Social Security/Ponzi Scheme.

[lupi]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Stop whining. Feel free to go live in Iraq or Afghanistan if you don't like it.

:roll:

Given the other crap he's posted, that doesn't surprise me.


As for SS, raising the retirement age is a big no-no. Where you start is having the government returning all the money they've taken (with lost interest would be nice, but let's limit our dreams for now). Also revise legislation so that those immigrating past the age which they could resonably contribute to the system would be unable to receive full benefits as they do now.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Way to ignore facts and ~~snip~~ posts. If the facts don't fit your proaganda, just ignore them, eh? Goebbels would be so proud of you ....

Social Security's original retirement age of 65 was set in 1935 when life expectancy was 63. Today, life expectancy is 77.

"The actuarial cost of fully funding Social Security and Medicare for the next 75 years is less than 2% of GDP". Probably lower with benefit adjustments, a raise in retirement age, fixing the broken Part D Big Pharma Give-A-Way, and actually doing something to rein in health care costs ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Way to ignore facts and ~~snip~~ posts. If the facts don't fit your proaganda, just ignore them, eh? Goebbels would be so proud of you ....

Social Security's original retirement age of 65 was set in 1935 when life expectancy was 63. Today, life expectancy is 77.

"The actuarial cost of fully funding Social Security and Medicare for the next 75 years is less than 2% of GDP". Probably lower with benefit adjustments, a raise in retirement age, fixing the broken Part D Big Pharma Give-A-Way, and actually doing something to rein in health care costs ....

And you're comparing this to GDP why? Comparing it to salaries is more meaningful.

 

[bamacre]

2% of GDP = 20.2% of our entire budget in 2007

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_budget_2007.svg

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Way to ignore facts and ~~snip~~ posts. If the facts don't fit your proaganda, just ignore them, eh? Goebbels would be so proud of you ....

Social Security's original retirement age of 65 was set in 1935 when life expectancy was 63. Today, life expectancy is 77.

"The actuarial cost of fully funding Social Security and Medicare for the next 75 years is less than 2% of GDP". Probably lower with benefit adjustments, a raise in retirement age, fixing the broken Part D Big Pharma Give-A-Way, and actually doing something to rein in health care costs ....

And you're comparing this to GDP why? Comparing it to salaries is more meaningful.

Because GDP is a far more accurate way to measure a country's ability to pay for something. Social Security is fine, it just has to be adjusted for shifting demographics. It was never intended to be something people collected for decades.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: Dufusyte
Social Security worked great when you had a huge number of baby boomers paying into it, and a less numerous population of elderly collecting from it.

Now that the boomers are retiring, there will be lots of elderly collecting, and less people paying into it. Ergo, no workie.

The first generation which received benefits at the beginning of the program (during Roosevelt's New Deal) had not paid into it. On the flip side, the final generation to pay into it will not receive anything back from it (because it will be broke). We find ourselves on the flip side of it.

It was all a matter of demographics, and now we are at the inflection point where the demographics say "bust". It was nice while it lasted.

Thanks for playing, er, paying.

Also, look at the average life expectancy of people in the U.S when SS was implemented to what it is today. People are living a lot longer and needing more payouts.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Way to ignore facts and ~~snip~~ posts. If the facts don't fit your proaganda, just ignore them, eh? Goebbels would be so proud of you ....

Social Security's original retirement age of 65 was set in 1935 when life expectancy was 63. Today, life expectancy is 77.

"The actuarial cost of fully funding Social Security and Medicare for the next 75 years is less than 2% of GDP". Probably lower with benefit adjustments, a raise in retirement age, fixing the broken Part D Big Pharma Give-A-Way, and actually doing something to rein in health care costs ....

And you're comparing this to GDP why? Comparing it to salaries is more meaningful.

Because GDP is a far more accurate way to measure a country's ability to pay for something. Social Security is fine, it just has to be adjusted for shifting demographics. It was never intended to be something people collected for decades.

