Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Pause Switch to Standard View Social Insecurity
Show More
Loading...
Flag catboxer April 11, 2012 1:02 PM EDT
I was thinking about writing something nasty about Paul Ryan and his budget proposal which was recently approved by the US House of Representatives, but enough other people have done so lately that I'll pass on that.

Still, this is a good time to remind anyone who's drawing Social Security or plans to someday (that would be virtually all of us) that if this "zombie-eyed granny starver" and his running dogs have their way, we'll be out of luck, not to mention money.

As often happens, Atrios expresses my innermost thoughts on this subject better than I could, so I'll let him rap it down for you:

Our Galtian Overlords really do want to destroy Social Security. They have no interest in "reforming it" or "preserving it" or whatever. Some of them are haunted by the visions of someone else's grandmother not living in utter destitution, and others just want to steal the money or make sure rich people never have to pay any taxes again. Some grand bargain of revenue increases and benefit cuts to put it in actuarial balance until time infinity will not stop them from trying to impoverish old people and steal the money.

Once again, Atrios touches on the two main points pertaining to this matter that need to be hammered home:

1. The super-rich believe they should pay no (0) taxes, and

2. They really hate us, and want to see us suffer.
Flag Girlchristian April 11, 2012 1:16 PM EDT

Here is Ryan's plan for SS:

  • Preserves the existing Social Security program for those 55 or older.
  • Offers workers under 55 the option of investing over one third of their current Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts, similar to the Thrift Savings Plan available to Federal employees. Includes a property right so they can pass on these assets to their heirs, and a guarantee that individuals will not lose a dollar they contribute to their accounts, even after inflation.
  • Makes the program permanently solvent – according to the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] – by combining a more realistic measure of growth in Social Security’s initial benefits, with an eventual modernization of the retirement age.

I'm 34 and don't expect SS to be there for me if we continue with the way it's currently set up and don't reform it in some manner. I'd also add that SS is supposed to be a safety net and NOT replace saving for one's own retirement. Anyone choosing to rely on SS and not save for their own retirement, even if it's $5/paycheck to start, is a fool, IMO.

Flag rabello April 11, 2012 2:41 PM EDT

That's what my uncle used to say: "SS and medicare won't be there for me" and yet he got SS and medicare until the day he died at age 91 year


That's what my sister used to say when she was in her 20s and 30s, "SS and medicare won't be there for me" and yet she is almost "there" to get both, and would havegotten SS had she become disabled at anytime during her working years.


Truth is SS and medicare CAN be there for everyone if we as a nation make sure it is there for everyone.  That'll depend on how we vote and whom we put into office.

Flag TENAC April 11, 2012 4:29 PM EDT

Apr 11, 2012 -- 2:41PM, rabello wrote:


That's what my uncle used to say: "SS and medicare won't be there for me" and yet he got SS and medicare until the day he died at age 91 year


That's what my sister used to say when she was in her 20s and 30s, "SS and medicare won't be there for me" and yet she is almost "there" to get both, and would havegotten SS had she become disabled at anytime during her working years.


Truth is SS and medicare CAN be there for everyone if we as a nation make sure it is there for everyone.  That'll depend on how we vote and whom we put into office.




I didnt peg you as being a PRyan supporter.  I mean, he is the ONLY ONE in Washington DC to present anything that would save the program. 


obama's budget didnt (defeated by 414-0, no one in his own party voted for it).


And your democrats havent produced a budget since obama invaded Afgahnistan.



It cannot be there for everyone in its present form.



Have you any clue as to what might fix it for everyone?

Flag catboxer April 11, 2012 4:58 PM EDT

It doesn't need fixing. It's completely solvent through 2037, and the solvency could be extended indefintely through the simple expedient of raising the cap.


Rule #1 -- If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


Republican motives for tweaking this sound program are not the ones they claim.

Flag MMarcoe April 11, 2012 5:10 PM EDT

Apr 11, 2012 -- 4:58PM, catboxer wrote:


It doesn't need fixing. It's completely solvent through 2037, and the solvency could be extended indefintely through the simple expedient of raising the cap.


Rule #1 -- If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


Republican motives for tweaking this sound program are not the ones they claim.





I agree that we can raise the cap if need be, but I want the option to divert some of what's mine to other investments. It wouldn't need to be the stock market, either.

Flag teilhard April 11, 2012 5:16 PM EDT

Indeed ... The GOP Feudal OverLords have ALWAYS been opposed to "Social Security" not only in Fact, but in PRINCIPLE ...


Apr 11, 2012 -- 4:58PM, catboxer wrote:


It doesn't need fixing. It's completely solvent through 2037, and the solvency could be extended indefintely through the simple expedient of raising the cap.


Rule #1 -- If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


Republican motives for tweaking this sound program are not the ones they claim.





Flag TENAC April 11, 2012 5:34 PM EDT

We have no such capacity to cover $36 trillion in outlays.  Solvency through 2037?! 


Geez, next thing you know the federal govt will give us weather forecasts through the decade!



Please those of the Left, tell us how we will maintain soc sec, medicare and obamacare, with any hope of (1) balancing a budget and (2) paying off debt!?  Even if they confiscated every dime of every American, it wouldnt do it.


So just, uhhh....raise the cap?

Flag Girlchristian April 11, 2012 5:36 PM EDT

Apr 11, 2012 -- 5:10PM, MMarcoe wrote:


Apr 11, 2012 -- 4:58PM, catboxer wrote:


It doesn't need fixing. It's completely solvent through 2037, and the solvency could be extended indefintely through the simple expedient of raising the cap.


Rule #1 -- If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


Republican motives for tweaking this sound program are not the ones they claim.





I agree that we can raise the cap if need be, but I want the option to divert some of what's mine to other investments. It wouldn't need to be the stock market, either.




I agree. We've been raising the cap since 2000 and if the only way the program is solvent is to just keep raising the cap then that's an issue and indicates that reform is needed. Not to mention, the solvency only exists if politicians don't 'borrow' from the money and we all know that won't happen.


Obama can't raise the cap anyway as he promised no tax increase on those making less than $250k and to raise the cap would mean a tax increase for anyone making more than the $106,800.

Flag teilhard April 11, 2012 5:48 PM EDT

Yes ... Guys like Donald Trump don't NEED Social Security and MediCare ...


Apr 11, 2012 -- 5:34PM, TENAC wrote:


We have no such capacity to cover $36 trillion in outlays.  Solvency through 2037?! 


Geez, next thing you know the federal govt will give us weather forecasts through the decade!



Please those of the Left, tell us how we will maintain soc sec, medicare and obamacare, with any hope of (1) balancing a budget and (2) paying off debt!?  Even if they confiscated every dime of every American, it wouldnt do it.


So just, uhhh....raise the cap?





Flag Find1Answer April 11, 2012 6:29 PM EDT

Lose the cap

Flag Girlchristian April 11, 2012 6:51 PM EDT

Apr 11, 2012 -- 6:29PM, Find1Answer wrote:


Lose the cap





The cap is both on tax and benefits, if you lose the cap then you're also increasing the amount of benefits going out (i.e., the cap of $106,800 also means that they don't get benefits for anything more than that). Unless of course you're suggesting that we lose the cap when it comes to the tax, but keep the cap on benefits, which isn't entirely fair.

Flag catboxer April 11, 2012 7:17 PM EDT

The financial conditions of the Social Security and Medicare programs remain challenging. Projected long-run program costs for both Medicare and Social Security are not sustainable under currently scheduled financing, and will require legislative modifications if disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers are to be avoided.


...
Social Security expenditures exceeded the program’s non-interest income in 2010 for the first time since 1983. The $49 billion deficit last year (excluding interest income) and $46 billion projected deficit in 2011 are in large part due to the weakened economy and to downward income adjustments that correct for excess payroll tax revenue credited to the trust funds in earlier years. This deficit is expected to shrink to about $20 billion for years 2012-2014 as the economy strengthens. After 2014, cash deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Through 2022, the annual cash deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury. Because these redemptions will be less than interest earnings, trust fund balances will continue to grow. After 2022, trust fund assets will be redeemed in amounts that exceed interest earnings until trust fund reserves are exhausted in 2036, one year earlier than was projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2085.


