Author Topic: social security and enron  (Read 363 times)

Offline JB88

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10980
social security and enron
« on: December 23, 2004, 12:31:09 AM »
i am going to have to do some research into this before i decide how i feel...but my gut feeling is that the whole privitazation of social security issue and the calls for reform by way of being able to divert funds into stock options is yet another well crafted means by which corporate heads can legally suck the blood of the american people.

darn it! there i was being negative again...im sure enron will take care of my retirement...i keep forgetting that all they really want to do is hold onto it for me.

sorry execs from enron, worldcom and distant shades of savings and loans...i know your sorry.  you wont hit me again.  

im all for progressiveness in government and buisiness, but the merge is starting to blend the line a bit more than i am comfortable with.

anyone have thoughts on this?
this thread is doomed.
www.augustbach.com  

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. -Ulysses.

word.

Offline rpm

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15661
social security and enron
« Reply #1 on: December 23, 2004, 12:33:47 AM »
Any time you have a lump of cash laying around somebody will try to get their hands on it. Bush has a very poor track record for investors. I'd hate for Social Security to become the next Enron. What will happen if Social Security becomes privatized and the market crashes?
« Last Edit: December 23, 2004, 12:57:36 AM by rpm »
My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives.
Stay thirsty my friends.

Offline JB88

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10980
social security and enron
« Reply #2 on: December 23, 2004, 01:02:06 AM »
arbusto means "shrub" appearantly.

my sentiments exactly.  

the more i think about it the more i dislike the concept.  

but ill have to wait and see.  perhaps someone will add some positives that i am missing?
this thread is doomed.
www.augustbach.com  

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. -Ulysses.

word.

Offline Lazerus

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
social security and enron
« Reply #3 on: December 23, 2004, 01:12:53 AM »
Try this.

http://www.libertyhaven.com/politicsandcurrentevents/healthcarewelfareorsocialsecurity/galveston.shtml



Google these words.

"opt out""social security""texas"

Just copy and paste, there's quite a few articles about it.

Offline Lazerus

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
social security and enron
« Reply #4 on: December 23, 2004, 01:14:36 AM »
Here's the text from the link.

How Galveston Opted Out
of Social Security
Ed Myers

    In south Texas, along the windswept Gulf Coast where multitudes of hurricanes have made landfall over the centuries, there are three history-filled, ahead-of-their-time counties: Galveston, Brazoria, and Matagorda.

    Until the early 1980s government entities, such as cities and counties, had the right of opting out of Social Security and establishing their own retirement system. This option had been provided when the Social Security Act was passed in the thirties.

    Galveston County in 1979 looked into this idea when then - County Attorney Bill Decker contacted Don Kebodeaux, highly successful Houston businessman, and asked him if he could devise a plan so that Galveston County could opt out of Social Security. At that time Social Security was on the verge of bankruptcy and no one knew what the future held. Don pondered the problem and called in his friend Rick Gornto, a leading financial expert, who was later to become his partner. These two hard-driving and foresighted businessmen, realizing the coming problems in Social Security, designed a new program for political subdivisions that would provide a retirement plan for employees that was many times better than the existing Social Security program. Satisfied with the new program, and in order to properly present and handle this program, these two Texas entrepreneurs organized several companies that became the First Financial Group.

    The men from First Financial took their ideas, which they called The Alternate Plan, to Galveston County and presented them to County Judge Ray Holbrook and the Commissioners Court in 1980. When Judge Holbrook, a quiet, soft-spoken Texan, and County Attorney Bill Decker, a man dedicated to the betterment of his county, saw the wisdom and foresight of this concept they took charge and shepherded the plan through its various stages.

    The beauty of the plan was simplicity itself. The 6.13 percent rate that the government had been taking out for Social Security in 1981 now would go into the pension fund for employees and would be matched by the county. Life and disability insurance were included at first to match exactly the Social Security benefits. In recent years the county increased its participation to 7.65 percent, which included payment of all premiums for life and disability insurance. The life insurance benefit for those under age 70 is 300 percent of one's annual earnings with the minimum benefit of $50,000 and a maximum of $150,000.

    Many spirited debates were held throughout the county between Social Security representatives and the men from First Financial for the benefit of the county employment of 78 percent to 22 percent, the Galveston County employees endorsed the idea and the county opted out of Social Security.