I don't agree with that. I think it's a cop-out, its the easiest way to make a number as small as possible. I also don't like the comparison with GDP because it seems to suggest that something is affordable as long as you tax the hell out of people to pay for it. And that's just wrong on many levels.

So, again...

2% of GDP = 20.2% of our entire budget in 2007

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_budget_2007.svg

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Because GDP is a far more accurate way to measure a country's ability to pay for something. Social Security is fine, it just has to be adjusted for shifting demographics. It was never intended to be something people collected for decades.

I don't agree with that. I think it's a cop-out, its the easiest way to make a number as small as possible. I also don't like the comparison with GDP because it seems to suggest that something is affordable as long as you tax the hell out of people to pay for it. And that's just wrong on many levels.

So, again...

2% of GDP = 20.2% of our entire budget in 2007

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_budget_2007.svg

I'm sorry but that doesn't make any sense. The size of our GDP tells us what level of taxation (roughly) we will need to pay for the services we want. The budget is just some arbitrary amount of money that we've already chosen to spend and it tells us nothing about our ability to pay for it. GDP tells us exactly our ability to pay for it.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: Dufusyte
Social Security worked great when you had a huge number of baby boomers paying into it, and a less numerous population of elderly collecting from it.

Now that the boomers are retiring, there will be lots of elderly collecting, and less people paying into it. Ergo, no workie.

The first generation which received benefits at the beginning of the program (during Roosevelt's New Deal) had not paid into it. On the flip side, the final generation to pay into it will not receive anything back from it (because it will be broke). We find ourselves on the flip side of it.

It was all a matter of demographics, and now we are at the inflection point where the demographics say "bust". It was nice while it lasted.

Thanks for playing, er, paying.

Also, look at the average life expectancy of people in the U.S when SS was implemented to what it is today. People are living a lot longer and needing more payouts.

So FIX IT. One problem is life expectancy, yeah. People are using SS in the wrong way. They are not only drawing out tons of benefits, they are using it to cover them for decades. Furthermore, people are planning sh!tty retirements and thus RELY on SS.

Let people opt out or privatize their SS or whatever it is. Technically this should be a net neutral effect, but at least let those who want to earn more earn it. I honestly think the return rates on T-Bills are crap and by forcing us into this, we're being deprived of a lot of money. This is why we have 401Ks and IRAs for those who want a TRUE retirement fund.

Second of all, yeah raise the eligibility age. Are there any studies showing the effects of raising the eligibility age to say 65 or 70? Same goes with Medicare.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Because GDP is a far more accurate way to measure a country's ability to pay for something. Social Security is fine, it just has to be adjusted for shifting demographics. It was never intended to be something people collected for decades.

I don't agree with that. I think it's a cop-out, its the easiest way to make a number as small as possible. I also don't like the comparison with GDP because it seems to suggest that something is affordable as long as you tax the hell out of people to pay for it. And that's just wrong on many levels.

So, again...

2% of GDP = 20.2% of our entire budget in 2007

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_budget_2007.svg

I'm sorry but that doesn't make any sense. The size of our GDP tells us what level of taxation (roughly) we will need to pay for the services we want. The budget is just some arbitrary amount of money that we've already chosen to spend and it tells us nothing about our ability to pay for it. GDP tells us exactly our ability to pay for it.

No, it really doesn't, because it doesn't take into account everything else we need to pay for.

 

[Genx87]

heyheybooboo brought at good point. The system how it was originally setup was by design not going to pay out to nearly half the people paying in. What happened of course is our health care got better and we live longer. The system needs an adjustment to go with the times. Raise the requirements into the mid 70s. Perhaps 74-76 and watch how it survives.

Also imo they need to implement a financial requirement for the system. There is no need somebody with a nice estate needs to get a govt check each month.

