Apr 25, 2012 -- 9:08PM, catboxer wrote:

Today's front-page story on Yahoo news tells us "Why Social Security isn't going broke."

Yesterday's Yahoo front-pager was about how Soc Sec will soon "run out."

There's a certain amount of separation between news services here -- yesterday's story was from A.P. Today's is Reuters.

Take your pick but remember, they're not the same.

Well Cat .. the link I provided is from the SSI.gov site ... so AP, Rueters ... doesn't matter.

But you are right .. and you are wrong.  S.S. is not going "broke" .. and it'll never be "broke" as long as we pay SS taxes.

I think the real issue, is that people in the future are going to receive a sum over their lifetime more in line with what they contribute.  That is the real issue.  People pay in, but then expect to be given a sum that supports their current life style in an inflated time.  So . .they may pay $150K in over a live time, but receive $250K back.  Receiving 75% benefit is really just receiving your share based on contribution for most. 

It's the loss of the "wealth redistribution" that has so many panties in a wad, particularly on the left.  This is why the "solution" to the left is soak the rich. Raise the ceiling .. so we can transfer more of the wealth to the lower classes.  Social Justice .. .strikes again.

Apr 26, 2012 -- 10:51AM, catboxer wrote:

Here again, your analysis is basically sound.

But what's the alternative to Social Security?

I've noted the solution for decades.  It would be little more than an accounting change in the lives of people .. they wouldn't even notice it.

You still have a mandatory deduction from the paycheck, or mandatory contribution for self employed types.  You can even keep the employer match.  BUT .. the money does not go into a Government Slush Trust Fund.  It goes into a private account that is regulated by government.  A special IRA of sorts.

When you retire, you cannot just take it all out .... instead, you will be cut a monthly check from the account.  The recipient will notice no difference at all.  When your account runs dry, you'll receive a "welfare payment", at a flat rate ... same for everyone.  If you die before you exaust your account, the balance [minus some small taxes and fees] goes back to the FAMILY.

From that base, you can make all kinds of adjustments.  Like, you can be creative with portfolio management, setting the amounts that can be invested in each risk sector and allowing a certain portion of it to be invested as the person sees fit.  You can allow people, in fact encourage people, to put more in than the minimum, which they will have no problem doing since the money will continue to be their money, as opposed to going into some government slush trusts, in fact, you could make it a pre-tax deduction, just like pre-tax IRA's.  You can more easily manipulate the minimum, raising it or lowering it, based on the projected needs of the person and their balance.

Apr 26, 2012 -- 8:01PM, Roodog wrote:

Most working people have been paying FICA for 20, 30 and 40+ years.

They will be superlatively displeased if the do not see that money back in their Social Security.

This is not an entitlement, this was a mandatory investment made by taxpayers on top of their taxes with the promise that they would be taken care of once they reach retirement.

To not pay retirees what they had paid into FICA is fraud and if this should happen,then the whole Federal Government, from the President on down, should be dealt with as swindlers.

Agree, but they should only be paid what they paid in, IMO. If you only paid in $250k over your lifetime then that's all you get and you have to be responsible for saving up to cover the rest of your needs. It becomes an 'entitlement' program when people start getting more than they paid in.

Apr 27, 2012 -- 8:16AM, Girlchristian wrote:

Apr 26, 2012 -- 8:01PM, Roodog wrote:

Most working people have been paying FICA for 20, 30 and 40+ years.

They will be superlatively displeased if the do not see that money back in their Social Security.

This is not an entitlement, this was a mandatory investment made by taxpayers on top of their taxes with the promise that they would be taken care of once they reach retirement.

To not pay retirees what they had paid into FICA is fraud and if this should happen,then the whole Federal Government, from the President on down, should be dealt with as swindlers.

Agree, but they should only be paid what they paid in, IMO. If you only paid in $250k over your lifetime then that's all you get and you have to be responsible for saving up to cover the rest of your needs. It becomes an 'entitlement' program when people start getting more than they paid in.

+1

The overwhelming majority of people receive way more than they pay in.  This is because of a guarantee inflation adjusted benefit.  I ran the numbers once, and most people receive up to 50-100% more than they payed in.

It is an entitlement from the very start, because the guarantee benefit is not truly based on what they payed in, but based on their income.  It is also an entitlement for the reason you mentioned, being that the minute they exceed their total payments, they continue to receive the same guarantee benefit.