Post Reply
Page 4 of 4  •  Prev 1 2 3 4
Switch to Forum Live View An Important Note to All Baby Boomers and Their Progeny on Soc. Security...
3 years ago  ::  Apr 26, 2012 - 9:37AM #31
Bodean
Posts: 9,618

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.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 26, 2012 - 10:51AM #32
catboxer
Posts: 14,012

Here again, your analysis is basically sound.


But what's the alternative to Social Security? As I understand it, the Ryan plan makes provisions for undermining SS by providing an option that would encourage people to enroll in private investment plans. That would starve the trust fund, PLUS with private plans someone would be collecting commissions and fees, which Social Security doesn't.


I agree with your conclusion, except for your choice of one verb and one noun.


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.


For "soak" I would put "tax." For "lower classes" I would put "ordinary people."


There's been an enormous transfer of wealth over the last 30 years, and I think you know to whom, and from whom. Increasing taxes on the undertaxed rich is a simple matter of justice.


Adepto vestri stercore simul.ttr
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 26, 2012 - 12:47PM #33
Bodean
Posts: 9,618

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.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 26, 2012 - 8:01PM #34
Roodog
Posts: 10,168

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.

For those who have faith, no explanation is neccessary.
For those who have no faith, no explanation is possible.

St. Thomas Aquinas

If one turns his ear from hearing the Law, even his prayer is an abomination. Proverbs 28:9
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 27, 2012 - 8:16AM #35
Girlchristian
Posts: 11,436

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.

"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 27, 2012 - 8:38AM #36
christzen
Posts: 6,569

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


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.




 


Not really.People had money taken out for 4 decades or so and used interest free by the government.At the least,interest equalling the average stock market yield over the years should be paid back,accruing from the time it was taken from easch check.In addition,employers paid an equal amount into the fund on behalf of the employee,again,an interest free loan to the government.Better the retiree gets the employer contribution than the government.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 27, 2012 - 8:46AM #37
Bodean
Posts: 9,618

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.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 27, 2012 - 2:02PM #38
Roodog
Posts: 10,168

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.





What the workers paid into FICA plus interest. That is simple banking. If the Government had put that money to work then taxpayers should also recieve dividends.

For those who have faith, no explanation is neccessary.
For those who have no faith, no explanation is possible.

St. Thomas Aquinas

If one turns his ear from hearing the Law, even his prayer is an abomination. Proverbs 28:9
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 4 of 4  •  Prev 1 2 3 4
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook