not individual accounts, but a big massive account? It would be easier to manage and the changing of the stocks would be quicker if there was a need to get out of one stock into another. But as we turn more into a service economy is the stock market a sure thing like it has been in the past?

 

[NeenerNeener]

Raise the cap.

 

[Willoughbyva]

Excuse my ignorance, but what cap are you talking about? I know very little about the stock market or retirement plans.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Excuse my ignorance, but what cap are you talking about? I know very little about the stock market or retirement plans.

he's talking about the taxation cap that limits the maximum amount of money on which social security will be taxed, thus making it a regressive tax. The cap should be keyed to the same standard that the increase in pay is keyed, imho.

raising the cap would work, but investments in the private sector, index funds, municipals and other bonds, etc. would still show awesome returns even if most of the projected returns go under.

However what if part of social security was set aside into an index fund? Not individual accounts, but a big massive account?

manufacturing is still done, and although Americans aren?t doing it American corporations are, and those multinationals are traded on the nyse.

 

[Willoughbyva]

Yes I have thought about this a little. I see that a lot of companies are investing into developing countries and china. I have mixed feeling on this. I don't know a whole lot about it so I won't say anythng about it.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Willoughbyva
Well I said I don't like the idea of the government investing into the stock market because of corporate ties. However what if part of social security was set aside into an index fund? Not individual accounts, but a big massive account? It would be easier to manage and the changing of the stocks would be quicker if there was a need to get out of one stock into another. But as we turn more into a service economy is the stock market a sure thing like it has been in the past?

That was the option I was mentioning. Is it a good idea? I'm not really sure. The Enrons and MCIs of the world make me nervous.

 

[Willoughbyva]

Well I think there is a lot of psychology involved in the stock market. I think the psychological factors when it comes to investing are huge. That is one of the things with the dotcom bubble. Everyone was uphoric and it went out of control. Plus the analists weren't making good analysis of the situation.

For some reason it reminds me of changing from the gold standard of currency to whatever standard we have now.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Willoughbyva
Before my mother and father passed away they both lived off of social security. That is why I think it is so important that it be there for people. We don't know what the future holds so why not have this safty net. Plus if people want more money for retirement then let them pay more taxes. Have a tiered system. A basic plan and a couple other plans that would allow for people to get more money in retirement. The basic plan would be something all americans who have paid into can get. The other plans would be where people would pay more in to get more out.

We already have a system like you describe. People automatically get Social Security when they retire. Also, you have the option of putting money into 401Ks, IRAs, etc.

I think Social Security is a fine program. Just fix the solvency problem (something private accounts won't do) and we're good. Part of the solution might be to invest the Social Security fund in stocks, but having 300 million tiny private accounts is only good for the stock brokers.

The solvency problem is not the only issue of social security. What about the fact that your average joe making $60k for 40 years puts in far more into the system than he gets out in retirement? Reagan, Greenspan, and the rest of the '80s SS analysts failed to look at SS at all from this perspective.

Raising the tax rate is the WORST way to solve the problem; heck its already too high as it is. Raise the retirement age, cut payments, or privatize the system. Heck, assuming a 2% interest rate, banking 2k a year for 40 years leaves you with 125k, a far better return I get out of SS.

Raising the FICA limit to force Bill Gates to pay tens of millions is unfair unless you want to pay him out tens of millions when he retires. A safety net is not a transfer payment.

There are thousands of companies, just because you hear about Enron in the news all the time doesn't mean your investment is going to go down the drain. In the long run most people will do fine in the market.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Willoughbyva
Before my mother and father passed away they both lived off of social security. That is why I think it is so important that it be there for people. We don't know what the future holds so why not have this safty net. Plus if people want more money for retirement then let them pay more taxes. Have a tiered system. A basic plan and a couple other plans that would allow for people to get more money in retirement. The basic plan would be something all americans who have paid into can get. The other plans would be where people would pay more in to get more out.