We need to acknowledge this is nothing but welfare for the elderly. Do we give our welfare for the young without making them apply and be eligible for it? There are many ways to fix the system. But with poiliticians and our own greed involved I dont expect a fix outside of saddling the younger generations with a higher tax to pay for it.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Ponzi Scheme, which is like an advanced pyramid scheme. They are undoubtedly illegal, except that is precisely what social security is.

From this

The main difference here is that everybody is forced to contribute, so it didn?t fall apart a long time ago because the government, by force of law, makes everybody participate.

We all know that for the amount we pay into social security (12%/person) we get back a platry return. We know with time that SS taxes are higher and higher. The talk now to hold off what we all know as inevitable is to simply increase the ceiling of SS contributions, so as this boat has more holes shot into its hull we simply buy a bigger water pump.

I just find it incredible that it was ever allowed to get to this point.

And that?s why I think they are looking at this now because if the trust fund was to be sound until the year 2040 ? or whatever stupid year they came up with ? when have you ever known a politician who only cares about next year?s election to worry about something that occurs 30 years from now.

Hehe, so true!

One small clarification:
We all DO NOT pay 12%/person in too SS. there are many who pay a lot less in percentages.

 

[piasabird]

If you reach the cap which is around $75,000.00(Income) you get to stop paying social security. So if your income is say 10 million you dont pay anything for the portion that is over the SS Cap. That is a real rip off.

I work in education so I have not paid any social security since I started working here. However, I already paid enough significant quarters of SS that I have paid enough into it to receive social security. However, they will cut my social security back simply because I get retirement money from my Job. That is a real rip off.

 

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Dufusyte
Social Security worked great when you had a huge number of baby boomers paying into it, and a less numerous population of elderly collecting from it.

Now that the boomers are retiring, there will be lots of elderly collecting, and less people paying into it. Ergo, no workie.

The first generation which received benefits at the beginning of the program (during Roosevelt's New Deal) had not paid into it. On the flip side, the final generation to pay into it will not receive anything back from it (because it will be broke). We find ourselves on the flip side of it.

It was all a matter of demographics, and now we are at the inflection point where the demographics say "bust". It was nice while it lasted.

Thanks for playing, er, paying.

I see no reason some adjustments can't be made to make the system work with new demographics. It's true that people are living longer and there are more people retiring than there used to be, but that doesn't mean the system is fundamentally broken, it means it won't work in exactly the same way now that it did when it was first proposed.

Of course it is fundamentally broken. Find me any other investment vehicle in which 12% of my wages over the course of my life would give me so little when I retire. I think under a mattress is a close approximation.

Unless you are already over the age of 65, under the mattress is NOT a close approximation. Under the mattress would at least leave something there for when you retire. Social Security will NOT.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: piasabird
If you reach the cap which is around $75,000.00(Income) you get to stop paying social security.

Actually, the cap is $102K for 2008, and climbs every year.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Of course it is fundamentally broken. Find me any other investment vehicle in which 12% of my wages over the course of my life would give me so little when I retire. I think under a mattress is a close approximation.

Well, isn't the idea that SS is supposed to be ridiculously low risk? Such things yield small returns, but at least they are more of a guarantee which is something we need as a last resort. I am not saying that we cannot do something better, but whatever we do it needs to be extremely low risk. It needs to almost be a guarantee.

Except it does have risk; namely, that the economy will not grow as fast as the SS administration claims that it will.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
It is and it isn't a ponzi scheme....




Usually a Ponzi scheme (and I have had personal experience with a hedge fund on this) relies on an ever greater number of participants to pay off the early participants. ALSO a ponzi scheme usually involves the certain knowledge that you are cheating people out of money.

SS is a little different in that it wasn't set up with the intention that its a scam to begin with, but it does rely on future generations to pay into it.


How SS IS getting scammed is a little different. The gov't uses SS money as a slush fund which they borrow against. If all the SS contributions were not borrowed there would be a lot more money in there now at this point.

Legally, the money belongs to the gov't, not you. Why shouldn't they spend it?

Of course they "spend" it. What's the alternative? Stick it in a mattress? What a wonderful inflation-proof strategy that would be.

Essentially, excess SS funds are given to the government in exchange for a special class of Treasury notes. Would you prefer they instead be invested them in Lehman Brothers, er, Goldman Sachs, er, Bear Stearns, er, AIG, er . . . ?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: Dufusyte
Social Security worked great when you had a huge number of baby boomers paying into it, and a less numerous population of elderly collecting from it.

Now that the boomers are retiring, there will be lots of elderly collecting, and less people paying into it. Ergo, no workie.

The first generation which received benefits at the beginning of the program (during Roosevelt's New Deal) had not paid into it. On the flip side, the final generation to pay into it will not receive anything back from it (because it will be broke). We find ourselves on the flip side of it.

It was all a matter of demographics, and now we are at the inflection point where the demographics say "bust". It was nice while it lasted.

Thanks for playing, er, paying.

Also, look at the average life expectancy of people in the U.S when SS was implemented to what it is today. People are living a lot longer and needing more payouts.

So FIX IT. One problem is life expectancy, yeah. People are using SS in the wrong way. They are not only drawing out tons of benefits, they are using it to cover them for decades. Furthermore, people are planning sh!tty retirements and thus RELY on SS.

Let people opt out or privatize their SS or whatever it is. Technically this should be a net neutral effect, but at least let those who want to earn more earn it. I honestly think the return rates on T-Bills are crap and by forcing us into this, we're being deprived of a lot of money. This is why we have 401Ks and IRAs for those who want a TRUE retirement fund.

Second of all, yeah raise the eligibility age. Are there any studies showing the effects of raising the eligibility age to say 65 or 70? Same goes with Medicare.

I say we just kill off the old people.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: Dufusyte
Social Security worked great when you had a huge number of baby boomers paying into it, and a less numerous population of elderly collecting from it.

Now that the boomers are retiring, there will be lots of elderly collecting, and less people paying into it. Ergo, no workie.

The first generation which received benefits at the beginning of the program (during Roosevelt's New Deal) had not paid into it. On the flip side, the final generation to pay into it will not receive anything back from it (because it will be broke). We find ourselves on the flip side of it.

It was all a matter of demographics, and now we are at the inflection point where the demographics say "bust". It was nice while it lasted.

Thanks for playing, er, paying.

Also, look at the average life expectancy of people in the U.S when SS was implemented to what it is today. People are living a lot longer and needing more payouts.

So FIX IT. One problem is life expectancy, yeah. People are using SS in the wrong way. They are not only drawing out tons of benefits, they are using it to cover them for decades. Furthermore, people are planning sh!tty retirements and thus RELY on SS.

Let people opt out or privatize their SS or whatever it is. Technically this should be a net neutral effect, but at least let those who want to earn more earn it. I honestly think the return rates on T-Bills are crap and by forcing us into this, we're being deprived of a lot of money. This is why we have 401Ks and IRAs for those who want a TRUE retirement fund.

Second of all, yeah raise the eligibility age. Are there any studies showing the effects of raising the eligibility age to say 65 or 70? Same goes with Medicare.

I say we just kill off the old people.

Well, SS should work even as a pay as you go program. It's just that we need address easy issues first. Now, to deal with it as a fully funded program, you have to gradually phase that in. Bottom line is I would love to see choice involved because if I could dump that 6.2% into say a 401k, that would be FAR more worth it to me rather than to see it disappear into government spending

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Well, isn't the idea that SS is supposed to be ridiculously low risk? Such things yield small returns, but at least they are more of a guarantee which is something we need as a last resort. I am not saying that we cannot do something better, but whatever we do it needs to be extremely low risk. It needs to almost be a guarantee.

SS isn't low risk because the government doesn't owe you a cent of the money you paid in.