The more I think about your solution to our current situation, the more I am beginning to see it as a kind of "tuff-love". The thing I get stuck on, is what happens to the group of people that fall into the "lazy people" catch-all? The people that don't plan, don't work, or just plain go broke? Where do people who have nothing, for whatever reason, live & die? Do beggers get thrown in jail?
Where do you put the people that don't conform to The New Order?
P.S. I personally don't like your idea about S.S. (becouse I lose), but I believe it would work and maybe even it's time has arrived.
Why stop Social Security? The information I have seen says it's running a surplus.
Actually, I typed it wrong--there are 6 months not accounted for at all, but aren't you over 50?
quote
Cut off date of age 49 years and 6 months. Older than that, you can file for what your lifetime benefit is, paid out just as it is now.
IOW, anyone over 49 1/2 yrs old or older, OR already drawing SS, nothing changes. But it's just an arbitrary cutoff point--I just pulled a # out of the air.
IP: Logged
06:15 PM
blackrams Member
Posts: 33115 From: Covington, TN, USA Registered: Feb 2003
Why stop Social Security? The information I have seen says it's running a surplus.
Because it is 1. What I refer to as a zero return "investment". Here's how it is supposed to work, but i am going to use some made up #s as an example. You have (mandantory) $20/week taken out of your gross (pretax) paycheck every week. Your employer contributes the same amt, making $40/week that goes to your account. Unless you are disabled, you will never see that $40 again, until at least age 62. It doesn't matter, if you and your employer contributed that $40 in 1970 (when I was 20 yrs old) --that $40 will never increase in value. In my case, that means the govt has "borrowed" (mandantory) that week's $40 for 40 yrs-- INTEREST free. For that year, $40X52 weeks=$2080/yr--interest free. If I am mistaken--someone correct me.
2. The reason, that there is a surplus, is because so many people die before reaching the minimum age for filing for SS. Their $40 just goes into the SS fund for someone else--no matter how poor that now deceased person may have been during their lifetime, he/she doesn't have the option of touching it other than filing for a disability of some sort, and, if your children or over 31, your contribution can't go to them either. Your surviving spouse (if you have one) 'may' be able to draw it under certain circumstances tho.
3. A simple compunded interest rate on that $40 over 40 years is a whole lot more than you will get back from the SS Admin, AND, if something dire came up, you could access some of it.
4. There is supposedly a surplus now, but many experts argue that is not true in reality--and there is a lot of speculation, even within the govt-- how sound and secure the SS system is. It all depends how many people are working and contributiong vs how many aging people are eligible for it, and with my generation of baby boomers nearing age 62, many in govt are calling for the retirement age to be raised. They would not be doing so if there was a long term surplus projected.
IMO, if SS were abolished, and the employer's contribution were paid to the individual employee in wages, it would be a far better investment strategy for the individual citizen over what is being done now. At the very least, make it optional, with no recourse if you spend it on crap instead of saving it for you old age.
And, unless I am mistaken, SS benefits are taxable upon reciept.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 11-03-2010).]
tbone42, I put "" around moderate, because by definition, a moderate takes in a LOT of territory--in either direction. Moderate republican--moderate democrat-moderate independant. I'm a prolific reader of virtually every post here PFF and have read most of yours, and do not remember you specifically-- prior to this thread, seriously protest anything the progressive liberals are currently doing. You've spoken ill of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars in the past.
Where? Show me. And tell me this, what conservative lately has not been talking about a need to end the war in Afghanistan, regardless of whether we get Bin Lafen or not? Why? Because being in Afghanistan is something to indict the president on and looks good in an election year. Its a double standard you are using here, even if I have "spoke ill of the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars in the Past" which I do not know what the heck you mean, since I see no link. If you have some more time on your hands, shag it down and let me know what the eff you mean. I, for one, dont have that kind of time to look through every post since april to see what my supposed stance on the wars are.
I'll make it sound byte easy so you can know what I mean by moderate.
Like: Guns, Green Energy, Government transparancy, Gays, and God given, inalienable rights .. (had to go with the Gs)Also: Medical Marijuana, Warranted Malpractice Suits, Increrased jail time for violent offenders/ rapists and child molestors, tough stances drunk driving,
Dislike: Abortion, Out of Control Spending, Illegal immigration and immigrants, the idea of a "Living Constitution" (Leave my rights alone!) , Judicial Legislating, School Tax Levees, Frivolous law Suits. annnnnnnnddddd (just for you) older people who believe they should get social security and medicare, and that everyone under a certain age should have to NOW find their own way. I am under your age requirement and I have been paying into SS for 22 years.