You have it there, Mr. Tenac, from the horse's mouth -- the trustees of Social Security and Medicare. This is from a synopsis they prepared, available at


www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html


What I got out of this report is that Medicare is in worse trouble than Social Security and will need major repairs, such as deep-sixing the current part D big pharma payoff and re-writing that booger from scratch.


Social Security's long-term health turns on the people (voters) firing the current Congress and getting one willing to raise the tax cap slightly when it's necessary, and that turns on the larger issue of getting a Congress willing to fully fund government operations, because you can't write checks for X amount and then collect revenue sufficient to cover 80% of what you're spending without going into debt.


Of course, that works out great if your objective is to sink quickly into deep debt, and then start creeching and crying "Omigod, look at all these goddam debts! We're going to have to make deep cuts in social programs!"


Or you could fund the government to the same tune as you're writing its checks. Ever think about that? Or get rid of a war or two. Ever think of that? Or how about auctioning off the empire?

Flag aarroottoonn April 11, 2012 8:17 PM EDT

Apr 11, 2012 -- 4:58PM, catboxer wrote:


It doesn't need fixing. It's completely solvent through 2037, and the solvency could be extended indefintely through the simple expedient of raising the cap.


Rule #1 -- If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


Republican motives for tweaking this sound program are not the ones they claim.




The first is clearly false. We already spend more in SS per year than we take in. The idea of a trust fund has been a myth for decades. Raising the cap doesn't fix the problem, unless one accepts that you increase the cap, but keep benefits the same, in other words, a massive tax increase, FOR YOUR ENTIRE LIFE!


As to rule one, it is broken, and has been for a long time. This hasn't exactly been a secret. Good ole Bill Clinton ran on fixing the problem back in 1992.


Republican motives consist of reining in a broken program that cannot be continued without swamping our nation. Minor fixes now, or cram downs, ala Greece, very, very shortly. Let the people choose.

Flag TENAC April 11, 2012 8:37 PM EDT

Apr 11, 2012 -- 7:17PM, catboxer wrote:


The financial conditions of the Social Security and Medicare programs remain challenging. Projected long-run program costs for both Medicare and Social Security are not sustainable under currently scheduled financing, and will require legislative modifications if disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers are to be avoided.


...
Social Security expenditures exceeded the program’s non-interest income in 2010 for the first time since 1983. The $49 billion deficit last year (excluding interest income) and $46 billion projected deficit in 2011 are in large part due to the weakened economy and to downward income adjustments that correct for excess payroll tax revenue credited to the trust funds in earlier years. This deficit is expected to shrink to about $20 billion for years 2012-2014 as the economy strengthens. After 2014, cash deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Through 2022, the annual cash deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury. Because these redemptions will be less than interest earnings, trust fund balances will continue to grow. After 2022, trust fund assets will be redeemed in amounts that exceed interest earnings until trust fund reserves are exhausted in 2036, one year earlier than was projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2085.


You have it there, Mr. Tenac, from the horse's mouth -- the trustees of Social Security and Medicare. This is from a synopsis they prepared, available at


www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html


What I got out of this report is that Medicare is in worse trouble than Social Security and will need major repairs, such as deep-sixing the current part D big pharma payoff and re-writing that booger from scratch.


Social Security's long-term health turns on the people (voters) firing the current Congress and getting one willing to raise the tax cap slightly when it's necessary, and that turns on the larger issue of getting a Congress willing to fully fund government operations, because you can't write checks for X amount and then collect revenue sufficient to cover 80% of what you're spending without going into debt.


Of course, that works out great if your objective is to sink quickly into deep debt, and then start creeching and crying "Omigod, look at all these goddam debts! We're going to have to make deep cuts in social programs!"


Or you could fund the government to the same tune as you're writing its checks. Ever think about that? Or get rid of a war or two. Ever think of that? Or how about auctioning off the empire?




Cat, I honestly cant find anything about that report to feel like SS/Medicare is anywhere near solvent.


You have govt appointed trustees basing a solvent SS/Med program on insufficient resources while counting on rosey economic senarios (obama has yet to produce a budget without deficits).


Read the entire last paragraph:


After 2022, trust fund assets will be redeemed in amounts that exceed interest earnings until trust fund reserves are exhausted in 2036, one year earlier than was projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2085.



