Ornery, generally, I'd agree with you that he lefties are the ones keeping us back from some real reform and restructuring, but in this case, we have to remember that the SS surplus has been getting plundered for decades now... and who's in charge of the plundering? Congress has continued to plunder the SS surplus for their own spending through control by the dems AND repubs. Politicians like more money to spend, it gives them more power. It doesn't really matter which party, they all like to spend more.
End social In-security in 1 swift stroke of the pen. Take a one time charge by paying everyone above 45 every cent they paid in and 4% interest in a lump sum, and then tell them have a nice life. pro rate the sum for the older people already drawing out money. Take those who are 45 and under and pay them back what was stolen at 3% interest over 5 years and tell them to go find a nice mutual fund. case closed. I would be willing to forfeit every dime of the 15% stolen from me to date, for a contract stating I no longer had to pay into the system.
<< Take a one time charge by paying everyone above 45 every cent they paid in and 4% interest in a lump sum >>
I'll take it! Of course, 4% sucks on what they've already taken, but I'll make that a hell of a lot better, by the time I retire, then it would be if Federal Piggy keeps mismanaging it.
Russ, NCNE
Mr T, your plan sounds like something a government arsehole would construct. He is the all knowing, all seeing god of the poor stupid ("moron"
citizens.
First, this all knowing god of wisdom decides who can take how much risk. No matter if you're a friken financial genius or don't know how to count, you can only put X% "at risk" based on your age tolerance for it.
Next, the all knowing god of governmnet decides which "funds" we can take risk with. Yeah, we get a choice in this democracy -- we can pick from a handful of funds that are approved by god government. Don't want any morons screwing things up. Oh yeah, let's not forget that god government will write 2 tons of regulations to further protect us from unscrupulous fund managers.
Well duh!, guess how the less than honest politicians will play the "approve a fund" game over a 100 year period.
Like, all morons age 45 and over are gonna love the balanced risk fund made up of 50% .com equities and 50% US government bonds.
These "government" schemes are all bullchit. Politicians first decide that we are not capable of taking care of ourselves, and secondly that they have the wisdom and required knowledge to micro manage the world!!
Here's my wet dream: All governmnet control freaks get out of my life.
Bomb BOTH sides of the isle, make congress a part time job, fire 1/2 of ALL government employees, pay off the ss program as proposed by Liberty/Death, implement a simplified straight up flat income tax, then burn all existing pictures of FDR.
citizens.First, this all knowing god of wisdom decides who can take how much risk. No matter if you're a friken financial genius or don't know how to count, you can only put X% "at risk" based on your age tolerance for it.
Next, the all knowing god of governmnet decides which "funds" we can take risk with. Yeah, we get a choice in this democracy -- we can pick from a handful of funds that are approved by god government. Don't want any morons screwing things up. Oh yeah, let's not forget that god government will write 2 tons of regulations to further protect us from unscrupulous fund managers.
Well duh!, guess how the less than honest politicians will play the "approve a fund" game over a 100 year period.
Like, all morons age 45 and over are gonna love the balanced risk fund made up of 50% .com equities and 50% US government bonds.
These "government" schemes are all bullchit. Politicians first decide that we are not capable of taking care of ourselves, and secondly that they have the wisdom and required knowledge to micro manage the world!!
Here's my wet dream: All governmnet control freaks get out of my life.
Bomb BOTH sides of the isle, make congress a part time job, fire 1/2 of ALL government employees, pay off the ss program as proposed by Liberty/Death, implement a simplified straight up flat income tax, then burn all existing pictures of FDR.
"Do you support a partial privatization of the Social Security System?"
Who are the two dim-wits that voted no, and what are their arguments?
Imaginer makes zero sense. LIBERTYorDEATH's plan sounds fine, but won't fly today, emjem. What's your second choice?
Who are the two dim-wits that voted no, and what are their arguments?
Imaginer makes zero sense. LIBERTYorDEATH's plan sounds fine, but won't fly today, emjem. What's your second choice?
emjem,
I understand what you are saying, but what you propose will NEVER happen.
I hate the government telling me what I should and should not do just as much
as anyone. But, I also realize what is feasible and what is not.
This thread was basically intended to get people's thoughts on improving
the SS system. I proposed a system which would be a lesser of 2 evils.