Thism of course I am not serious about because I am ex-navy, but: Would you like your retirement from the military to get cut? Hey, man, pitch in. We could save a lot in taxes if you could 'find your own way'. That costs a lot of taxpayer money! Wait, you were promised that money? You paid into it and earned it with hard work, blood sweat and tears? For over 20 years? Now you know how it feels... you'll forgive me if I think your suggestion on SS is self serving, otherwise, why dont we just ditch it right now except for people who are currently sick? I fully expect not to get a dime of social security in my old age (may it be loooong from now) but its some real BS t I would have to pay into it and continue to pay into it to help support old codgers who only want it now for themselves. After paying my whole working life. But hey, your suggestion looks rosey if I was in your shoes.
So maybe I am not an "According to Hoyle Moderate", but I believe I have enough complex issues I agree with and disagree with on both platforms to not be a party only stooge,. And I have stances that drive libs and cons nuts. Personally, I cant stand the extremism in either direction.. it makes them all look like whiney children. Like I said before, I vote the candidates and the issues, not just what a chosen party endorses.. That makes me a moderate, and an independant. One thing is for certain, my opinions are my own, even when contradictory, nobody in Washington makes up my mind on what I think is right or wrong. No one here, either.
I never posted in protest previously? You must have been too busy asking for things in pictures in people's threads.Apparently, you never paid close attention to my rants about School District Taxes, North Korea nuclear threat, Medical Marijuana most recently. Mostly, I come here to talk about cars, dont you?. I am not in favor of protesting every 3 seconds, and I believe things can be worked out WITHOUT outrage, its just that no one tries. I am in support of cooperation between parties. THAT is a moderate stance, my friend. I still feel its necessary. I feel the need to say things now and then, that I feel is right. And when I speak, its not just to be disruptive. So maybe I dont throw in a jibe at every situation talked about on this website, but I have also had 'politics' unchecked since about June, so go figure.
[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 11-03-2010).]
Another thing I dislike about SS, is that anyone who pays into it can, of course draw it when they reach the minimum age requirement--regardless of their financial status. I have personally known millionaires who were drawing SS and Medicare. Yes, I know they paid in to it--heck, even Warren Buffett is eligible to draw it if he paid in to it-but there is just something to me that doesn't feel right about that.
Another thing I dislike about SS, is that anyone who pays into it can, of course draw it when they reach the minimum age requirement--regardless of their financial status. I have personally known millionaires who were drawing SS and Medicare. Yes, I know they paid in to it--heck, even Warren Buffett is eligible to draw it if he paid in to it-but there is just something to me that doesn't feel right about that.
This attitude would indicate to me you are in favor of the wealthy doing their fair share to help the economy. Not taking SS benefits. What about the Bush extended tax cuts for the wealthy? Do you believe they should contribute the same percentage as you or me to taxes? Or do they deserve a cut because their 10 percent is so much larger than my 22% (No actual idea of the exact #s, i think I pay more and they pay less, percentage wise.)
Because it is 1. What I refer to as a zero return "investment". Here's how it is supposed to work, but i am going to use some made up #s as an example. You have (mandantory) $20/week taken out of your gross (pretax) paycheck every week. Your employer contributes the same amt, making $40/week that goes to your account. Unless you are disabled, you will never see that $40 again, until at least age 62. It doesn't matter, if you and your employer contributed that $40 in 1970 (when I was 20 yrs old) --that $40 will never increase in value. In my case, that means the govt has "borrowed" (mandantory) that week's $40 for 40 yrs-- INTEREST free. For that year, $40X52 weeks=$2080/yr--interest free. If I am mistaken--someone correct me.
2. The reason, that there is a surplus, is because so many people die before reaching the minimum age for filing for SS. Their $40 just goes into the SS fund for someone else--no matter how poor that now deceased person may have been during their lifetime, he/she doesn't have the option of touching it other than filing for a disability of some sort, and, if your children or over 31, your contribution can't go to them either. Your surviving spouse (if you have one) 'may' be able to draw it under certain circumstances tho.
3. A simple compunded interest rate on that $40 over 40 years is a whole lot more than you will get back from the SS Admin, AND, if something dire came up, you could access some of it.
4. There is supposedly a surplus now, but many experts argue that is not true in reality--and there is a lot of speculation, even within the govt-- how sound and secure the SS system is. It all depends how many people are working and contributiong vs how many aging people are eligible for it, and with my generation of baby boomers nearing age 62, many in govt are calling for the retirement age to be raised. They would not be doing so if there was a long term surplus projected.