Redeemed assets from where?  The trustees are counting the IOUs now sitting in the trust fund.  The IOUs are backed by nothing.  Air.  But we are going to redeem them how?  Just keep the printing presses rolling?


The trustee report is based on sound accounting, but you are dealing with a liberal federal govt that acts upon anything except generally accepted accounting principles. 


Its kind of like cheating at golf.  You can be a scratch golfer until somenone actually starts recording the score. 


Then everyone knows, and everyone will know this too.

Flag Bodean April 11, 2012 10:32 PM EDT

Apr 11, 2012 -- 7:17PM, catboxer wrote:


Through 2022, the annual cash deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury. Because these redemptions will be less than interest earnings, trust fund balances will continue to grow. After 2022, trust fund assets will be redeemed in amounts that exceed interest earnings until trust fund reserves are exhausted in 2036, one year earlier than was projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2085.


You have it there, Mr. Tenac, from the horse's mouth -- the trustees of Social Security and Medicare. This is from a synopsis they prepared, available at


www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html


 





TENAC has already alluded to this, but he left off the first part of the Paragraph that tells the story.  I bolded the important part, especially the BLUE part.


The General Fund of the Treasury is currently running a Trillion Dollar Deficit.  While lying cheating politicians would like for you and everyone else to think that it will balance sometime after 2024, this is a lie, and they know it. .. that is everyone who is saying leave it alone knows the general fund will not cover the SSTRust liabilities.  Therefore .. CAT .. there is NO MONEY from which to pay back the trust.  Put another way, the Government is going to have to Borrow Money from outside lenders in order to pay off internal debt.  The result is that internal debt, which is nothing more than numbers on a book, like if you had a second checking account that was owed by your other checking account, will be transferred into REAL DEBT .. the kind that the Government will have no choice to pay, or else file for bankruptcy.


The advocates of leaving the system alone are the ones "kicking the can" down to future generations.  This is one of my pet peeves that I've been jumping up and down on for the last few years.  This is SICK!!  It is selfish, self-centered, entitlement minded at its worst!  Give me mine now, and let the future generations suffer for my indulgence.


Do the numbers Cat ... very few people pay in as much as they receive from either system, SS or Medicare.  Both systems were designed in a time when you died before you collected all you had paid in.  But thanks to the evil Pharmaceutical Co.s, people are living longer, even thought they are living less healthy lifestyles.  The result, there investments into the system are not covering what they are taking out of it.


I wish we could say it's not broke .. .but it's been broke for over 30 years.  The Democrats under Reagan raised the cap ... and it's been being raised ever since.  There are people in Washington who just do not have the SPINE to govern, to do what is right, even if what they do is the unpopular thing to do for their constituents. .... like .. reform S.S. and Medicare.

Flag catboxer April 11, 2012 10:42 PM EDT

huh?


I did do the numbers, and came to the startling conclusion that we need to cut expenditure and increase revenue.


As I always say, we could start by opting out of a war of choice or two. I expect another defeaning silence in response to that.


Also, too, the Buffett rule.

Flag Bodean April 11, 2012 10:50 PM EDT

Apr 11, 2012 -- 10:42PM, catboxer wrote:


huh?


I did do the numbers, and came to the startling conclusion that we need to cut expenditure and increase revenue.


As I always say, we could start by opting out of a war of choice or two. I expect another defeaning silence in response to that.


Also, too, the Buffett rule.





Wrong numbers cat. .. I was referring to the amount an individual pays in, vs the amount they receive.


Sure .. I'm all for opting out of wars .. but that is not what ran the debt up so high.  But, it's a good place to start with regards to avoiding future debt.


The Buffett Rule ...... you mean ... the One where Buffett would love the Government to take more of his money, but, he's too damn selfish to just write the check??  The ONE where Buffett took advantage of every tax credit and deduction he could find so he wouldn't have to pay more?Ain't nobody preventing Buffett from paying more. ... or Gates .. .or Soros ... or the Koch Bros [who are the only two Conservatives in the Top 20 richest people in America].


I say .. go buffett .. and while your writing that check to uncle sam ... write me one for a few 100 grand.  I don't need much, just a little.