We already have a system like you describe. People automatically get Social Security when they retire. Also, you have the option of putting money into 401Ks, IRAs, etc.

I think Social Security is a fine program. Just fix the solvency problem (something private accounts won't do) and we're good. Part of the solution might be to invest the Social Security fund in stocks, but having 300 million tiny private accounts is only good for the stock brokers.

The solvency problem is not the only issue of social security. What about the fact that your average joe making $60k for 40 years puts in far more into the system than he gets out in retirement? Reagan, Greenspan, and the rest of the '80s SS analysts failed to look at SS at all from this perspective.

Raising the tax rate is the WORST way to solve the problem; heck its already too high as it is. Raise the retirement age, cut payments, or privatize the system. Heck, assuming a 2% interest rate, banking 2k a year for 40 years leaves you with 125k, a far better return I get out of SS.

Raising the FICA limit to force Bill Gates to pay tens of millions is unfair unless you want to pay him out tens of millions when he retires. A safety net is not a transfer payment.

There are thousands of companies, just because you hear about Enron in the news all the time doesn't mean your investment is going to go down the drain. In the long run most people will do fine in the market.

So the system isn't fair.... welcome to life, son. I pay lots of property taxes for the local public school. My kids are going to attend the lab school run by the university. Fair? No. But is it for the greater good? Yes. It benefits society to have a well educated populace. Likewise, it benefits society to have a low rate of poverty and the good of that outweighs any problem with "fairness" in redistribution.

Why is raising taxes uniformly bad? As I recall, Clinton raised the highest tax bracket and the sky didn't fall. The tax rate on the upper bracket was >90% in the 1950s and the country didn't collapse. Sometimes high taxes are an incentive to do business differently. Consider, with a high tax rate, instead of making tons of profit and have it taxed away, a company might chose to do more research or expand its business.

 

[zendari]

Does 95% of the country care so little about SS that they think the other 5% should hold the entire burden? We already have the general progressive income tax to punish the rich; SS was designed and should be a retirement program.

Besides, eliminating the FICA cap doesn't solve the investment problem, which I noted in my last post. Social Security for a young American today is nothing short of robbery. I wouldn't mind paying higher general taxes towards the war, roads, schools, or almost anything else, but I do mind having my money (already 6% now) funneled away into nothing. Initially the people who started the program promised a 2% tax rate. Wonder what happened.

Raising taxes isn't always the answer as some think, look what happened when the raised taxes on the yacht industry.

 

[Willoughbyva]

Yacts are luxery items. Most people on SS only have enough to afford a place to live and food. Let alone medicine. If people pay more into it than they get out of it then where is all the money going? As being part of a society it means that those that have much needs to help those that have little. And it is the governments place to see that this happens. You probably make good money, and you probably hate paying taxes. Yet you drive on the roads that tax dollars build. If you have kids they probably have the option of going to public schools. The peace here in this country is kept by different law enforcement agencies paid for with tax dollars. It is just a part of being in a civilized society. A lot of people don't earn enough to have IRA's and be involved into the stock market. What is going to happen to them? Do they live in poverty? Would anyone care? There are a lot of people here in this country already living in poverty. And some people think that poverty is great because here even the impoverished are fat. WHat about quality of life? Doesn't roads, bridges, schools, law enforcement increase the quality of life? I am just saying that social security needs to be there for the basics. Food, clothing, a roof over retired folks heads. Whatever it takes to sustain a decent life. Nothing to glamerous about that.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Besides, raising the FICA cap doesn't solve the investment problem, which I noted in my last post.

but not raising the cap is the same thing as lowering it each year by the inflation rate. It's reasonable to have an cap that increases and include personal accounts.

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Do you honestly think one can safely retire on SS benefits alone?

My grandma does.

How does she do it? :shocked: Don't mean to be a smart ass, I really am wondering how is it possible to survive on SS alone.