    The local unions fought the idea at first, and several Galveston County officials also opposed the action. As time went on and they learned more about the program, nearly all of them saw the sound judgment in this course of action. Years later Decker, by then retired, told the story of how a number of unionized county workers thanked him for his wisdom and guidance. They said at first they had serious doubts about giving up the fixed income of Social Security, but now that they were getting ready to retire they were very happy they did.

    "The Alternate Plan has been a godsend for Galveston County and clearly improved employee benefits," said Judge Holbrook recently. He continued, "The 22 percent who voted against it in 1980 are all supportive now and see the many benefits of having a retirement program other than Social Security, which most employees under age forty believe will not be existing when they retire because there will not be enough workers to contribute to this pay-as-you-go system. And now no one objects to the mandatory feature which was made part of The Plan a few years after it started." Judge Holbrook, who retired in 1994 after 28 years of distinguished service, concluded his narrative by saying, "Of all the things I accomplished while county judge, setting up this retirement system for Galveston County employees is one of my proudest achievements." Now in retirement, Judge Holbrook also pointed out that after just 12 years of service under The Alternate Plan he is now receiving twice as much as he would have under Social Security.

    Seeing this tremendous potential in 1982 Brazoria County followed suit and opted out of Social Security in favor of The Alternate Plan. A year later Matagorda County climbed on board.

    Tolbert Newman, operations manager for the First Financial Group who handles the overall responsibility for these plans for the three counties, cites the following example of the growth that can be achieved in this Alternate Plan pension fund. If an individual is 25 years old and makes a $2,000 annual contribution for just ten years, assuming an 8 percent earnings rate, this individual will have $314,870 when he or she retires at age 65. If he works continuously for 40 years, he may well have accumulated a million dollars, depending on his contributions.

    This idea began taking hold in a big way. The entrepreneurial spirit was alive and well. In a short period of time the idea spread and some 200 other counties, as well as many cities, in Texas and throughout the entire country, saw the latent possibilities of the program and were ready to become candidates to opt out and join the plan that First Financial Group had devised.

    Then as these other political subdivisions began to set the wheels in motion for this farsighted change, up jumped the devil, Congress. Social Security had gone broke the year before and our legislators were now looking for ways to bail out the system. Capitol Hill had already decided to include the federal employees and then got a rude shock when it looked as though all employees of the various counties in Texas, and others throughout the country, were about to opt out of Social Security. That was a calamity it could not allow, so Congress canceled the opt-out clause in 1983. Fortunately Galveston, Brazoria, and Matagorda counties had their systems up and running and so the grandfather clause applied, and they were allowed to continue their Alternate Plan, much to the chagrin of all these other Texas counties.

    The Alternate Plan that began as a fledgling, upstart employee benefit plan has stood the test of time and has shown that it can and does outperform Social Security. The plan that started in Galveston County ended the first year with a modest balance. Today, with over 5,000 employees from these three counties The Alternate Plan has grown to a very healthy and sizable portfolio. Those who retire after 20 years will receive three to four times the rate as under Social Security. This Alternate Plan is not just an isolated act of a group of responsible and dedicated Texans. There are countless other examples of other local and state government entities showing the same responsibility and initiative throughout the United States. There are now five states that are not under Social Security and have their own plans: California, Nevada, Maine, Ohio, and Colorado. In the Colorado plan they now have over $14 billion in assets. Local govern-ment entities such as police and fire depart-ments have long handled their own retirement plans.

    These plans clearly demonstrate that if left alone enterprising Americans can set up re-tirement systems, second to none.

    The private sector, including the self--employed, will benefit from privatizing Social Security as never before. Phasing out the employer's share of the Social Security tax will, over time, return to the business com-munity more than $169.2 billion per year. Not having to pay these FICA taxes in future years will be a tremendous boon to the business climate and the creation of untold new jobs.

    Larry N. Forehand, president of the Texas Restaurant Association and founder of Casa Olé Mexican Restaurants, a fast-growing Texas restaurant chain, had this to say: "We currently pay over $1.3 million in matching Social Security taxes annually. If our company had that $1.3 million a year to invest in new locations, we could build six additional res-taurants, employ an additional four hundred fifty people and add $7.2 million to the economy every year. Based on current figures it is estimated that all restaurants in Texas will save $1.2 billion per year."