Flag TENAC April 11, 2012 10:53 PM EDT

Apr 11, 2012 -- 10:42PM, catboxer wrote:


huh?


I did do the numbers, and came to the startling conclusion that we need to cut expenditure and increase revenue.


As I always say, we could start by opting out of a war of choice or two. I expect another defeaning silence in response to that.


Also, too, the Buffett rule.




The Buffet rule!?  Pfffffffffffffffffffffft!!!


On its best projection it will give you maybe $50 billion in a given year.


obamacare is already nearly twice the projection as it unfolds.  And it is no where near finished unfolding.  And we are going to go Medicare for everybody and add 40 million people to it?


The acuraries are only giving out what they are given.  Garbage in (literally) garbage out.


obama is keeping his war going.  We needed to be out of there long ago.  Even if we do, you trust this (or any) federal govt to do the right thing and stop spending or pay down some debt?  Ha!


Flag TENAC April 11, 2012 10:55 PM EDT

Apr 11, 2012 -- 10:50PM, Bodean wrote:


Apr 11, 2012 -- 10:42PM, catboxer wrote:


huh?


I did do the numbers, and came to the startling conclusion that we need to cut expenditure and increase revenue.


As I always say, we could start by opting out of a war of choice or two. I expect another defeaning silence in response to that.


Also, too, the Buffett rule.





Wrong numbers cat. .. I was referring to the amount an individual pays in, vs the amount they receive.


Sure .. I'm all for opting out of wars .. but that is not what ran the debt up so high.  But, it's a good place to start with regards to avoiding future debt.


The Buffett Rule ...... you mean ... the One where Buffett would love the Government to take more of his money, but, he's too damn selfish to just write the check??  The ONE where Buffett took advantage of every tax credit and deduction he could find so he wouldn't have to pay more?Ain't nobody preventing Buffett from paying more. ... or Gates .. .or Soros ... or the Koch Bros [who are the only two Conservatives in the Top 20 richest people in America].


I say .. go buffett .. and while your writing that check to uncle sam ... write me one for a few 100 grand.  I don't need much, just a little.




lol....the funniest thing about the buffet rule, it wont touch him.  He will still pay the same.

Flag Bodean April 11, 2012 11:00 PM EDT

Apr 11, 2012 -- 10:55PM, TENAC wrote:


 


lol....the funniest thing about the buffet rule, it wont touch him.  He will still pay the same.





I've yet to see a scheme come out of the uber rich liberal elite that actually touched "them".  Their schemes always transfer wealth from small business owners to the uber rich liberal elite.


... and of course, they never solve the problem.  The poor will be just as poor, and the nation will be in just as deep as it is.  BUT HEY .. they'll be richer.


PE ... and of course .. "certain people" will be cheering them on, as if they really accomplished somthing.  LOL

Flag davelaw40 April 12, 2012 12:10 AM EDT

Apr 11, 2012 -- 1:02PM, catboxer wrote:

 that if this "zombie-eyed granny starver" and his running dogs have their way, we'll be out of luck, not to mention money..





Friedmann did a really good piece ripping both Ryan and Obama-Ryan fails in his views because there is long term fiscal responsibility but short term lack of resources for Social Structure and Infrastructure and the President is the reverse.




Flag catboxer April 12, 2012 8:58 AM EDT

Tenac, Bodean:


I'm not going to debate the details of either Social Security or the Ryan budget with you guys, because Ryan is a phony and so is his budget.


He talks about deficit reduction, but the increases in military spending(!) in that budget more than outweigh the cuts in social programs. We're talking hard-core criminality here, if this guy is seriously suggesting pumping up the too-well-funded Pentagon on the backs of workers.


Then he says the budget will close tax loopholes for the rich, but he can't point to a single loophole that would be closed! God, what a phony, creepy, little errand boy he is.


If you expect I'm going to pay this scam-artist, evil suit dude the courtesy of respect, you got the wrong guy. He should have been tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail long since.


I can understand why Ryan is a gopher and water boy for the .01%, since that's his bread and butter. Why there are some BNet posters who want to serve that function I have no idea, since I assume nobody here is getting paid.


