Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?

[charrison]

linkage

THIS is what we should do about Social Security: At the same time we acknowledge that it is the most successful domestic program in American history, we should also admit that Social Security, in its present form, is unsustainable. And then we should come up with a plan that is different than what President Bush and most of the pundits are proposing.

We should ask ourselves what would be a worthy aspiration for the financial security of retired Americans in the years ahead. My answer is that we should establish a process that will produce a substantial annuity for every American at retirement age.

By substantial, I mean at least $1 million. In order to create a real, fully financed annuity of this size, people must begin saving when they enter the work force. The saving needs to be continuous, and it needs to be left intact so that compound interest can work its magic.

We can do this. We already have a process in place that requires that we give the government 12.4 percent of our income in the name of Social Security.

The problem with the current arrangement is that our contributions are a tax, not savings. So we should begin by agreeing that we are going to require all Americans to save, individually, to provide for their financial security in old age. After all, if we don't save on our own for our retirement needs, who will do it for us? Our neighbors? Our children? In a civilized society we have a responsibility to take care of our own needs so as not to be a burden on others.

...

The social policy technocrats will have a more legitimate concern: how do we get from where we are to this new and better condition? While I was secretary of the Treasury, the Federal Reserve chairman, Alan Greenspan, and I worked on an idea to jump-start the changeover by borrowing enough money to put money into individual accounts now, beginning with the youngest workers. We did some very rough calculations that showed for $1 trillion, we could transfer the population from age 18 to the mid-30's into this new arrangement.

The value of doing this is twofold. First, it hastens the transition to the new program for society overall. Second, the $1 trillion of borrowing now (to be paid from general revenues over the next 20 years) makes a substantial dent in the unfinanced liability of the current program.

As to the current program, everyone above the age of 35 could keep their current relationship with Social Security and their benefits intact. Their children, though, would have a better life. And that, after all, is the promise on which this nation has been built.

So there it is. Do we have political leaders who are interested in surpassing Franklin Roosevelt's achievement of 70 years ago?

 

[SuperTool]

So you like the idea of government borrowing money to put it into young people's individual account, to be paid off from general revenue (progressive tax)? All right, gimme the government money then.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
So you like the idea of government borrowing money to put it into young people's individual account, to be paid off from general revenue (progressive tax)? All right, gimme the government money then.

It has more to do with the fact that an individual's earnings are put into their own account - not a big insurance type pool. If the goal is for financial stability in old age - then this should be a decent approach.

CsG

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
So you like the idea of government borrowing money to put it into young people's individual account, to be paid off from general revenue (progressive tax)? All right, gimme the government money then.

It would be a viable plan to fix problems with SS. And such plans need to be discussed, sooner rather than later.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
So you like the idea of government borrowing money to put it into young people's individual account, to be paid off from general revenue (progressive tax)? All right, gimme the government money then.

It would be a viable plan to fix problems with SS. And such plans need to be discussed, sooner rather than later.

Well, stop discussing it, and just redistribute some of that general revenue wealth into my individual account.

 

[yllus]

If the argument is the average American is too dumb to start and maintain their own retirement fund, why not just force that percentage paid into S.S. into individual accounts at banks with a "these funds become available in 20XX" condition? Just keep the money from going anywhere the government's own coffers and all should be well, right?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: yllus
If the argument is the average American is too dumb to start and maintain their own retirement fund, why not just force that percentage paid into S.S. into individual accounts at banks with a "these funds become available in 20XX" condition? Just keep the money from going anywhere the government's own coffers and all should be well, right?

Well, sure but kind of accounts would you put the money in?

CsG

 

[OokiiNeko]

If all the funds for SS (that is the part out of our paychecks) had been put into a separate account since SS started, that Congress COULD NOT touch, would SS have funding problems today??

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: OokiiNeko
If all the funds for SS (that is the part out of our paychecks) had been put into a separate account since SS started, that Congress COULD NOT touch, would SS have funding problems today??

No, because people would be funding their own Unless you are talking about 1 big seperate fund - then potentially no - but it would still fail due to it's structure.

CsG

 

[OokiiNeko]

And that points out the BS being fed to us. (Regurgitated by far too many here).
SS hasn't, isn't and won't be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Its the pork spending that sails thru, then Congress saves SS funding for last and says,"Oh my, we don't have the money for this."

 

[Spencer278]

How about this. We change SS from every over 67 gets a check to everyone over 67 gets a check if they can't afforad to live without one. Then cut SS tax until it has a blance budget. If people want to live better then some shack they can save their own money with out the goverment screwing with it.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: OokiiNeko
And that points out the BS being fed to us. (Regurgitated by far too many here).
SS hasn't, isn't and won't be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Its the pork spending that sails thru, then Congress saves SS funding for last and says,"Oh my, we don't have the money for this."