    Privatization will bring a win-win situation for all.

        At the time of the original publication, Ed Myers was author of the book Let's Get Rid of Social Security.

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
social security and enron
« Reply #5 on: December 23, 2004, 08:29:33 AM »
many feds have opted out allready with FERS.  

In my state or, tri state, we have PERS.   Pers is public employees retirement system.   It replaces SS for millions of public employees in at leaast 3 states that I know of.   The employer usually contributes the entire 7%.   It is a system based on 2.5-3% of your last years salary per year of service.   At 2.5% say, you would get 50% of your last years wages with 20 years on the job at age 55.   It goes to 113% or so.

It pays nothing to people who have not contributed tho except death benifiets.  

It is an extremely profitable system with huge reserves that the state and feds are constantly trying to get their hands on.

lazs

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
social security and enron
« Reply #6 on: December 23, 2004, 10:10:40 AM »
I can say this.....if this system is anything like the TSP (thrift savings program) that federal workers and now military use I am all for it replacing social security.

This plan is like many 401k plans except you arent investing in one particular company but one or more of a couple funds.  Some hold higher risk then others but have a greater gain and vis vrsa.


I can see were people would be hesitent about this because of recent scandles in corporate world but seriously......why should I have to pay all that money through out my life to recieve very little if any in the end.

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
social security and enron
« Reply #7 on: December 23, 2004, 10:19:16 AM »
No, no, NO!

Money that you (or your employer) sends to the Federal Government to be invested in your name IS NOT YOUR MONEY.

Let them take it from there. They'll do what's best for you, don't worry at all.

This idea that any money you give the government is actually yours is... well... seditious at best.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
social security and enron
« Reply #8 on: December 23, 2004, 10:28:03 AM »
Quote
Then as these other political subdivisions began to set the wheels in motion for this farsighted change, up jumped the devil, Congress. Social Security had gone broke the year before and our legislators were now looking for ways to bail out the system.


yea my govt knows what's best.   This is what scares me about mandetory social anything invovling the govt.

Offline JB88

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10980
social security and enron
« Reply #9 on: December 23, 2004, 10:42:49 AM »
great article lazerus, thank you for sharing it.  i always love to hear those types of success stories.

it made me rethink what it was that was concerning me so much about it.  

i have a tendancy to lean libertarian so i was almost surprized by my own skepticism regarding the matter.  

again, i am not so much against reform as i am somewhat leery about the potential pitfalls that can occur when a peoples security is placed in the hands of those whose modern track records have played out in recent years like some surreal white collar circus train robbery.

in particular, i see corporations becoming increasingly turning from the public interest, or even the interests of thier own employees and towards self gratification at the executive level.  im talking about multimillion dollar raises at the top while thousands are being laid off on the bottom tier.  this isnt new, but the excess is getting worse.  i simply dont trust that those who would lobby for this type of investment in the private sector are all that concerned about the welfare and security of investors in the longterm so much as they are with the immediate profitability of a government sponsored cash injection.  this is one of the few arguements that i might make for the idea of social security.   it takes alot of work to get rid of a government program once it has been adopted, thus at least some marginal security can be expected.  its the only arguement that i would make for it.  it definately needs reform.  perhaps by being more fiscally responsible and spending less tnan 33% of our budget on our military and pork contracts we could figure out a way to do it through more conservative investment strategies.

i am not totally against the idea of the private sector being an option for the citizen...but i think that we really need to understand what is being asked of us...and why it is being asked.

even in the most modest and conservative of investment strategies  there is always a risk of loss.

privatization also means the possibility of liquidation to avoid continued investment and immediate return.

lets say that i invested in x, or that x and y were two major components of my portfolio...then x and y decided to tank it, got bought out by m and began divesting in american interests in lew of cheaper labor in some swanky third world country...meanwhile, i am wondering where my interest in x and y went and why congress didnt have the foresight to see that we were getting robbed when company m sees that filing for bankrupcy in a foriegn country with and an international boundary blocking any penalty is a pretty profitable idea.

investors lose money.  they gain money.  but win or lose...the fat cats always make money.  

thats just what they do.

so im torn.

perhaps ill just have to continue to save it on my own......or maybe i'll buy land in a swanky third world country.  they'll want it some day.  i just know that they will.
this thread is doomed.
www.augustbach.com  

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. -Ulysses.

word.