Let me repeat something I said in the OP -- you guys apparently don't understand that there is a war going on between the richest people in this society, who have bribed and stolen our supposedly democratic political system, and the 99 percent of the population the rest of us belong to.


The rich don't want to pay any taxes, and they also hate us, and want us to suffer.


This is nothing new. The owners have always hated the workers since the dawn of the industrial age. They realize they are dependent on the workers, and also that if the workers shake off their habitual subservience, they will have the upper hand.


The Ryan budget is nothing more than the latest exercise in the moneyed class's fear and loathing of the proles. The proles will have an answer for it in exactly 19 days from now. I'm all done with this until then.

Flag Girlchristian April 12, 2012 9:29 AM EDT

Apr 11, 2012 -- 10:50PM, Bodean wrote:


Apr 11, 2012 -- 10:42PM, catboxer wrote:


huh?


I did do the numbers, and came to the startling conclusion that we need to cut expenditure and increase revenue.


As I always say, we could start by opting out of a war of choice or two. I expect another defeaning silence in response to that.


Also, too, the Buffett rule.





The Buffett Rule ...... you mean ... the One where Buffett would love the Government to take more of his money, but, he's too damn selfish to just write the check??  The ONE where Buffett took advantage of every tax credit and deduction he could find so he wouldn't have to pay more?Ain't nobody preventing Buffett from paying more. ... or Gates .. .or Soros ... or the Koch Bros [who are the only two Conservatives in the Top 20 richest people in America].




Well, this is the problem, really. There is an article on Yahoo today talking about the top billionaires that support the Buffett Rule, each claiming that they should pay more in taxes. Yet, each one of them also continue to take advantage of the tax credits and loopholes that allow them to pay lower taxes. If they really want to pay more in taxes and aren't just saying it to look good then all they have to do is not use any of the tax credits or loopholes that they're allowed. I'm sure pigs will fly before that happens though...

Flag ted08721 April 12, 2012 12:24 PM EDT

Apr 11, 2012 -- 1:16PM, Girlchristian wrote:


 


I'm 34 and don't expect SS to be there for me if we continue with the way it's currently set up and don't reform it in some manner. I'd also add that SS is supposed to be a safety net and NOT replace saving for one's own retirement. Anyone choosing to rely on SS and not save for their own retirement, even if it's $5/paycheck to start, is a fool, IMO.





That is great if you can afford it and if the greedy elite does not steal it from you.
Over time that has become less possible for more and more people, we are well on our way to becoming the largest Banana Republic.
Have you not read about all the data that said the middle class is disappearing.
Even those in what is consider the middle class are having a hard time making ends meet.

"“If we’re only creating jobs for the highly skilled and for folks with basic skills, then you’re leaving an awful lot of people behind,” said Mark Vitner, a senior economist at Wells Fargo in Charlotte, North Carolina. “Until we have broad-based growth, it’s hard to imagine how we can have a self-sustaining economic recovery.”

The article deals mostly with the recent downturn in the economy I believe it metioned that the whole downward spiral of wages has been accuring over several decades.

www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-11/mid-in...

Flag Girlchristian April 12, 2012 1:03 PM EDT

Apr 12, 2012 -- 12:24PM, ted08721 wrote:


Apr 11, 2012 -- 1:16PM, Girlchristian wrote:


 


I'm 34 and don't expect SS to be there for me if we continue with the way it's currently set up and don't reform it in some manner. I'd also add that SS is supposed to be a safety net and NOT replace saving for one's own retirement. Anyone choosing to rely on SS and not save for their own retirement, even if it's $5/paycheck to start, is a fool, IMO.





That is great if you can afford it and if the greedy elite does not steal it from you.
Over time that has become less possible for more and more people, we are well on our way to becoming the largest Banana Republic.
Have you not read about all the data that said the middle class is disappearing.
Even those in what is consider the middle class are having a hard time making ends meet.

"“If we’re only creating jobs for the highly skilled and for folks with basic skills, then you’re leaving an awful lot of people behind,” said Mark Vitner, a senior economist at Wells Fargo in Charlotte, North Carolina. “Until we have broad-based growth, it’s hard to imagine how we can have a self-sustaining economic recovery.”

The article deals mostly with the recent downturn in the economy I believe it metioned that the whole downward spiral of wages has been accuring over several decades.

www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-11/mid-in...