IMO, if SS were abolished, and the employer's contribution were paid to the individual employee in wages, it would be a far better investment strategy for the individual citizen over what is being done now. At the very least, make it optional, with no recourse if you spend it on crap instead of saving it for you old age.
And, unless I am mistaken, SS benefits are taxable upon reciept.
I get it (I think anyways) you don't like the idea of it being a Government mandated retirement fund and I'm sure some would agree with you. I'm confused though why SS seems to be an issue when there are many other expenditures that are losses every year and that one is not.
I think it actually probably saves money in the long run though because many people would end up blowing that savings if just paid out to them on their paychecks and money would have to come from somewhere to provide for those who didn't save or plan correct. One can argue who cares and let the chips fall where they may but most societies don't work like that, not very pallatable to watch your parents and grandparents suffer because they didn't prepare right or invested poorly.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 11-03-2010).]
I do not draw nor have I ever drawn, or claimed I drew, any retirement from the military. I was on active duty only 9 years. 4 USMC--5 USN. I am retired, living on investment income from 41 years of blue collar wages.
Another thing I dislike about SS, is that anyone who pays into it can, of course draw it when they reach the minimum age requirement--regardless of their financial status. I have personally known millionaires who were drawing SS and Medicare. Yes, I know they paid in to it--heck, even Warren Buffett is eligible to draw it if he paid in to it-but there is just something to me that doesn't feel right about that.
Yeah that stuff sucks just as it does when those who abuse welfare and unemployment benefits do.
IP: Logged
07:01 PM
PFF
System Bot
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
This attitude would indicate to me you are in favor of the wealthy doing their fair share to help the economy. Not taking SS benefits. What about the Bush extended tax cuts for the wealthy? Do you believe they should contribute the same percentage as you or me to taxes? Or do they deserve a cut because their 10 percent is so much larger than my 22% (No actual idea of the exact #s, i think I pay more and they pay less, percentage wise.)
I believe they, like all the rest of us, should pay whatever the laws and statutes of the land call for. Like I said, I believe tax increases across the board are in order. I would be happy with a full 22% accross the board flat tax, but personally would be willing to pay more if it goes to deficit and debt reduction.
I do not draw nor have I ever drawn, or claimed I drew, any retirement from the military. I was on active duty only 9 years. 4 USMC--5 USN. I am retired, living on investment income from 41 years of blue collar wages.
That is great but I would think the majority of people in the U.S. or Canada don't save any extra to invest or don't have the knowledge. Hell I wish I had a better grasp on my retirement savings and investing.
I'm not counting on living of an "Old Age Pension" from the Government as the people that I see on it now can barely get by and who knows what the state of the economy will be at that time. Having said that I may need it to supplement any retirement savings I do have.
IP: Logged
07:06 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
Hell I wish I had a better grasp on my retirement savings and investing.
And there is the rub. No one ever taught me or even talked to me about investing, or ever saving. My father & his father never did it. Nor any of their friends.
When I started out on my own working around older men, no one would ever talk about their investments. So I just never took an intrest. I thought it was just for the "higher ups".
By the time I started getting the CORRECT ideas about it, I was already a lost cause. Now that i've been digging the hole for so long, all I know is digging. And I just don't know how to dig up.
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 11-03-2010).]
That is great but I would think the majority of people in the U.S. or Canada don't save any extra to invest or don't have the knowledge. Hell I wish I had a better grasp on my retirement savings and investing.
I'm not counting on living of an "Old Age Pension" from the Government as the people that I see on it now can barely get by and who knows what the state of the economy will be at that time. Having said that I may need it to supplement any retirement savings I do have.
Well, all I know is I did it, as barely a highschool grad, a single parent raising 4 kids. A little at a time and don't touch it. If dire circumstances come and ya have to get into it--replace it as soon as possible.
Heck, I also know ppl on SS that blow every penny of their SS check on crap and then eat ramen noodles, barely eaking by till the next check comes--so SS is no guaranteed panacea either.
Another thing I dislike about SS, is that anyone who pays into it can, of course draw it when they reach the minimum age requirement--regardless of their financial status. I have personally known millionaires who were drawing SS and Medicare. Yes, I know they paid in to it--heck, even Warren Buffett is eligible to draw it if he paid in to it-but there is just something to me that doesn't feel right about that.
Ronald Reagan collected his benefit too. He had a very funny quip about it when asked by some limp wrist leftist journalist about it. Something to the effect of, it is not welfare.
Aside from maybe a philosophical problem with SS (which I share) there should not have been a problem with the system itself. Seams like I have heard of people collecting from it that never paid a dime into it, but don't know if that is really true.