Offline oboe

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9805
social security and enron
« Reply #10 on: December 23, 2004, 12:09:35 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by JB88
in particular, i see corporations becoming increasingly turning from the public interest, or even the interests of thier own employees and towards self gratification at the executive level.  im talking about multimillion dollar raises at the top while thousands are being laid off on the bottom tier.  this isnt new, but the excess is getting worse.  i simply dont trust that those who would lobby for this type of investment in the private sector are all that concerned about the welfare and security of investors in the longterm so much as they are with the immediate profitability of a government sponsored cash injection....


Either way, you're going to have to trust somebody else with your money.    So who should you trust?   The U.S. government, or guys like Ken Lay (Enron), Bernie Ebbers (MCI Worldcom), Dennis Kozlowski (Tyco), John Rigas (Adelphia), Franklin Raines (Fannie Mae)?    And those guys are just the visible tip of a titanic iceberg.   And how about all the cheating mutual funds that have come to light recently?

As if cooked books and cheating investment houses aren't enough, you also have to compete against crooked investors like Martha Stewart (convicted, $30,000 fine and 5 months in a minimum security prison).   Guess how much time you woulda served if you'd done what she did?   A tad more than 5 months I bet.

The reality is that big business is crooked, and the justice system offers little relief to the small player.   If that's a system where you want to compete, then by all means lets privatize social security.      I think its at least as healthy a move for the middle class as NAFTA was.

Offline JB88

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10980
an interesting counterpoint
« Reply #11 on: December 25, 2004, 10:16:38 PM »
found an interesting paper that runs counter to the arguement of the benifits of privatization.   submitted by the center for economic and policy reasearch.

one of the things that i found most fascinating is that the rate of return is lower for those who earn less.  an obvious result, but one that i find extremely important.

88

---------------------------------------


Basic Facts on Social Security and Proposed Benefit Cuts/Privatization

 Dean Baker and David Rosnick

Center for Economic and Policy Reasearch.

November 16, 2004

1) Social Security is Financially Sound

According to the Social Security trustees report, the standard basis for analyzing Social Security, the program can pay all benefits through the year 2042, with no changes whatsoever. Even after 2042 the program would always be able to pay retirees a higher benefit (in today's dollars) than what current retirees receive. The assessment of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office is that Social Security is even stronger. It projects that Social Security can pay all benefits through the year 2052 with no changes whatsoever. By either measure, Social Security is more financially sound today than it has been throughout most of its 69-year history.

            Source: SSA, CBO, and authors’ calculations.


2) President Bush's Social Security Cuts Would Be Large

The proposal that President Bush is using as the basis for his plan phases in cuts over time. A worker who is 45 today can expect to see a cut in guaranteed benefits of around 15 percent. A worker who is age 35 can expect to see a cut in the guaranteed benefit of approximately 25 percent. A 15 year old who is just entering the work force can expect a benefit cut of close to 40 percent. For a 15 year old, this cut would mean a loss of close to $160,000 in Social Security benefits over the course of their retirement.

Private accounts will allow workers to earn back only a small fraction of this amount. For example, a 15 year-old can expect to make back approximately $50,000 from the $160,000 cut with the earnings on a private account. If this worker retires when the market is in a slump, then it could make their loss even bigger.


Source: SSA and authors’ calculations.


3) Imaginary Stock Returns Don't Offset Real Benefit Cuts

Proponents of private accounts have often used highly exaggerated assumptions on stock returns to argue for the benefits of private accounts. For example, even at the height of the stock bubble in 2000, when the price to earnings ratio in the market exceeded 30 to 1, many proponents of private accounts assumed that stocks would generate 7.0 percent real returns annually. This assumption was absurd on its face - it implied that price to earnings ratios would rise to levels of more than 100 to 1. Unfortunately, even the Social Security Administration has used these unfounded assumptions in assessing privatization plans.

Given current price to earnings ratios and the Social Security trustees' profit growth projections, real stock returns will average less than 5.0 percent annually. Some proponents of private accounts are still using exaggerated stock return assumptions to advance their case.

Source: SSA and authors’ calculations.


4) Social Security is Extremely Efficient, Private Accounts Are Wasteful

On average, less than 0.6 cents of every dollar paid out in Social Security benefits goes to pay administrative costs. By comparison, systems with individual accounts, like the ones in England or Chile, waste 15 cents of every dollar paid out in benefits on administrative fees. President Bush's Social Security commission estimated that under their system of individual accounts 5 cents of every dollar would go to pay administrative costs.

In addition, under Social Security workers automatically get an annuity (a life-long monthly payment) when they retire. By contrast, financial firms typically take 10 to 20 percent of workers' savings to provide an annuity when they reach retirement.

Source: SSA and authors’ calculations.


5) Social Security Pays the Most to Those Who Need it Most

Social Security benefits are highly progressive, so that low wage workers get a much higher share of their wages in benefits than do high wage workers. A worker who earned $10,000 a year during their working lifetime can expect to see a benefit that is equal to approximately 75 percent of their average wage. A worker who earned $33,000 a year will get a benefit that is equal to approximately 45 percent of their wage, while a worker who earned $50,000 on average will get a benefit that is equal to 39 percent of their wage.

While poorer workers do not live as long as higher paid workers, the progressive benefit structure largely offsets differences in life expectancy (as do disability and survivors benefits for those who do not live to normal retirement age). Furthermore, since plans are being made for the distant future, the United States could reduce the gaps in life expectancy by income and race, as other countries have done.

Source: SSA and authors’ calculations.


6) The Projected Shortfall is No Larger Than What We Have Seen In Past Decades

It has been necessary to raise Social Security taxes in the past, primarily because people are living longer than they used to. The tax increase that would be needed to make the program fully funded over its seventy five year planning period is actually smaller than tax increases we have seen in prior decades. In other words - it would have made more sense to talk of a Social Security "crisis" in 1965 than in 2005. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office estimates, Social Security can be made solvent throughout its seventy five year planning period with a tax increase that is less than one quarter as large as the one in the eighties.

While tax increases are never popular, the fact is that prior tax increases did not prevent decades like the fifties or sixties from being periods of great prosperity. Of course, if the economy maintains anywhere near its recent pace of growth, any tax increases can be put off for many decades into the future, and possibly forever.

Source: SSA and authors’ calculations.


7) Young Workers Will Still See Much Higher Wages If Taxes Are Increased

If it proves necessary to raise more money for Social Security through taxes, workers will still see large increases in their after-tax wages. This is true even if they end up paying a larger share of their wages in Social Security taxes. According to the Social Security trustees' projections, the average after-Social Security tax wage for a worker in 2050, will still be more than 70 percent higher than it is today, even if taxes are raised to keep the program solvent. The CBO projections imply an even larger increase in after-tax wages.

Raising payroll taxes is not the only way to increase the revenue for Social Security. An alternative is to raise the ceiling on taxable wages. Currently, no Social Security taxes are paid on income earned above $87,900 in any given year. If the ceiling were raised to $110,000 to cover 90 percent of the country's income from wages (the level set by the Greenspan commission in 1983), it would eliminate approximately 40 percent of the projected funding shortfall. Using the CBO projections, this change alone would be almost enough to make the program solvent through the seventy-five year planning period.

Source: SSA, CBO, and authors’ calculations.


8) The Bush Proposal Phases Out Social Security as We Know It

President Bush's proposal gradually shrinks the traditional guaranteed Social Security so that it will eventually become irrelevant for middle income workers. For today's twenty year old average wage earners, the guaranteed benefit will be equal to just 15 percent of their annual earnings when they reach retirement age. The guaranteed benefit will be equal to just 7 percent of annual earnings for a child born ten years from now.

As the traditional Social Security benefit becomes less important for middle-income workers, Social Security will increasingly become a poor people's program. This may be a clever strategy if the purpose is to undermine political support for Social Security; it is not a good way to structure the program if we expect it to be there for our children and grandchildren.

Source: President’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security and Author’s Calculations.



Footnotes:

  1. Dean Baker is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy research., David Rosnick, provided research assistance and or comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
this thread is doomed.
www.augustbach.com  

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. -Ulysses.

word.

Offline Lazerus

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
social security and enron
« Reply #12 on: December 26, 2004, 12:22:02 AM »
Without doing the research, this smacks of class warfare. The solid results of those that have opted out of SS versus the current benefits that SS gives should be more than enough to nullify this argument, but I'll try to take the time to research it tomorrow and post with more than opinion.