Personal Accountability.

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Willoughbyva
Yacts are luxery items. Most people on SS only have enough to afford a place to live and food. Let alone medicine.

That's about all they deserve. You think Social Security alone should allow seniors to go golfing every week?

If people pay more into it than they get out of it then where is all the money going?

To the baby boomer generation that didn't have enough kids.

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.

All of these fall under seperate laws and rulings than the SS/Medicare taxes. I don't need a safety net. I don't want a safety net. Poverty and welfare, also, fall under this program. Of course, technically Social Security has been looted dry by the federal government, so I guess the SS taxes are technically funding the roads too. :disgust:

I would gladly take the 6% of my money, double it, and put it into education. Fund our future, not our past.


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.

Because people are too stupid to save for their own retirement? And I don't mean walmart employees, I mean your average american making a decent salary

Originally posted by: 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.

Let me rephrase. Some people suggest eliminating the FICA cap completely. The cap has to rise along with inflation, but the % should have never gone above the 2% that it initally was set at.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: 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.

ware are you from?
if you live in a place ware the cost of living isn't ridiculous it's not impossible.
my grandmother lives of ss alone and supports my brother and has DSL, dish network 2 computers and can we build it, yes we can.

Let me rephrase. Some people suggest eliminating the FICA cap completely. The cap has to rise along with inflation, but the % should have never gone above the 2% that it initally was set at.

fair enough.

 

[Willoughbyva]

So then maybe it means that washington needs to be held accountable for looting the SS fund. Perhaps less pork spending.

I don't know how can we hold washington responsable for draining the social security fund with out raising taxes or changing benifits?

 

[zendari]

Pointing fingers does little to solve the problem for the future. The longer we wait the more drastic measures are needed. It's not just 1 person draining the SS fund; its been going on for 20 years.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

So then maybe it means that washington needs to be held accountable for looting the SS fund. Perhaps less pork spending.

looting?
buying us government treasury bonds with it is looting?
if i where putting together a savings account that i needed to be the most solid it would save it's money in us treasury bonds.
that the US is in debt isn't that we spent the ss fund but that we didn't see as dramatic an inflationary problem from government overspending.

 

[Willoughbyva]

Hmm I don't know I wish I knew more about this stuff.

 

[Steeplerot]

I could care less, responsibility is more then covering your own ass, if I help retirees get along in their old age so be it.

saying you are being stolen from is laughable, and pretty self-centered. But then pissing our and our grandparents futures away for a oily wet dream when we could have invested in alternative fuels long ago is pretty stupid also.

such is the way of america though nowdays...gimmie gimmie gimmie now! FU if I got mine, never looking past your own nose that is up in the air to anyone but yourself.

 

[OokiiNeko]

Willoughbyva,
Your original idea to raise taxes a little to start prepping for the SS benefit "bubble" was already implemented during the *whispers*Clinton administration*whispers*.

Income taxes were raised. Some of that income went to pay down the national debt, and some was put in a special fund for future SS needs (which has since disappeared).

I found most of the info on .gov sites like:

http://www.cbo.gov/

http://www.gao.gov/

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/

You're gonna have to dig real deep to find some stuff, but its interesting what you can find in some of these sites while looking for something else.

.

 

[NeenerNeener]

Originally posted by: 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.

Yes. MagnusCainLord seems to have it right. The current salary cap on social security is 90k$ this means that once somebody contributes that much into the fund, they are done. No more SS taxes for them. Raising the cap is one way to solve the solvency problem. Another way is raising the retirement age. After all, we do live longer now.

Curbing inflation is another key though. What good is making a couple hundred bucks a week if inflation has made it so that by the time we retire, that'll buy us a bag of peanuts?

 

[NeenerNeener]

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener

Originally posted by: 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.

Yes. MagnusCainLord seems to have it right, except for the implication that part of our money from the fund should go to into the stock market. If you want to and can afford to do both, you are welcome to.