Uh - we're talking strictly about SS here. It is a socialist scourge that needs to be done away with and replaced by a better system - the OP being one such system.

Now if you want to whine about the budget or in concert with SS - then there are many threads for that.

CsG

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Boy the privitization of the Brits SS worked wonders! :roll:

I'll stick with the old plan, thanks.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: OokiiNeko
And that points out the BS being fed to us. (Regurgitated by far too many here).
SS hasn't, isn't and won't be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Its the pork spending that sails thru, then Congress saves SS funding for last and says,"Oh my, we don't have the money for this."

Uh - we're talking strictly about SS here. It is a socialist scourge that needs to be done away with and replaced by a better system - the OP being one such system.

Now if you want to whine about the budget or in concert with SS - then there are many threads for that.

CsG

The op plan just sucks. When people get to what ever age SS should kick in and they are not getting the same benifits they will start complain and voting back the old system. Just kill SS and make a new walfare for old people who can't work.

 

[OokiiNeko]

CAD,

The thread is about alternates to SS because SS is supposedly "broken".

My point is it was the management of the SS system, not SS itself that is "broken".

And if you'd like to "whine" about what does and what does not belong in a thread, there are plenty of software packages out there that will let you run your own forum.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: OokiiNeko
CAD,

The thread is about alternates to SS because SS is supposedly "broken".

My point is it was the management of the SS system, not SS itself that is "broken".

And if you'd like to "whine" about what does and what does not belong in a thread, there are plenty of software packages out there that will let you run your own forum.

And the point is that not only is the management broken but also the system itself. It isn't self sustaining. Old people are living longer, costing more, and the among of younger workers vs old people is declining.

Now again, you can't change the past - only have a say in the future. Some of us don't want to pass these problems on to our kids, grandkids, etc instead of allowing this failed system to continue on.

CsG

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool
So you like the idea of government borrowing money to put it into young people's individual account, to be paid off from general revenue (progressive tax)? All right, gimme the government money then.

It has more to do with the fact that an individual's earnings are put into their own account - not a big insurance type pool. If the goal is for financial stability in old age - then this should be a decent approach.

CsG

Doesn't this defeat the purpose of Old Age, Survivor, and Disablity Insurance?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool
So you like the idea of government borrowing money to put it into young people's individual account, to be paid off from general revenue (progressive tax)? All right, gimme the government money then.

It has more to do with the fact that an individual's earnings are put into their own account - not a big insurance type pool. If the goal is for financial stability in old age - then this should be a decent approach.

CsG

Doesn't this defeat the purpose of Old Age, Survivor, and Disablity Insurance?

Yes, and?

CsG

 

[OokiiNeko]

Now again, you can't change the past - only have a say in the future. Some of us don't want to pass these problems on to our kids, grandkids, etc instead of allowing this failed system to continue on.

I see where you are coming from, but SS failing is a symptom, not the disease. The disease is all of us allowing Congress to spend without accountability.
We would better serve our kids and grandkids by talking about our current problems in an honest fashion, then setting about fixing them. To say that "Social Security failed" just strikes me as a very misleading label to the problem.

 

[joshw10]

If people are living longer, than is it right to assume they're also healthier and retiring at a later age? If not, it will be a huge problem when people are living to 100 and spending half their lives in retirement

Not to mention the age of entering the workforce keeps increasing due to more college/grad school educations

 

[OS]

SS privatization is nothing more than a government sponsored 401K plan. I'm already 401Ked up the ass, I don't care for any more, particularly one run by the government. All the people crying about SS being broken, they can just put more money in their 401K. If that's not enough, they can call themselves a WAHmbulance. Our current SS obligations must be paid anyways and "reforming" SS won't change that.

Good thing all the senior citizens will vote down this stupid ass idea.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: OokiiNeko

Now again, you can't change the past - only have a say in the future. Some of us don't want to pass these problems on to our kids, grandkids, etc instead of allowing this failed system to continue on.

I see where you are coming from, but SS failing is a symptom, not the disease. The disease is all of us allowing Congress to spend without accountability.
We would better serve our kids and grandkids by talking about our current problems in an honest fashion, then setting about fixing them. To say that "Social Security failed" just strikes me as a very misleading label to the problem.

Ah, but that's where you are still wrong. Despite the other issues - SS is a failed scheme. It isn't self-sustaining and is basically an immoral gov't program - but that's a whole different subject that is being discussed in multiple other threads and this one is about the proposal by PAUL O'NEILL.

CsG

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: OS
SS privatization is nothing more than a government sponsored 401K plan. I'm already 401Ked up the ass, I don't care for any more, particularly one run by the government. All the people crying about SS being broken, they can just put more money in their 401K. If that's not enough, they can call themselves a WAHmbulance. Our current SS obligations must be paid anyways and "reforming" SS won't change that.

