Spencer278
Diamond Member
When have you been unable to invest in your own private account?
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Social Security Reform
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
When have you been unable to invest in your own private account?
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
My answer? All of the above. Even current old people have gotten screwed out of the time-value of their money and a poor rate of return even if you discount the time-value. SS screws everyone - period.
CsG
CsG
Except if we ditch SS without proper planning, current older people will be REALLY screwed. Imagine going from some income (little though it may be) to NO income. The problem is that current SS is funded by current workers, it's not a savings fund like it should be, so if current workers stop paying into it, currently retired people are screwed.
CaptnKirk
Lifer
Every generation has been able to do better than the previous one.
Our history reflects this, we try to make it better for our children so our
children can do better for their children - which are our grandchildren.
Then Bush comes along and tells us that it's not supposed to be good for us,
and we should expect less - because his 'Corporate Buddies' deserve more
than we do, so he puts the mechanisms in place to offer us 25% less so his
Lobbist Financial Base can accrue 50% + more since it's their 'Tax Relief' that
have ended up being taken out of the carousel of financial responsibility.
Put the 'Corporate Dole back to where it was before the Cuts for the Wealthy,
and there is no 'Chrisis' to manage, it was falsely created - not unlike WMD.
What are they going to do ? take it with them, or leave it to Anna Nichole ?
Our history reflects this, we try to make it better for our children so our
children can do better for their children - which are our grandchildren.
Then Bush comes along and tells us that it's not supposed to be good for us,
and we should expect less - because his 'Corporate Buddies' deserve more
than we do, so he puts the mechanisms in place to offer us 25% less so his
Lobbist Financial Base can accrue 50% + more since it's their 'Tax Relief' that
have ended up being taken out of the carousel of financial responsibility.
Put the 'Corporate Dole back to where it was before the Cuts for the Wealthy,
and there is no 'Chrisis' to manage, it was falsely created - not unlike WMD.
What are they going to do ? take it with them, or leave it to Anna Nichole ?
Reverse mortgage? Spending other assets? Many retirees think of SS and investment dividends as their only source of cash. They don't understand that they can downsize their house (in my area, most retirees are in $400,000+ homes because of the red hot real-estate market). They could sell some of their stock, but they have just viewed it as a piggy bank.
Hey, even democrats should be happy to that with their opposition to intergenerational wealth transfer.
In my case, I'm not even counting social security in my retirement planning. I'm with the other 60%+ of my age group that thinks we won't see a dime.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Ah, but it is broke, and it's screwing everyone.
CsG
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
And some of us see that the reason the glass is only half full is because it is broken and leaking and wish to replace the glass😉
CsG
If George Bush had used some of the money from his budget busting massive tax giveaway to pay back some of the money taken out of the SS trust fund over the years, instead of lining his buddys' pockets, we wouldn't even be having this discussion now.
But he did, so...
Abolish the limit on maximum taxable income until the system reaches parity. Also, I agree with Winston Smith, and I've been asking the question as well, since the first of the baby boomers was born in 1946 and will be 72 years old by the time the draw down begins, where is the crisis? People die.
One more thing. Along with whoever you think might or might not get screwed remember this. The baby boomers paid a huge increase in Social Security contributions to keep their parents' generation living in relative comfort and from becoming homeless or subsisting on pet food. Money they could have used to fund their own retirement. But now it's gone and they were told certain benefits would be theirs in return. If you take those benefits away now you'll rob a lot of people who worked and paid for them for many years.
Don't cop this attitude as though the baby boomers are getting something they didn't pay for. They paid more into the system than any generation before them and, apparently with the skin flints we're raising now, after them too.
But he did, so...
Abolish the limit on maximum taxable income until the system reaches parity. Also, I agree with Winston Smith, and I've been asking the question as well, since the first of the baby boomers was born in 1946 and will be 72 years old by the time the draw down begins, where is the crisis? People die.
One more thing. Along with whoever you think might or might not get screwed remember this. The baby boomers paid a huge increase in Social Security contributions to keep their parents' generation living in relative comfort and from becoming homeless or subsisting on pet food. Money they could have used to fund their own retirement. But now it's gone and they were told certain benefits would be theirs in return. If you take those benefits away now you'll rob a lot of people who worked and paid for them for many years.
Don't cop this attitude as though the baby boomers are getting something they didn't pay for. They paid more into the system than any generation before them and, apparently with the skin flints we're raising now, after them too.