As a Finance Major myself, I would love to control 100% of my SS money,
and invest it however I like until whenever I retire... but this will
never happen. There has to be some kind of compromise over control since
the people in Washington are control freaks and need to maintain and illusion
of security in this Social Security System.
Ornery,
I think we have a total of 3 stooges at the moment.
I understand what you are saying, but what you propose will NEVER happen.
I hate the government telling me what I should and should not do just as much
as anyone. But, I also realize what is feasible and what is not.
This thread was basically intended to get people's thoughts on improving
the SS system. I proposed a system which would be a lesser of 2 evils.
As a Finance Major myself, I would love to control 100% of my SS money,
and invest it however I like until whenever I retire... but this will
never happen. There has to be some kind of compromise over control since
the people in Washington are control freaks and need to maintain and illusion
of security in this Social Security System.
Ornery,
I think we have a total of 3 stooges at the moment.
This may be a little abstract and subtle, but I think it's what I'm trying to say. I'm pretty sure that the SS system exists for everyone in the US's sake. Although privatizing a part of it would *most likely* result in the rich getting richer (presumably everyone on this board is not filthy rich but you're not living on the street), it would also result in the poor getting much poorer. This is not an absolute result, but just thinking about the consequences of this beyond your own checkbook should dim most people's enthusiasm a little bit.
Let's imagine an extremely optimistic example. Just imagine that there's currently some small percent of people, say .1% of America (300 million people * .1% = 300,000 people) whose *only* source of income is social security, and forget about the reasons too, because they are diverse. Taking money out of the ss system would most likely result in the system going bankrupt a lot faster than it already is, or a reduction in payments, or something like that that would leave 20% of the people in a hospital because of poor health due to starvation/inability to afford cleaning supplies/whatever. Another 20% would just get evicted and live on the street, and the other 60% would somehow make it work. Now we've got an extra 60,000 people in hospitals not only taking up room there, but also using taxpayer medicare/medicaid money to stay in a vegetable-like state for months until one of their family members decides enough is enough and pulls the plug. There's also another 60,000 people living on the street, using taxpayer money because of the extra police, extra homeless shelters that have to be built and staffed, etc. Assume these people are evenly distributed among the 300 largest cities in the US... can Central Park hold another 2000 homeless people? Does your city have an extra 2000 hospital beds or staff to take care of them?
That's just a single, simple, optimistic example of one area of social disaster that would ensue under the collapse of the social security system. And, this whole thing about private philanthropy is bull. Where does the money come from? People like me and you. An argument cannot be made needs wouldn't go up if money were taken out of Social Security. Would you give charity proportional to the money you "gain" under private management? I would bet no. Ask any charity manager or volunteer that has tried to get others to volunteer. These organizations are already undermanned and can't keep up with demand for their services. A person would think that having more money in their pocket (an area also up for debate) would increase their quality of life, but it is not necessarily the case.
Finally, the whole argument that more money in people's pockets will increase spending and therefore increase tax revenue and benefit everyone is also bull. It was tried, it was called Reaganomics, and it failed miserably by plunging the country into the worst recession since the Depression. And oh yeah, caused a market crash.
So, now that I've put enough hurt down, here's my rough solution.
1. Increase the retirement age/SS starting date. 65 is based on some old outdated data that showed the average age in America to be 68 or something and that most people died of disease. Nowadays, people are really healthy for much longer. There could even be some old age labor laws (I wouldn't support them), like people over 65 can only work 35 hours/week, over 70 => less than 30 hours, etc. Although it's kind of annoying to have to work for five to ten more years, it's very possible and quality of life for everyone will go up.
2. Make education careers prestigious. Teachers make squat, and therefore don't get a lot of the "best and brightest." There are a lot of smart people out there motivated by money (see previous N posts) who go into engineering or medicine but who would seriously consider teaching positions if they started at the same level as engineers or doctors. Sometimes throwing money at a problem doesn't work, but raising the entry level teaching salary would help bring better teachers into schools. I would say that improving the educational system is one of the easiest ways to lessen some of America's social problems (homelessness, a shortage of technically skilled workers, the racial divide), which would reduce the need for social security.