Good thing all the senior citizens will vote down this stupid ass idea.

YEs good thing they will vote to pick the pockets of their children and grandchildren. I dont know a single my person my age that expects social security to be around when we retire. WE will have paid a lifetime, for nothing. The 12% taken for SS would let most people retire very nicely.

 

[Jhhnn]

From CsG-

Uh - we're talking strictly about SS here. It is a socialist scourge that needs to be done away with and replaced by a better system - the OP being one such system.

Finally, we get to both the fundamental deception behind the current campaign against SS, and the real reason behind it.

The fundamental deception, of course, is that SS exists in a vacuum, independent of other federal fiscal considerations, which simply isn't true. The SS Trust is one of the govt's biggest creditors, holding over $1.5T in treasury notes, an amount that grows daily. The argument goes that the Trust isn't "real", that the money wasn't ever actually there... Funny that, the money seemed real enough when deducted from my paycheck all these years, and I'm confident that the checks sent to the SS admin by my employers were "real" enough, also that the treasuries held by SS are perfectly "real", too, and just as valid as any others...

The problem faced by the repubs is that their "don't tax, just borrow more money" policy is bankrupting the treasury, shackling our heirs to the millstone of debt. But it would be very nice, for their purposes, to be able to escape repayment of some of that debt so that the looting spree can be extended. There's no escape from international bankers, however, or from the political donor class holding much of that debt, either... so they'll put their sights on other targets, namely the chumps who've re-elected them, via their SS shares. They certainly don't relish the day when SS contributions are outweighed by SS obligations, as that will begin to reveal the extent of the fundamental deception in their infinite rollover of explosively increasing debt scenario...

And why, pray tell, are the Rightwingers so enamored with the destruction of what even O'Neill, obviously no leftie, describes as "the most successful domestic program in American history"? Because, as CsG so eloquently put it, SS is a "Socialist Scourge", removing it from consideration as a practical matter into the realm of ideology, where things don't really have to make sense...

O'Neill says it's the most successful domestic program in american history, CsG claims it's "failed", even though no real issues with it are projected until at least 2018, even if the govt goes broke in the meanwhile, and not until 2042-2052 if he govt is solvent, and in a position to repay its obligations... which is precisely where the current policy won't allow us to be, and is precisely why none of those on the Right want any examination of SS within that larger and completely apropo context... The real "CRISIS!" won't happen wrt SS except as spillover from the larger and much more urgent crisis with the general fund, a crisis deliberately induced by the current repub leadership...

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From CsG-

Uh - we're talking strictly about SS here. It is a socialist scourge that needs to be done away with and replaced by a better system - the OP being one such system.

Finally, we get to both the fundamental deception behind the current campaign against SS, and the real reason behind it.

The fundamental deception, of course, is that SS exists in a vacuum, independent of other federal fiscal considerations, which simply isn't true. The SS Trust is one of the govt's biggest creditors, holding over $1.5T in treasury notes, an amount that grows daily. The argument goes that the Trust isn't "real", that the money wasn't ever actually there... Funny that, the money seemed real enough when deducted from my paycheck all these years, and I'm confident that the checks sent to the SS admin by my employers were "real" enough, also that the treasuries held by SS are perfectly "real", too, and just as valid as any others...

The problem faced by the repubs is that their "don't tax, just borrow more money" policy is bankrupting the treasury, shackling our heirs to the millstone of debt. But it would be very nice, for their purposes, to be able to escape repayment of some of that debt so that the looting spree can be extended. There's no escape from international bankers, however, or from the political donor class holding much of that debt, either... so they'll put their sights on other targets, namely the chumps who've re-elected them, via their SS shares. They certainly don't relish the day when SS contributions are outweighed by SS obligations, as that will begin to reveal the extent of the fundamental deception in their infinite rollover of explosively increasing debt scenario...

And why, pray tell, are the Rightwingers so enamored with the destruction of what even O'Neill, obviously no leftie, describes as "the most successful domestic program in American history"? Because, as CsG so eloquently put it, SS is a "Socialist Scourge", removing it from consideration as a practical matter into the realm of ideology, where things don't really have to make sense...

O'Neill says it's the most successful domestic program in american history, CsG claims it's "failed", even though no real issues with it are projected until at least 2018, even if the govt goes broke in the meanwhile, and not until 2042-2052 if he govt is solvent, and in a position to repay its obligations... which is precisely where the current policy won't allow us to be, and is precisely why none of those on the Right want any examination of SS within that larger and completely apropo context... The real "CRISIS!" won't happen wrt SS except as spillover from the larger and much more urgent crisis with the general fund, a crisis deliberately induced by the current repub leadership...

The only problem with SS is that the rich will be forced to pay more for SS when the bonds come due. The neo-cons are not happy about that because the genral fund taxes are not regressive.