It depends on what you mean by can't afford it. If you have cable, then you can afford to save. If you have a cell phone then you can afford to save. Even if you only put $5/paycheck away it will add up by the time you're actually ready to retire.

Flag LeahOne April 12, 2012 2:26 PM EDT

Has anyone got any stats on just how many of us eaern any mnore than that $106,800 cap amount?


I know that when DH was a Reservist, a couple of years we got part of our IRS refund due to excess SS taxes paid by his two employers - but that stopped happening quite a few years ago as the 'cap' amount soared much faster than inflation.  And certainly much faster than his income increased, lol!


Whoever said 'lose' the cap - I tend to agree!  The 'cap' is on *earned* income, salaries - it does not touch the value of stock given to corporate officers - and is it levied on all those 'bonuses' handed out on Wall St?


I am all for 'privatizing' A PART of SS assets -but only in a managed set-up like the TSP which already exists.  With a very stringent requirement of accountability for the managers.   And all kinds of safeguards to protect the ignorant and unsophisticated.


 


 

Flag MMarcoe April 12, 2012 2:43 PM EDT

Apr 11, 2012 -- 5:36PM, Girlchristian wrote:


Apr 11, 2012 -- 5:10PM, MMarcoe wrote:


Apr 11, 2012 -- 4:58PM, catboxer wrote:


It doesn't need fixing. It's completely solvent through 2037, and the solvency could be extended indefintely through the simple expedient of raising the cap.


Rule #1 -- If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


Republican motives for tweaking this sound program are not the ones they claim.





I agree that we can raise the cap if need be, but I want the option to divert some of what's mine to other investments. It wouldn't need to be the stock market, either.




I agree. We've been raising the cap since 2000 and if the only way the program is solvent is to just keep raising the cap then that's an issue and indicates that reform is needed. Not to mention, the solvency only exists if politicians don't 'borrow' from the money and we all know that won't happen.


Obama can't raise the cap anyway as he promised no tax increase on those making less than $250k and to raise the cap would mean a tax increase for anyone making more than the $106,800.





Solution: raise the cap but don't call the resulting tax increase a tax increase. Bush the First did that with his famous "revenue enhancements." Course, it cost him the election, but if Obama wins this year, he could institute it in late 2015 when he's safe.


 

Flag MMarcoe April 12, 2012 2:44 PM EDT

How about a special tax on investment income that could go to Social Security? Since the rich are allegedly creating all the jobs (cough cough, hack hack), their money could provide spending funds for old people.

Flag Girlchristian April 12, 2012 3:17 PM EDT

Apr 12, 2012 -- 2:26PM, LeahOne wrote:


Has anyone got any stats on just how many of us eaern any mnore than that $106,800 cap amount?


I know that when DH was a Reservist, a couple of years we got part of our IRS refund due to excess SS taxes paid by his two employers - but that stopped happening quite a few years ago as the 'cap' amount soared much faster than inflation.  And certainly much faster than his income increased, lol!


Whoever said 'lose' the cap - I tend to agree!  The 'cap' is on *earned* income, salaries - it does not touch the value of stock given to corporate officers - and is it levied on all those 'bonuses' handed out on Wall St?


I am all for 'privatizing' A PART of SS assets -but only in a managed set-up like the TSP which already exists.  With a very stringent requirement of accountability for the managers.   And all kinds of safeguards to protect the ignorant and unsophisticated.


 


 




The article I read the other day said that raising the cap would only affect about 1/5 of tax-payers and not do as much to 'fix' the problem as many claim and in fact would only delay the problem, but I don't have the link saved on this computer so I can't provide it.

Flag catboxer April 12, 2012 4:36 PM EDT

Apr 12, 2012 -- 3:17PM, Girlchristian wrote:



The article I read the other day said that raising the cap would only affect about 1/5 of tax-payers and not do as much to 'fix' the problem as many claim and in fact would only delay the problem, but I don't have the link saved on this computer so I can't provide it.



LOL. "Delaying the problem" is what it's all about, isn't it?


It's common knowledge that everybody gets old, gets sick, and dies. Medical science and health care just delay the problem. Social Security helps delay it too.

Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook