What do you guys think about the proposed Social Security amendment?

[Reschke]

I think its both good and bad. Quite simply for those of us like me (I am 33) the funds for Social Security (another crutch for US citizens in my view) is a waste of time and money. The ever increasing "baby boomer" life expectancy is a pure drain on the resources that FDR's administration put in place. There are more of them than there are of their children and grandchildren and even though many of us may make more money than they did

Sure it was good when it worked in the beginning when the ratio of workers to people on Social Security was 16:1 but now with that same ratio at 3:1 and steadily declining.

The private fund accounts should be good as long as the contributor is allowed a chance to oversee what happens with it. I just don't trust the government with my potential retirement money when they have shown ineptitude with their own funds over the life of the SSA existence.

[JB88]

i would rather they just say "here.  we have reduced your social security tax by 1/3.  do whatever the heck you want to do with it", rather than saying...hmmm, how can we provide more corporate welfare.

my point being that it was the government raiding social security which screwed it in the first place.

i smell a big fat corporate rat in this one.

i have absolutely no objections to the government letting me provide for my own social security should i so choose.

i had a great conversation with one of my brother in laws about this (a stockbroker).  he convinced me that it was relatively safe, but not entirely without risk and we both agreed that wed be better off if they just let us handle the money ourselves.

and interesting point that he made,
he believes that social security was one of the breaking points of the nuclear family.  you no longer had to take care of your own.  just stick em in a home somewhere.

hadnt occurred to me...was an interesting point.

[Eagler]

What do you guys think about the proposed Social Security amendment?

I'm all for it

[wombatt]

Originally posted by Reschke
I think its both good and bad. Quite simply for those of us like me (I am 33) the funds for Social Security (another crutch for US citizens in my view) is a waste of time and money. The ever increasing "baby boomer" life expectancy is a pure drain on the resources that FDR's administration put in place. There are more of them than there are of their children and grandchildren and even though many of us may make more money than they did

Sure it was good when it worked in the beginning when the ratio of workers to people on Social Security was 16:1 but now with that same ratio at 3:1 and steadily declining.

The private fund accounts should be good as long as the contributor is allowed a chance to oversee what happens with it. I just don't trust the government with my potential retirement money when they have shown ineptitude with their own funds over the life of the SSA existence.

Fine pay me back every cent i have paid in in the last 30 years and close down SS thats fine with me.

But don't even think about closing it down without giving me back MY money I PAID IN.

[TalonX]

Social Security should be abolished..and they can keep the money I paid.... (max for 27 years).  Just let me have my contributions to do with as I please.... I'd be far better off.

Social Security is another damn welfare system for morons who didn't save.  I am sick of carrying the burden of deadbeats.

(Sorry Dad, GET OUT OF MY WALLET)  



Have a nice day!

[Nash]

Aaaaaand they're OFF!

[rshubert]

Since I am 50, and now have a shorter time than most to make the adjustments to my plans, I have to say that I am taking a "wait and see" attitude.

My normally "get the gov out of my life" approach doesn't semm to work for me, here, because the government took my money (against my will) for a long, long time, promising to give it back to me when I retire.  Now, they are saying that they might not be able to do that.  I supported the previous generation, like a good boy.  The deal was that the next generation would support me.  All involuntarily, mind you.

I have thought that social security was a fraud, ever since Nixon and the (then) democratic congress conspired to put the SS trust fund in the general fund.  They were just going to "borrow" the money and pay it back later.  Well, later never arrived, and every congress since 1972 has continued to dip into the retirement program for general fund spending.

Now, the time is coming to pay up, and we don't have the rent money.

[TheDudeDVant]

If it is passed.. What will happen to the existing money in the SS fund now? Our government is going to invest it for us in the stock market?? Do some not just see this as another government payout to the corporate run america that we have now?

[oboe]

I have several thoughts on it.   First off - it'll cost 2 trillion to privatize, and Bush wants to borrow that money, so I'm against it right there.

Second, I see it as a windfall for the large financial services companies.   They are going to make a ton of money on account fees and service charges.    Since Bush had his large energy company campaign contributors design our energy policy, I'm not surprised that his proposed Social Security reforms will benefit more big contributors to his campaign.

Third, Bush is using fearmongering to promote the changes.  I have heard him say on the radio that Social Security will be "flat broke".   I can't believe this man doesn't understand how Social Security works (workers pay SS payroll taxes on current earnings as they work, so as long as there are workers with jobs, SS will never be "flat broke".    So I know he is being intentionally deceptive.   Just seems like the same old "Iraq has WMDs that could target us in 45 minutes" strategy, and I ain't falling for it.

Finally, it doesn't even appear to help workers much.   This clip from the Washington Post:

'It's not a nest egg. It's a loan.'
In effect, the accounts would work more like a loan from the government, to be paid back upon retirement at an inflation-adjusted 3 percent interest rate — the interest the money would have earned if it had been invested in Treasury bonds, said Peter R. Orszag, a Social Security analyst at the Brookings Institution and a former Clinton White House economist.

"I believe you should be able to set aside part of that money in your own retirement account so you can build a nest egg for your own future," Bush said in his speech.

Orszag retorted: "It's not a nest egg. It's a loan."

Under the system, the gains may be minimal. The Social Security Administration, in projecting benefits under a partially privatized system, assumes a 4.6 percent rate of return above inflation. The Congressional Budget Office, Capitol Hill's official scorekeeper, assumes 3.3 percent gains.

If a worker sets aside $1,000 a year for 40 years, and earns 4 percent annually on investments, the account would grow to $99,800 in today's dollars, but the government would keep $78,700 -- or about 80 percent of the account. The remainder, $21,100, would be the worker's.

With a 4.6 percent average gain over inflation, the government keeps more than 70 percent. With the CBO's 3.3 percent rate, the worker is left with nothing but the guaranteed benefit.

[SOB]

I think I'm glad I'm saving for my own retirement.

[indy007]

Originally posted by oboe
Third, Bush is using fearmongering to promote the changes.  I have heard him say on the radio that Social Security will be "flat broke".   I can't believe this man doesn't understand how Social Security works (workers pay SS payroll taxes on current earnings as they work, so as long as there are workers with jobs, SS will never be "flat broke".    So I know he is being intentionally deceptive.   Just seems like the same old "Iraq has WMDs that could target us in 45 minutes" strategy, and I ain't falling for it.

Look at the ratio posted earlier. 16 workers per 1 social security recipient. Now it's 3:1, and still dropping. When you have more money going out than coming in, you go into the red.

If this passes, I'll be one of the first in line to get a private account, for my own peace of mind more than anything else. My parents even drilled it into me when I first started working to put up 10% of anything I ever make into a savings account so I have my own, private retirement fund.

[slimm50]

Originally posted by wombatt
Fine pay me back every cent i have paid in in the last 30 years and close down SS thats fine with me.

But don't even think about closing it down without giving me back MY money I PAID IN.

Recall the Bank Run scene in It's A Wonderful Life:

:

But Wombatt, your money isn't in the Bailey S&L. No, it's in Pleasant Valley Nursing Home, and it went to buy Depens and Liver pills and Geritol for Your Aunt Bessie. Don't you see Wombatt, your money's been spread out amongst millions of old farts all over this great land.


How'd I do?

[Lye-El]

10th Worst Stock Market Crash:

Date Started: 1/15/2000
Date Ended: 10/9/2002

Total Days: 999
Starting DJIA: 11,792.98
Ending DJIA: 7,286.27
Total Loss: -37.8%

Which means there were 9 more evern more fun!

My 401K is just now getting back to what it was 5 years ago and I have been putting into it all this time.  

How about a nice IPO? Oh yeah,  I can't.

Just have Congress ante up for all those IOUs they gave Social Security or put in half the money they seem to find for a war or  aid  (bribes) to other countries.  They come up with the money for their pet projects all the time.

[Halo]

Social Security is a great security blanket for society in general, and it's too bad it couldn't be left alone to provide Social Security, period.  

But some politicans and government budget people always want to dip into Social Security funds  for "temporary" relief elsewhere in the federal budget, and private institutions would love to get into Social Security savings and take their higher fee cuts.  

The most important future consideration is having fewer workers to pay for more retirees.  But some of that is a misconception too.  One school says current workers are paying for present retirees. Another school says current workers are saving to pay for their own Security Security when they are eligible to draw it.

Another consideration is people living longer than they did when Social Security was created.  The obvious fix for that is to not allow Social Security payouts until age 70 or so instead of 65, and none earlier as is presently allowed at age 62.  

Having invested some in savings accounts, no-load mutual funds, and stocks, I can add my voice to the chorus that says BEWARE, truly there are NO guarantees of any future returns, let alone enough to live on.  You might be lucky, and you might not.  

A government that can make war around the world, give generously to disaster victims around the world, and give more money to support various international organizations and causes, can surely continue to provide at least a minimum Social Security network free of private enterprise profiteering for its hard-working citizens who most deserve a return on their own money.

Incidentally, it is never too early to begin requesting every five years or so Your Personal Earnings and Benefit Estimate Statement from the Social Security Administration.  The good news is IF you live long enough, it won't take too many years to recover your Social Security investment.

And don't forget Medicare.  You're saving for that too along with Social Security, and together they take a respectable amount of money out of each paycheck.  You earn that back too IF you live long enough.

It's always about actuarial tables.

The tough thing is we all have to sit down and puzzle through the financial smoke and mirrors of people trying to sell us investments.  The first question is to ask what THEY are profiting from OUR money.  You might be surprised.  

The second question is for X amount of money invested in Y, how much NET after tax and fee money will we receive, and how does this compare to other investments?  Naturally this includes EXPECTED (rarely guaranteed) rate of return and risk, the two main balancing considerations.

If you haven't already, check out Morningstar for one of the best overall sources of information about most types of investments.  

The bottom line is what you need to live on in retirement, meaning NET after taxes and fees -- money you can spend on yourself.  

For most people who are not wealthy, Social Security and Medicare are vital parts of retirement, and it is not likely they can be duplicated by complete or partial privatization.  No commercial or private sources are as secure and reliable as the citizens' collective investment in the United States government.

[john9001]

there is no SS "amendment", what to do about SS will have to be worked out in congress.

nobody seems to understand, the excess SS taxes are invested in govt bonds.