The current salary cap on social security is 90k$ this means that once somebody contributes that much into the fund, they are done. No more SS taxes for them. Raising the cap is one way to solve the solvency problem. Another way is raising the retirement age. After all, we do live longer now.

Curbing inflation is another key though. What good is making a couple hundred bucks a week if inflation has made it so that by the time we retire, that'll buy us a bag of peanuts?

 

[NeenerNeener]

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener

Originally posted by: 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.

Yes. MagnusCainLord seems to have it right, except for the implication that part of our money from the fund should go to into the stock market. If you want to and can afford to do both, you are welcome to.

The current salary cap on social security is 90k$ this means that once somebody contributes that much into the fund, they are done. No more SS taxes for them. Raising the cap is one way to solve the solvency problem. Another way is raising the retirement age. After all, we do live longer now.

Curbing inflation is another key though. What good is making a couple hundred bucks a week if inflation has made it so that by the time we retire, that'll buy us a bag of peanuts?

One thing I'd also like to mention is that SS taxes themselves currently exceed SS expenditures. It won't be till 2018 or so until they don't. (think of it as separate from the rest of your taxes, except that the current gov. likes to borrow from it) One other thing to consider is that medicare expendatures ALREADY exceed the medicare tax!

 

[NeenerNeener]

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener

Originally posted by: 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.

Yes. MagnusCainLord seems to have it right, except for the implication that part of our money from the fund should go to into the stock market. If you want to and can afford to do both, you are welcome to.

The current salary cap on social security is 90k$ this means that once somebody contributes that much into the fund, they are done. No more SS taxes for them. Raising the cap is one way to solve the solvency problem. Another way is raising the retirement age. After all, we do live longer now.

Curbing inflation is another key though. What good is making a couple hundred bucks a week if inflation has made it so that by the time we retire, that'll buy us a bag of peanuts?

One thing I'd also like to mention is that SS taxes themselves currently exceed SS expenditures. It won't be till 2018 or so until they don't. (think of it as separate from the rest of your taxes, except that the current gov. likes to borrow from it and spend it on other stuff) One other thing to consider is that medicare expendatures ALREADY exceed the medicare tax!

 

[Willoughbyva]

Perhaps I used a poor choice of words. But if the money was there and they took it out then what can be done about it? If they needed money for roads and stuff why didn't they raise taxes or put tolls on it or something? There has to be a way besides cutting benifits for old folks. I don't know why putting money in the stock market through private accounts or through a large account doesn't apeal to me. I worry about the risk I guess.

 

[Willoughbyva]

If medicare pays out more than it takes in then it apears that there is a need for the program. I just worry about people who might loose everything they have. And the folks who are sick at or before retirement age and not being able to work.

 

[Willoughbyva]

Thanks for the links OokiiNeko when I get some time I'll check them out.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

So then maybe it means that washington needs to be held accountable for looting the SS fund. Perhaps less pork spending.

looting?
buying us government treasury bonds with it is looting?
if i where putting together a savings account that i needed to be the most solid it would save it's money in us treasury bonds.
that the US is in debt isn't that we spent the ss fund but that we didn't see as dramatic an inflationary problem from government overspending.

And what exactly does Washington use to pay back those treasury bonds? Through increased income and other taxation on the public I suppose. It's borrowing from Peter to pay Paul (or whatever that expression is).

 

[Steeplerot]

I'd rather my money go to taking care of grams then to a 5k toilet seat or dead iraqi baby anyday.

As much as the bushies want to spin it that's what it comes down to.

 

[ciba]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
I'd rather my money go to taking care of grams then to a 5k toilet seat or dead iraqi baby anyday.

While I think the war in Iraq was a bad idea, the strict constructionist in me would rather see the government keep a strong military than take care of the elderly who have screwed my generation (social security, overinflated housing market, etc.).