IP: Logged
07:24 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
And there is the rub. No one ever taught me or even talked to me about investing, or ever saving. My father & his father never did it. Nor any of their friends.
When I started out on my own working around older men, no one would ever talk about their investments. So I just never took an intrest. I thought it was just for the "higher ups".
By the time I started getting the CORRECT ideas about it, I was already a lost cause. Now that i've been digging the hole for so long, all I know is digging. And I just don't know how to dig up.
At what point does your education and livelihood become your responsibility and not based on what someone else has taught you or given you? At the point you're at now you recognize what you didn't know. So instead of trying to change your situation and educate yourself, you give up without trying and say you're a lost cause.
Too many people just throw up their hands and say "because of ______ there's no point in trying - so someone else needs to take care of me."
It sounds like a lot of tobacco farmers here in NC. It was a huge growth industry for so long, and as it became less profitable the farmers said they needed subsidies to survive because "my daddy was a tobacco farmer and I'm a tobacco farmer. It's all I know."
What's the difference between a "rich" 50 year old and a "poor" 50 year old if they're both stripped of all their money and dropped off in an unknown city? The "rich" person will make money again and rebuild his wealth as best he can. The "poor" person probably won't ever go any farther than they had before.
Education plays a large roll, but if you don't know how to do something you have to be willing to put forth the effort to learn. We do it on here every day to keep our Fieros running. Our financial vehicles should be no different.
IP: Logged
07:27 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
Not planning well & having no children, I am depending on S.S. as my sole support in my golden years.
Don't. I, too, started saving late and even if I had nothing I would save everything I could. You're 50, right? You've got 15 or so years before retirement. You can save a lot of money in that time to supplement SS. SS was never intended to be your sole means of support, and it won't be enough.
At what point does your education and livelihood become your responsibility and not based on what someone else has taught you or given you? At the point you're at now you recognize what you didn't know. So instead of trying to change your situation and educate yourself, you give up without trying and say you're a lost cause.
Too many people just throw up their hands and say "because of ______ there's no point in trying - so someone else needs to take care of me."
I forgot to mention i'm careless & lazy, too. Not a great combination when working & paying in all your life and not saving anything.
I do however have a grasp on the concept of love & understanding. I wonder if that will feed me in my old age?
P.S. I never asked or had anyone take care of me since age 14. Not one dime from my parents or anyone. No inheiritence, no gimmies, no doweries. I started with nothing, and there I remained.
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 11-03-2010).]
IP: Logged
07:36 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27106 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Quote of the day from the newly elect Republican leader of the House, Rep. John Boehner on cutting government spending.
"We'll make a lot of decisions over the coming months."
That's some real leadership there. Campaigning is one thing, governing is another. Good Luck with that.
(R) Meg Whitman and (R) Carly Fiorina lose to Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer in California. It's gotta be depressing all that wasted effort for you guys. You should move to a Red State! Oh wait, you don't have the financial means to leave... maybe if you had saved away all those Bush tax cuts you could!
Wow, thanks for the low blow. You really know how to be a dick.
IP: Logged
08:25 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
Speaking of social security, they should raise the cap that they use for contributing to it. This would allow people to put more money into it. I know I had several years were I reached the cap and couldn't contribute any more into the system. This would have helped the system by getting more money put into it.
IP: Logged
09:09 PM
GT86 Member
Posts: 5203 From: Glendale, AZ Registered: Mar 2003
Why stop Social Security? The information I have seen says it's running a surplus.
It is running a surplus, but only on paper. Right now, the govt is taking in more in SS "contributions" than it is paying out. However, by law any excess funds remaining in SS after benefits are paid are transferred to the general fund. The govt in essence issues itself an IOU, and that's what is in the so-called "Social Security Trust Fund". There is no real money in there, since it was transferred (and spent on other things). That "surplus" isn't sitting somewhere earning interest, and in fact isn't even sitting somewhere collecting dust. It's been spent.
That's worked so far, but we approaching the time when a significant number of the Boomer generation will begin retiring. At that point, benefit payments will rise and we will reach a point when what is being taken in will be less than what is being paid out. When that happens, the govt will have to start paying back the SS fund. It's projected that these repayment amounts will quickly increase over time, to the point where a significant, crippling chunk of the federal budget will be devoted to it. We would either need to raise taxes or borrow more just to pay SS benefits.
The idea was that SS taxes on current workers would always be able to support retired folks, but that isn't going to happen. Remember too that life expectancy is higher now than 70 years ago, and when SS was created not too many people lived all that long beyond retirement age. As lifespans increase, so do the payments.
It's not a question of "if", it's just a matter of "when" the SS house of cards will fall.