The boomer had promises made tot hem, just like our generation has had promises made to them. However it is already clear that the promised made to current generation are already broken. Why should the younger generation support the boomers, when we know we are not going to get what has been promised?
Why would we would to burdon our children with the same false promises when a better system could be devised.
CaptnKirk
Lifer
Anyone care to remember that SS was set up BECAUSE the stock market had taken the suckers for a ride ?
SS was created as a percaution so the 'Investors' wouldn't be taken again, a Government Guarantee
that they would be taken care of by investing in the 'Government' side of financial care.
You really want to let the Lay's, WorldComs, Enrons, etc. of the world back into the General Populations pocketbook to be picked . . again ?
SS was created as a percaution so the 'Investors' wouldn't be taken again, a Government Guarantee
that they would be taken care of by investing in the 'Government' side of financial care.
You really want to let the Lay's, WorldComs, Enrons, etc. of the world back into the General Populations pocketbook to be picked . . again ?
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
They are also the ones who have had the money spent on and by them....so don't cop this attitude that they aren't getting anything from the money they gave the gov't.
CsG
I'm not saying we CAN'T get rid of it. Hell, if we can figure out a good way to do so, I'm all for it. I'm 21 years old and I don't plan on seeing a dime out of social security, I'd rather have the money to invest the way I want (or at least keep it out of a scheme were I'll never see it again).
The problem is that people who are for getting rid of it don't seem to consider the complexity of doing so. There is this idea that we can just one day decide to ditch it and everything will work out. That's sort of worrying, and that's why I'm not really getting onboard with the idea. Maybe I'm reading the movement to get rid of it incorrectly, but it doesn't seem like we're thinking this all the way through.
Social Security was never meant to be a retirement plan. It was meant to be a guaranteed safe supplement so that no matter what happens, every person has some income. Prior to SS, many people had to beg for money to eat and many lived in slum conditions. There was no middle class, there were only rich and poor. If you were rich, life was good, horrible if you were poor.
Soc Sec is not only a retirement check to be gotten at age 65. It is also an insurance program that will pay you for the rest of your life if you become disabled and can no longer work. Another feature is that if you are married and happen to die, SS will pay death benefits to your wife and children. Also, if a husband is on SS but the wife is too young to be eligible and the husband dies, the wife can collect survivor benefits. This insurance feature of SS is something most of us could not afford to buy if we had to buy private insurance to provide this coverage.
SS is not in a crisis, that is just politicians BS. I recently heard someone on a financial show say, that if the high income tax cut that was enacted, be cut by only 20%, it would solve the SS problem until the end of the century.
This is just something to think about before deciding on what position to support. I would also suggest that a review of US lifestyle prior to SS (about 1900 - 1940) be undertaken; I doubt any of us would want to go back to that lifestyle. Pictures of that period really show what it was like.
Soc Sec is not only a retirement check to be gotten at age 65. It is also an insurance program that will pay you for the rest of your life if you become disabled and can no longer work. Another feature is that if you are married and happen to die, SS will pay death benefits to your wife and children. Also, if a husband is on SS but the wife is too young to be eligible and the husband dies, the wife can collect survivor benefits. This insurance feature of SS is something most of us could not afford to buy if we had to buy private insurance to provide this coverage.
SS is not in a crisis, that is just politicians BS. I recently heard someone on a financial show say, that if the high income tax cut that was enacted, be cut by only 20%, it would solve the SS problem until the end of the century.
This is just something to think about before deciding on what position to support. I would also suggest that a review of US lifestyle prior to SS (about 1900 - 1940) be undertaken; I doubt any of us would want to go back to that lifestyle. Pictures of that period really show what it was like.
And others see that the glass is twice as big as it needs to be 😉
Bottom line though is that you are going to have some needs from the elderly to be filled from some money from somewhere. If you want to get rid of regressive payroll taxation, I applaud that, I really do.
But if you think it's politically feasible to take away old people's benefits, you need to think again, and keep in mind that even the autocratic Putin wasn't able to pull it off, much less our cowardly politicians who know that old people vote in large numbers.
Russia's pensioner protests threaten Putin government.
SarcasticDwarf
Diamond Member
NO.
AARP only gets involved when seniors will LOSE benefits. That is the ONLY reason they complain.
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: 24K
-
-