 

[daclayman]

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
Yes. MagnusCainLord seems to have it right. The current salary cap on social security is 90k$ this means that once somebody contributes that much into the fund, they are done. No more SS taxes for them. Raising the cap is one way to solve the solvency problem. Another way is raising the retirement age. After all, we do live longer now.

Curbing inflation is another key though. What good is making a couple hundred bucks a week if inflation has made it so that by the time we retire, that'll buy us a bag of peanuts?

I say raise the cap to the current salary of rank and file Senators/Representitives of the US Congress ($158k) link and keep it that dollar amount. Congress receives cost of living raises every year and they have to vote NOT to receive them or they get them automatically. If their salary goes up, so does the cap. Maybe they'd show a little restraint if their actions directly affected the voters. Naw, it ain't gonna happen.

 

[Willoughbyva]

Yes government is wasteful. I think that perhaps they should raise taxes to insure the future of SS. For some reason I assumed that when someone put money in SS it was recorded and kept track of. Perhaps if our accounts were more individualized it would make it harder for them to simply take money out of the program.

 

[frankie38]

Social Security was not intended to be a Retirement Plan. Social Security is funded simply as "pay as you go". That is, workers today are funding the Social Security recepients.

As of today, we have enough workers to fund the all the Soc Sec recepients.

However, in the near future there will not be enough workers to fund the oncoming rush of Baby Boomers that will be eligible to collect.

With that said:

I say no to raising the cap.

I say no to individual accounts.

I say no to raising rates.

I say yes to gradually raising the age of eligibility to 70 or higher.

Retirement in the future will be different than it has been in the past. I am reconciled to the fact that I will working longer, which I think is a good thing.

 

[zendari]

The tax rate is already ridiculous Willoughbyva. Take a look at the rates and cap that these swindling baby boomer fvckers paid.

Damn looters


Steeplerot, how about we stop robbing future generations, return the SS rate back to 1%, and invest all the money in alternative fuel?

Social Security was not intended to be a Retirement Plan. Social Security is funded simply as "pay as you go". That is, workers today are funding the Social Security recepients.

Actually, it was. Text

The Original Program

As its 1935 report to President Roosevelt indicates, the committee charged with developing Social Security legislation wanted to help all workers prepare for retirement.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: zendari
The tax rate is already ridiculous Willoughbyva. Take a look at the rates and cap that these swindling baby boomer fvckers paid.

Damn looters


Steeplerot, how about we stop robbing future generations, return the SS rate back to 1%, and invest all the money in alternative fuel?

Social Security was not intended to be a Retirement Plan. Social Security is funded simply as "pay as you go". That is, workers today are funding the Social Security recepients.

Actually, it was. Text

The Original Program

As its 1935 report to President Roosevelt indicates, the committee charged with developing Social Security legislation wanted to help all workers prepare for retirement.

Then why are you complaining about SS. It's helping you prepare for retirement also. I guess you want another fund besides your company pension plan and your IRA. To hell with the old people, it's all about poor little you, isn't it.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: AnyMal

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

My grandma does.

She can live on poverty wages?

Amazing feat if you ask me.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: zendari
The tax rate is already ridiculous Willoughbyva. Take a look at the rates and cap that these swindling baby boomer fvckers paid.

Damn looters


Steeplerot, how about we stop robbing future generations, return the SS rate back to 1%, and invest all the money in alternative fuel?

Social Security was not intended to be a Retirement Plan. Social Security is funded simply as "pay as you go". That is, workers today are funding the Social Security recepients.

Actually, it was. Text

The Original Program

As its 1935 report to President Roosevelt indicates, the committee charged with developing Social Security legislation wanted to help all workers prepare for retirement.

Then why are you complaining about SS. It's helping you prepare for retirement also. I guess you want another fund besides your company pension plan and your IRA. To hell with the old people, it's all about poor little you, isn't it.

Why? Because the rate is fvcking ridiculous and I put in far more than what I get out (not even counting inflation) assuming I don't live to 120?

It worked as a retirement program back then, nobody lived to retirement!