IP: Logged
09:57 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by GT86: Remember too that life expectancy is higher now than 70 years ago, and when SS was created not too many people lived all that long beyond retirement age. As lifespans increase, so do the payments.
People always say that, but when it was created, no one thought that in the future people would live longer?
IP: Logged
10:01 PM
GT86 Member
Posts: 5203 From: Glendale, AZ Registered: Mar 2003
The simple fact is, SS is not sustainable as is. We'll need to drastically increase spending for it, cut benefits, or raise SS taxes, or some combination of the three. It's politically a killer, which is why the problem isn't addressed in any meaningful way.
[This message has been edited by GT86 (edited 11-03-2010).]
IP: Logged
10:09 PM
GT86 Member
Posts: 5203 From: Glendale, AZ Registered: Mar 2003
At the moment, the govt owes between 2 and 3 trillion dollars to SS.
So, they owe US! It was OUR money.
I say we collect, with late fees and all, just like the tax man did to me a few years back. Oh, wait, who exactly are we collecting from? Us? We borrowed money from ourselves? What did we spend it on? Wheres the product?
This is sounding more & more like a scam......
IP: Logged
10:19 PM
GT86 Member
Posts: 5203 From: Glendale, AZ Registered: Mar 2003
I say we collect, with late fees and all, just like the tax man did to me a few years back. Oh, wait, who exactly are we collecting from? Us? We borrowed money from ourselves? What did we spend it on? Wheres the product?
This is sounding more & more like a scam......
You're right, it is a scam. That money was spent by the govt just like all the rest of our money.
At the moment, the govt owes between 2 and 3 trillion dollars to SS.
If that is true it would have been better if they had of left it there and had the money to deal with more recipients and the higher cost of living but as usual a Government wouldn't be able to let that much money go unspent.
If that is true it would have been better if they had of left it there and had the money to deal with more recipients and the higher cost of living but as usual a Government wouldn't be able to let that much money go unspent.
By law, any surplus cannot be left untouched. It must be transferred to the general fund.
If that is true it would have been better if they had of left it there and had the money to deal with more recipients and the higher cost of living but as usual a Government wouldn't be able to let that much money go unspent.
That would just make the problem worse--for future generations. I can't say exactly when the card house will fall, but I can tell you that when SS reform is finally tackled, the generation that gets screwed is going to be one either yet unborn--or one not yet of voting age, because no voting age generation is going to stand still for themselves to be the ones to have to bite the bullet. So, we'll just screw a future someone else, just so we can get what we think we so richly deserve. It's a lot more complicated than what has been posted here already--things like interest paying bonds that the SSTF invests in--backed by the "full faith and credit of the US Govt". That quote alone should scare anyone.
In 2017, Social Security will begin paying out more than it takes in. For the first time, it will have to use the interest being paid on the securities it holds in order to meet its obligations.
In 2027, Social Security would have to start redeeming the securities themselves.
By 2041, Social Security would have cashed in the last security, and the system would have enough revenue to pay out only 75% of promised benefits. That percentage would drop over time if Congress failed to act.
A person who turns 62 in 2041 would have been born in 1979. So, anyone born after 1975 better be thinking what they are going to do for $$ in their senior years. THIS, is why I keep saying scrap it now, so that generation won't lose every penny they paid into it their entire life.
IP: Logged
11:18 PM
scrabblegod Member
Posts: 1014 From: Lexington, KY Registered: Jun 2003
Me: The single biggest Federal budget outlay is health and social service--not defense. Defence is 2nd. Social Security. Scrap it. Cut off date of age 49 years and 6 months. Older than that, you can file for what your lifetime benefit is, paid out just as it is now. If you are between the ages of 18 and 30, you are sol in regards to the little ya have paid in. 30-50, you get all your contribution back lump sum to roll into a retirement fund of your own choosing--or if you are an irresponsible type--spend it on booze, drugs, big boy toys and crap. If, a young person cannot plan for their retirement/senior years, they deserve whatever they did plan for--it's that simple.
The problem I have with your solution for social security, is me being 48, giving me back my contribution is not the same as me having that contribution to invest and plan with for the last 32 years I have worked. Also, that refund would have to include my "employers matching contribution" which is a farce as that comes right out of your pay in reduced pay and benefits. The employer is like everyone who must pass on the cost.
Do you think you would have a choice in the matter? Ans=no. Sorry, but someone would have to bite the bullet. It doesn't matter who, but like most, you say--"Not me--not me--let a future generation do it".
It's going to happen at some point--would you rather it be your child or grandchild?
IP: Logged
11:42 PM
Nov 4th, 2010
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
