• 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.

Why the Social Security System Needs to be Reformed

A

AGodspeed

Diamond Member
My dad worked at UCLA as a scientist for nearly 20 years and was automatically vested in the University of California Retirement System (U.C.R.S.). He never paid into Social Security during his years at UCLA, but as a college student at Columbia and at several other jobs during his lifetime, his income was taxed for SS.

Just today, my father found out that, after having paid into Social Security for a grand total of 57 quarters, he will not be receiving ANY Social Security benefits EVER. That?s nearly 15 years of paying SS taxes that my dad will NEVER see reimbursed all because of some arbitrary rule that states that a person can't have a different public retirement program and still get benefits from Social Security, even if they?ve paid into SS before they vested in a different public SS program!

I could go into other, non-personal related reasons why Social Security needs major reformation (like the politically controlled nature of SS funds, lack of monetary influence, and inaccurate reimbursement of SS funds to citizens in general), but that would take an eternity to go over.

I'm just a little peeved, that's all. :disgust:

Btw, this is a non-flaming thread. 🙂
 
Man that sucks.

Reason 1: The Social Security System needs to be reformed so that people my age will be able to collect benefits 40 years from now when it's our turn.
 
Vote libertarian.

Don't worry; it's only a matter of time until social security are means-tested; i.e. those of us who a) have made b) (more likely and far far more insidiously) have saved howevermuch money don't get any SS, or get less SS.

Yep, system needs reform. Individual responsibility . . .
 


<< Man that sucks.

Reason 1: The Social Security System needs to be reformed so that people my age will be able to collect benefits 40 years from now when it's our turn. >>



I've given up on ever seeing the money I've paid into SS. Unless its with an negative rate of return. SCREW AARP!
 


<< Vote libertarian.

Don't worry; it's only a matter of time until social security are means-tested; i.e. those of us who a) have made b) (more likely and far far more insidiously) have saved howevermuch money don't get any SS, or get less SS.

Yep, system needs reform. Individual responsibility . . . >>



Great... that'll just encourage more people to not save their money.
 


<< Anyhow, what do you think should be done to reform it? >>

To summarize my general idea for reformation...

Reforming the SS system should be done according to principles similar to those that govern I.R.A. and 401K tax-deferred accounts. At first, only a small portion of Social Security contributions should go into such accounts, and these accounts must, by law, be highly diversified. If, over a period of several years, this approach proves fruitful, the portion invested into such accounts can be increased.

But anyway...does anyone else have some good ideas for reformation?
 
The big problem is corrupt federal government officials spending the money allotted to SS on other things. That lovely General Fund is where they place the money. The "Trust" in Social Security Trust Fund was broken. This is why anything leading to a welfare state is ultimately more destructive than beneficial.

The entire system should be destroyed and a new one created that allows complete personal control over the money an individual chooses to save over his lifetime. Get the greedy feds. away from that money and let us manage it. Geez, it's so simple.
 
If we reformed it how would the government get money to pay for its wars? Balance the budget? Sure, that'll happen.
rolleye.gif


I wish they would privitize the whole damn thing. Even if people didn't put money into it they'd probably see just as much money in their retirement as they would if they threw it away in the government.
 
I find it funny that certain people think certain political parties will fix the problem, especially the libertarians.

I assure you that if libertarians were in office, Social Security would be one of the first things on the cutting board. Furthermore, I'd like to know your reasoning behind thinking the opposite.

Republicans might be too consistently political to do anything, though. People with extended political backgrounds aren't apt to rock the boat imho.

As for fixing it, the solution seems rather simple--you could make each person's contributions linked to what he receives, or you could kill the system entirely going forward; that is, pay out what you need to pay out to people still on the system, and link everything else to something as non-governmental as possible.

The idea that the government is responsible for retirement is inane imho. Death to medicare while we're at it; all that does is create physicians assistants doing everything so doctors who accept it can turn a dime. No good.
 
IMHO, I think privatizing SS would be the first important step in the overhauling process. This is no small reformation, but necessary nonetheless.
 
But what happens when you privatize SS? Even Bush's proposal does not say you can invest in whatever you like. They will tell you which companies, bonds, etc you can pick from and ultimately how much. In our political culture I think that's just as apt for collapse due to money grubbing activity as the inept SS administration we have now.

And thats why we should vote all Democrats out of office.
?I?m counting on the stock market and safe bonds doing a better job than the current investment in the Social Security trust,? Bush said. ?And with all due respect, I think the idea of leaving future generations huge debts is not leadership.?
One of my promises is going to be Social Security reform, and you bet we need to take a trillion dollar ? trillion dollars out of that $2.4 trillion surplus.
Now, remember, Social Security revenue exceeds expenses up until 2015. People are going to get paid. But if you?re a younger worker, if you?re younger, you better hope this country thinks differently, otherwise you?re going to be faced with huge payroll taxes or reduced benefits. And you bet we?re going to take a trillion dollars of your own money and let you invest it under safe guidelines to get a better rate of return on the money than the paltry 2 percent that the federal government gets for you today. That?s one of my promises.

Well where does reform come from now that we're going to spend that surplus?



 


<< My dad worked at UCLA as a scientist for nearly 20 years and was automatically vested in the University of California Retirement System (U.C.R.S.). He never paid into Social Security during his years at UCLA, but as a college student at Columbia and at several other jobs during his lifetime, his income was taxed for SS.

Just today, my father found out that, after having paid into Social Security for a grand total of 57 quarters, he will not be receiving ANY Social Security benefits EVER. That?s nearly 15 years of paying SS taxes that my dad will NEVER see reimbursed all because of some arbitrary rule that states that a person can't have a different public retirement program and still get benefits from Social Security, even if they?ve paid into SS before they vested in a different public SS program!

I could go into other, non-personal related reasons why Social Security needs major reformation (like the politically controlled nature of SS funds, lack of monetary influence, and inaccurate reimbursement of SS funds to citizens in general), but that would take an eternity to go over.

I'm just a little peeved, that's all. :disgust:

Btw, this is a non-flaming thread. 🙂 >>



For me, I think $1000 a month into savings accout would work better than this SS system. I don't think people should receive more than they put into it, because this will result in some people getting far less than they put. SS is definitely made to be advanatageous for people on lower end of food chain.
 


<< SS is definitely made to be advanatageous for people on lower end of food chain.

Yeah, so what's your point? >>



And it should change!, because it sucks for the original posters, myself and many people who aren't in lower end food chain.
 
Well, that's too bad. Sometimes life doesn't go your way. I have no expectation whatsoever of collecting SS. But if it keeps the old and the poor in basic housing and healthcare (Medicare/Medicaid) so be it. Trust me if FDR could have forseen conception control maybe he would have canned the New Deal or at least instituted escalating age requirements. I believe the current cap on FICA is 72K which means most people with a little money plus are not having their lifestyle severely curtailed by SS taxes.

The thread title is correct but the supporting reason isn't the most pressing aspect. We cannot afford to have able-bodied people on the public dole for 20+ years just because they turn 65 (escalating slowly to 67). SS was designed as an intergenerational redistribution of wealth. But old people should help foot the bill for their own. Yeah, if you're expecting an inheritance it's gonna cost you but it is the compulsory transfer of wealth between generations that needs to be controlled b/c WE (GenX/Y) will ultimately fund the retirement of our parents, grandparents, and great grandparents PLUS be saddled with massive debt and still have to fund our own retirements b/c we have no intentions of saddling OUR children with the burden we are faced with.

It's a shame we don't vote . . . and I don't mean for Republicans . . . we don't vote period. Old people vote . . . even the retired Jews in West Palm Beach vote for Pat Buchanan. If you wanna see change speak at the ballot box but don't expect it to come from either of the two major pol parties.
 


<< Well, that's too bad. Sometimes life doesn't go your way. I have no expectation whatsoever of collecting SS. But if it keeps the old and the poor in basic housing and healthcare (Medicare/Medicaid) so be it. >>



I am in favor of supporting the physically disabled since there is not much that can be done about it. Old people should be able to cover themselve otherwise without the SS system. Like I said they could have been putting $1000 a month into their retirement fund.




<< SS was designed as an intergenerational redistribution of wealth. >>



That's why we have banking system my friend.

You simply transfer it over to your living family member's account so you won't be charged a tax on estate of the deads when you receive it. We should each have a seprate SS account box and should have the choice of who to support from there and additional tax that goes to sharepool for supporting the physically disabled.
 


<< The big problem is corrupt federal government officials spending the money allotted to SS on other things. That lovely General Fund is where they place the money. The "Trust" in Social Security Trust Fund was broken. >>

Actually, that isn't so much a big problem but an annoying side issue. The government has all the receipts of what 'should' be in the SS Trust Fund vs. what is there, and it doesn't matter where the money is ultimately taken from, so long as they don't 'lose' the records.

The big problem is that the SS program is a vast pyramid scheme, which is oddly a prohibition of federal law when operated privately. Let's look at the definition of a pyramid (Ponzi) scheme:

"A fraudulent money-making scheme where early investors are paid with money from later investors, but the system inevitably collapses and later investors get nothing."

Does this sound remotely familiar to anyone? Its the basis of the SS system. SS is DESTINED to collapse for the same reason federal law has outlawed the pyramid scheme.

I don't recall the exact numbers, but the average American who receives SS will ultimately take something like 3 - 4 times more from the SS Trust Fund than he/she contributed. There is no way the SS Trust Fund earns enough interest to justify that, so the payments over and above what they contributed + interest MUST be taken from future 'investors', who in turn will also rely upon future 'investors'...so on and so forth.

A classic pyramid scheme. I guess the government banned pyramid schemes because it didn't want the competition...
 


<< I am in favor of supporting the physically disabled since there is not much that can be done about it. Old people should be able to cover themselve otherwise without the SS system. Like I said they could have been putting $1000 a month into their retirement fund. >>



Jerboy, I realize your parents give you cash for nothing, but, there are people who arent making much more than $1,000 a month in take home cash.




<<

<< SS was designed as an intergenerational redistribution of wealth. >>



That's why we have banking system my friend.

You simply transfer it over to your living family member's account so you won't be charged a tax on estate of the deads when you receive it. We should each have a seprate SS account box and should have the choice of who to support from there and additional tax that goes to sharepool for supporting the physically disabled. >>



You can only transfer $10,000/yr as a "gift" before the IRS starts taxing that, too.
 
SS needs to be scraped. Why should the government handle MY retirement for me? I resent that I cannot opt out of this farce.
 


<< SS needs to be scraped. Why should the government handle MY retirement for me? I resent that I cannot opt out of this farce. >>



Ditto... but if they made it an option to opt out, the rich would opt out (robbing the system of alot of the cash flow), as would the poor people who decided that they wanted their cash now, and would lack money when they got old, and then they'd be a problem, anyway. So, I dont see an opt out option forthcoming.
 


<<

<< SS needs to be scraped. Why should the government handle MY retirement for me? I resent that I cannot opt out of this farce. >>



Ditto... but if they made it an option to opt out, the rich would opt out (robbing the system of alot of the cash flow), as would the poor people who decided that they wanted their cash now, and would lack money when they got old, and then they'd be a problem, anyway. So, I dont see an opt out option forthcoming. >>



As I said, scrap it. We don't need retirement welfare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top