So, to conclude, I would say that although privatization of social security seems like a good idea, it would create a lot more problems than it would solve. It also seems to me that the only "problem" it's solving is that people think their money is going to waste, and they want to bail out while the system still isn't bankrupt. It's really only in some skewed sense that our money is going to waste and the government is taking it all without giving anything back. We are all benefitting somewhat from the government having our money... it's just kind of transparent to us. If the benefits were gone, we'd notice it. And, no amount of benefits we could create for ourselves by having more money in our pockets would be able to reproduce the benefits the government provides.
Let's imagine an extremely optimistic example. Just imagine that there's currently some small percent of people, say .1% of America (300 million people * .1% = 300,000 people) whose *only* source of income is social security, and forget about the reasons too, because they are diverse. Taking money out of the ss system would most likely result in the system going bankrupt a lot faster than it already is, or a reduction in payments, or something like that that would leave 20% of the people in a hospital because of poor health due to starvation/inability to afford cleaning supplies/whatever. Another 20% would just get evicted and live on the street, and the other 60% would somehow make it work. Now we've got an extra 60,000 people in hospitals not only taking up room there, but also using taxpayer medicare/medicaid money to stay in a vegetable-like state for months until one of their family members decides enough is enough and pulls the plug. There's also another 60,000 people living on the street, using taxpayer money because of the extra police, extra homeless shelters that have to be built and staffed, etc. Assume these people are evenly distributed among the 300 largest cities in the US... can Central Park hold another 2000 homeless people? Does your city have an extra 2000 hospital beds or staff to take care of them?
That's just a single, simple, optimistic example of one area of social disaster that would ensue under the collapse of the social security system. And, this whole thing about private philanthropy is bull. Where does the money come from? People like me and you. An argument cannot be made needs wouldn't go up if money were taken out of Social Security. Would you give charity proportional to the money you "gain" under private management? I would bet no. Ask any charity manager or volunteer that has tried to get others to volunteer. These organizations are already undermanned and can't keep up with demand for their services. A person would think that having more money in their pocket (an area also up for debate) would increase their quality of life, but it is not necessarily the case.
Finally, the whole argument that more money in people's pockets will increase spending and therefore increase tax revenue and benefit everyone is also bull. It was tried, it was called Reaganomics, and it failed miserably by plunging the country into the worst recession since the Depression. And oh yeah, caused a market crash.
So, now that I've put enough hurt down
, here's my rough solution. 1. Increase the retirement age/SS starting date. 65 is based on some old outdated data that showed the average age in America to be 68 or something and that most people died of disease. Nowadays, people are really healthy for much longer. There could even be some old age labor laws (I wouldn't support them), like people over 65 can only work 35 hours/week, over 70 => less than 30 hours, etc. Although it's kind of annoying to have to work for five to ten more years, it's very possible and quality of life for everyone will go up.
2. Make education careers prestigious. Teachers make squat, and therefore don't get a lot of the "best and brightest." There are a lot of smart people out there motivated by money (see previous N posts) who go into engineering or medicine but who would seriously consider teaching positions if they started at the same level as engineers or doctors. Sometimes throwing money at a problem doesn't work, but raising the entry level teaching salary would help bring better teachers into schools. I would say that improving the educational system is one of the easiest ways to lessen some of America's social problems (homelessness, a shortage of technically skilled workers, the racial divide), which would reduce the need for social security.
So, to conclude, I would say that although privatization of social security seems like a good idea, it would create a lot more problems than it would solve. It also seems to me that the only "problem" it's solving is that people think their money is going to waste, and they want to bail out while the system still isn't bankrupt. It's really only in some skewed sense that our money is going to waste and the government is taking it all without giving anything back. We are all benefitting somewhat from the government having our money... it's just kind of transparent to us. If the benefits were gone, we'd notice it. And, no amount of benefits we could create for ourselves by having more money in our pockets would be able to reproduce the benefits the government provides.
Check this out, Turkey. In my neck of the woods, the average teacher has 16 years service and makes an average $46,000 for 180 days work. AND, they pay NOTHING into Social Security! They have their own retirement plan. :| What do you think of that?
Turkey,
wake up man. Teachers have it awesome. They are exempt from SS tax, and they have 403B retirment plans.
They also work 180 days or so at Ornery said.
[Rant On]
All you people who talk about Reaganomics and Trickle Down Economic's are not realizing the context of
the situation the US was in at the time. WERE AT WAR. The Cold War was an ECONOMIC WAR we had
to win. Instead of human casualities, there were defecits. Big Deal. Either the Soviet Union was
going to go bust or we were. And we all know how it turned out.
All this propaganda about the "RICH GETTING RICHER" is complete and utter bullsh!t. The SS tax is capped
at a certain amount, i.e, you only pay SS tax on the first 60-70K you earn ( I am not 100% sure on the
exact number). It is capped in a middle class tax bracket folks. Any money alloted to Social Security
through Payroll deductions will not allow for the Rich Getter Richer. Someone making 1 million vs. someone
making 75K a year will pay approximately the same in SS tax. Ok, do you understand that concept???????
<<Taking money out of the ss system would most likely result in the system going bankrupt a lot faster than it already is, or a reduction in payments, or something like that that would leave 20% of the people in a hospital because of poor health due to starvation/inability to afford cleaning supplies/whatever. >>
My plan is not the equivalent of trying to cash in Social Security, rather it tries to give it a higher
Rate of Return, as well as increase people's confidence in it. With a Higer rate a return, the money will
build up faster.
People, the government is cheating us - Plain and Simple. How can you reconcile a risk free rate of 5%
(the return of government issued bonds) with an rate of return on Social Security of 2%. At the moment,
the government is pretty much taking your money and buring it under the Capital building. You could do
better in a CD or money market. This is a crime.
[End Rant]
wake up man. Teachers have it awesome. They are exempt from SS tax, and they have 403B retirment plans.
They also work 180 days or so at Ornery said.
[Rant On]
All you people who talk about Reaganomics and Trickle Down Economic's are not realizing the context of
the situation the US was in at the time. WERE AT WAR. The Cold War was an ECONOMIC WAR we had
to win. Instead of human casualities, there were defecits. Big Deal. Either the Soviet Union was
going to go bust or we were. And we all know how it turned out.
All this propaganda about the "RICH GETTING RICHER" is complete and utter bullsh!t. The SS tax is capped
at a certain amount, i.e, you only pay SS tax on the first 60-70K you earn ( I am not 100% sure on the
exact number). It is capped in a middle class tax bracket folks. Any money alloted to Social Security
through Payroll deductions will not allow for the Rich Getter Richer. Someone making 1 million vs. someone
making 75K a year will pay approximately the same in SS tax. Ok, do you understand that concept???????
<<Taking money out of the ss system would most likely result in the system going bankrupt a lot faster than it already is, or a reduction in payments, or something like that that would leave 20% of the people in a hospital because of poor health due to starvation/inability to afford cleaning supplies/whatever. >>
My plan is not the equivalent of trying to cash in Social Security, rather it tries to give it a higher
Rate of Return, as well as increase people's confidence in it. With a Higer rate a return, the money will
build up faster.
People, the government is cheating us - Plain and Simple. How can you reconcile a risk free rate of 5%
(the return of government issued bonds) with an rate of return on Social Security of 2%. At the moment,
the government is pretty much taking your money and buring it under the Capital building. You could do
better in a CD or money market. This is a crime.
[End Rant]
Turkey,
you want to work until your 70, be my guest.
I am planning on retiring at the ripe age of 40-45.
20 years of hardwork is enough for me.
you want to work until your 70, be my guest.
I am planning on retiring at the ripe age of 40-45.
20 years of hardwork is enough for me.
Mr T, if you read well you will see that I called my plan my wet dream. I surely don't expect the feds to get out of my face. But then NEVER is a long, long time.
Actually, I didn't pick up on your intent to come up with feasible ideas because you yourself started off with a sample that is wierd. Sorry, but I thought you were kidding.
I say that because there is no room in the current ss tax structure to allow workers to divert part of their tax burden to private funding. There is just enough tax revenue to cover outlays through 2020, or some such year, and then it collapses (so they say). Thus, if you want additional privatization from the government, you're going to have to pay higher taxes. You were just kidding, right? I could never vote yes for that!
And since we already have several retirement privatization programs (401k, IRA, etc) it would seem to me to be foolish for anyone to vote for higher ss taxes so that they could then decide which government approved "fund" they want to invest it in. WTF?
The 401k and IRA privatization plans have been around for many decades already, and seem to be working well. Besides them giving us tax incentives to participate they are strictly voluntary and offer near limitless investment choices (I trade stocks with mine). I hate to admit it but the politicians back then actually came up with something clever for once.
Oh, and I AM one of the "dimwits" and "stooges" that voted against further privatizing ss in your poll because I don't want to pay higher taxes. Nor do I want to see current privatization programs mucked up with tables and such administered by government hacks.
Also, as an aside, I don't appreciate it when people ask for opinions and then resort to calling other people dimwits and stooges when their concepts don't fit well. How childish!
Actually, I didn't pick up on your intent to come up with feasible ideas because you yourself started off with a sample that is wierd. Sorry, but I thought you were kidding.
I say that because there is no room in the current ss tax structure to allow workers to divert part of their tax burden to private funding. There is just enough tax revenue to cover outlays through 2020, or some such year, and then it collapses (so they say). Thus, if you want additional privatization from the government, you're going to have to pay higher taxes. You were just kidding, right? I could never vote yes for that!
And since we already have several retirement privatization programs (401k, IRA, etc) it would seem to me to be foolish for anyone to vote for higher ss taxes so that they could then decide which government approved "fund" they want to invest it in. WTF?
The 401k and IRA privatization plans have been around for many decades already, and seem to be working well. Besides them giving us tax incentives to participate they are strictly voluntary and offer near limitless investment choices (I trade stocks with mine). I hate to admit it but the politicians back then actually came up with something clever for once.
Oh, and I AM one of the "dimwits" and "stooges" that voted against further privatizing ss in your poll because I don't want to pay higher taxes. Nor do I want to see current privatization programs mucked up with tables and such administered by government hacks.
Also, as an aside, I don't appreciate it when people ask for opinions and then resort to calling other people dimwits and stooges when their concepts don't fit well. How childish!
"There is just enough tax revenue to cover outlays through 2020, or some such year, and then it collapses (so they say). Thus, if you want additional privatization from the government, you're going to have to pay higher taxes."
How do you expect it to be rescued in 2020 then? I won't jump to the conclusion that it will need higher taxes at that point or before. I'll just let you answer that in your own words.
Otherwise, we can go ahead and start on the road to privatizing SS as most people in this thread agree is the way to go. The sooner the better. WTF should my employer and I pay into that abortion of a program AND kick money into a 401K, when so many government employees, including teachers, don't have to pay into it at all? People that insist on perpetuating this program under these conditions... :| ...have some explaining to do, AT LEAST!
How do you expect it to be rescued in 2020 then? I won't jump to the conclusion that it will need higher taxes at that point or before. I'll just let you answer that in your own words.
Otherwise, we can go ahead and start on the road to privatizing SS as most people in this thread agree is the way to go. The sooner the better. WTF should my employer and I pay into that abortion of a program AND kick money into a 401K, when so many government employees, including teachers, don't have to pay into it at all? People that insist on perpetuating this program under these conditions... :| ...have some explaining to do, AT LEAST!
emjem,
2 options:
1. Do nothing and watch SS go bankrupt by 2020... then see taxes increase, retirment age increase, etc.
2. Attempto to reform the system so it will never go bankrupt again.
As far as IRA's go. I love them. I am capped at 2K a year though. That is BS.
Increase to at least 5K. Whats the reason for keeping it so low?
2 options:
1. Do nothing and watch SS go bankrupt by 2020... then see taxes increase, retirment age increase, etc.
2. Attempto to reform the system so it will never go bankrupt again.
As far as IRA's go. I love them. I am capped at 2K a year though. That is BS.
Increase to at least 5K. Whats the reason for keeping it so low?
The cure for SS bankruptcy is already in place. Clinton started it and I'm guessing that Bush will expand on it.
It's really quite simple. Open the US/Mexican border.
The Mexicans are already flooding into this country. In Florida we have a special deal with them. They come in and do the work other Americans don't want to do, we educated their kids via school taxes, and they feed our elderly via SS taxes. Symbiosis!
They also give the US economy a good boost since they basically come here with NOTHING, and have a host of needs.
You people living in the Northern US probably don't see it, but those of us living in the warmer climates can attest to it.
It's really quite simple. Open the US/Mexican border.
The Mexicans are already flooding into this country. In Florida we have a special deal with them. They come in and do the work other Americans don't want to do, we educated their kids via school taxes, and they feed our elderly via SS taxes. Symbiosis!
They also give the US economy a good boost since they basically come here with NOTHING, and have a host of needs.
You people living in the Northern US probably don't see it, but those of us living in the warmer climates can attest to it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter