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

[Nash]

Dear god, did we just break this thread? Whatever, I blame Liz(abeth) for tryin' to get all up in my grill.

Not to worry, this one's but the openning salvo. There will be hundreds to come. (That's my inner Nostradamus talking). Plan your well crafted positions accordingly (ie. suckle on yer favorite loony websites and bone up on the "looming crisis" that is Social Security).

[lasersailor184]

OK, just follow me for a little bit in this one.


The problem right now is that all the baby boomers are retiring.  That means more people grabbing at SS at the same time.  Now, we have Baby Boomers for a reason.

Back after WW2 was over, a bunch of horny soldiers came home loving life and had many babies with their wife.  Now, it wasn't the Soldier's fault they were over in Europe and the Pacific risking their lives.

It was germany's fault.  Germany started a war which we had to go finish.  

So my proposal is this.  Since germany made us come over there and kick their ass, and since we've never been paid back for all the money we spent on war and to rebuild their economy, I propose...


From here on out, Germany pays all US citizens their Social Security retirement benefits.  And now all US citizens don't have to pay into SS anymore.

[Toad]

I think any retirement plan that gets money you paid to the faceless government back into an account with your own name on it is a good thing.

Having your name on your retirement account is a very good thing. Ask anyone from Eastern Airlines, Trump Airlines, US Air, United; they'll be able to explain in detail.

[TweetyBird]

I think its just another way to delude you into thinking you own something. "Home ownership is up!!!" The American dream. How many of those homes are 80% or more unpaid for and owned by a financial institution?

Its smoke and mirrors - just another way to put your money in corporate hands.  But hell go for it - I know I wont be here in 2040. But if I was in my early 20's I'd be wondering about the economic growth of China and why anyone with half a brain would think the stock market could duplicate its fluke success of the 90's. But you go - and be glad this didn't happen before you sunk your stake into NASDAQ.

[Sabre]

Originally posted by wombatt
Great I have no problem with the moneys I paid in going to help the elderly who paid before me.
just as the young people who follow me should pay for my generation thats the way the system should work any way.

And besides what the hell is so wrong with people living longer?
And safe to say someone gotta take care of them and as they have paid in all those years I say they are entitled.

See, that's the problem.  Your argument is based on a myth.  This is not the way it was supposed to work.  You were not paying in to pay for someone already retired, but to build money for YOUR retirement.  That's how it was invisioned to work.  If you think about it, it had to work that way when it first started, sense there was no money in the SS fund when the program began.

As for living longer, there's nothing wrong with it.  It's just that the original framers of the SSS didn't foresee what has occured in the demographics in this country.  The system should have been set up from day one as individual accounts (may have been for that matter, just don't know for sure) and held to it.  It was not and is not.  Hence the problem we have today.  It's easy to simply ignore it (it's decades away, why worry?).  It's become a cash and carry program in that the money coming in from todays contributors and giving it to today's beneficiaries.  And there are fewer and fewer of the former and more and more of the latter everyday.  Do the math.

[Sandman]

I'm going to oversimplify, but let's see if I understand...

If the social security system were a pool, there's a faucet pouring in (or social security tax) and a drain at the bottom (payments to SS recipients).

Bush states that the pool will begin to drain faster than the fill and then the pool will dry.

His proposal is to reduce the drain by increasing the age of retirement benefit and reducing payment to later recipients. Unfortunately, he's also talking about reducing the fill by allowing people to divert payment to their own personal retirement accounts.

Do nothing or do this... the social security system still dies.

I guess the real goal is to kill the social security system and to put something new in it's place.


Personally, I think the retirement age should increase. I also think that people that don't need social security should not be given it. Social security is socialist afterall. As for allowing people to divert funds elsewhere. I'm not dead set, but I think it's a bad idea. I pay into social security. I also put 13% of my gross pay away for retirement. It is my hope that I won't need SS. At the same time, I think our payments should be counted as a tax and deducted. I tell ya... if I pay into it and then I can't get it back, it's a tax. I think my taxes are already too high. Unfortunately, i think taxes are just going to get worse. Besides SS, we also have medicaid to worry about. Oh... and we can't forget the liberation of the world from tyrants. It's going to get really expensive.

[Reschke]

Originally posted by 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.

Exactly right its not an amendment but it was the only word I could think of at the moment. As for these alleged excess SS taxes you speak of then why aren't they dropped into some high yield funds to increase the amount of dollars in the SS funds instead of the steady loosers like government security bonds. Hell I just recently pulled all of my government securities shares in my IRA and dropped it into a real estate fund. Guess what happened...over the last three months my money has tripled in that one fund while the fund I was in for US government securities has continued to plummet downward.

Don't get me wrong I love this nation but the last 40 years of government has put our nation into some serious peril and unfortunately there isn't allot of room to go before we slide off the lip of the cliff. Guess that is why I am tossing my votes to the Independents instead of Republican or Democratic party.

If these numbnuts who run our country ran a real business (not just sit on a board of a company like Halliburton) they would fail and be bankrupt within just a few short months.

[Reschke]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
OK, just follow me for a little bit in this one.


The problem right now is that all the baby boomers are retiring.  That means more people grabbing at SS at the same time.  Now, we have Baby Boomers for a reason.

Back after WW2 was over, a bunch of horny soldiers came home loving life and had many babies with their wife.  Now, it wasn't the Soldier's fault they were over in Europe and the Pacific risking their lives.

It was germany's fault.  Germany started a war which we had to go finish.  

So my proposal is this.  Since germany made us come over there and kick their ass, and since we've never been paid back for all the money we spent on war and to rebuild their economy, I propose...


From here on out, Germany pays all US citizens their Social Security retirement benefits.  And now all US citizens don't have to pay into SS anymore.

What about the Japanese and the Chinese and the Russians and the other myriad of nations that defaulted on war time loans made to them by the US government?

I know the Soviets/Russians don't have a pot to piss in but they have this massive natural resource area that needs exploitation....Siberia....So we bring in our massive natural resource killing corporations and drain that sucker dry of everything from oil and gold to silver and aluminium...What do you say and BTW what about those little Japanese suckers we put back in business and those others we financed in Taiwan and China....Hell shouldn't they pay for it also?!!?!??!?!?!?!?!

[Halo]

The prevailing retirement triad of Social Security, company pensions, and individual savings has worked for a long time because it follows the principle of diversification which is so important in finance.  

Many workers have substantial company savings incentives.  But like investing in stocks or bonds, company pensions are great only as long as the companies remain solvent.

Or as long as the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. can cover company pension failures.  Check the PBGC site on line:

http://www.pbgc.gov/news/default.htm

Funded not by general tax revenues but by company insurance premiums and investments, PBGC guarantees pensions for some 44 million workers in more than 31,000 "private sector defined benefit pension plans."

However, "In the past 30 years, PBGC has taken over 3,200 terminated plans and benefits of nearly 1 million workers."  

As of mid 2004, PBGC had a shortfall of nearly $10 billion.  That's right NOW with about 10% of its insured companies failing -- not 20 or 75 years from now or that new weird "infinite horizon" guesstimate.  

With so many companies failing even with their career managers and financial gurus, and many people finding it difficult just to find a good job let alone develop individual investment expertise, it would be a massive mistake to dilute the government Social Security leg of the investment triad.

The best solution is to raise the Social Security payback age to 70 when or if the system needs that, eliminate early payback such as age 62 when or if the system needs that, and increase contributions by a percentage point or two when or if needed.  

Naturally this assumes a tight and fair system paying out in proportion only to money paid in.  Welfare and aid to the poor and unfortunate is another subject.  

The most unfortunate aspect of Social Security is a contributor dying before collecting as least as much money as paid into it.  It is a little comfort that surviving spouses, if their SS benefit is lower, often can claim a higher monthly payout of the deceased, and children too can get some benefits.

Social Security is aptly named as probably the most socialistic aspect of government finance.  Is that a bad thing, enforced savings for old age, guaranteed by the government?  The sad truth is some people have nothing but Social Security for their old age.  

My guess is most people consider Social Security a good thing and will vote down any radical proposal to privatize it.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by SOB
Heh, unfortunately it doesn't make it any more interesting or fun either.  At least at a bar we could get drunk off our asses, sing bar songs, and bother the women around us.

And you still cant do that?
where the hell do you live?
and you cant possibly be married LOL

[Toad]

The PBGC is a joke.

After 30+ years in commercial aviation as a pilot, pensions at Eastern, Trump and US Air, my brother will retire in October.

PBGC will give him $26,000 a year. That's if PBGC doesn't go bankrupt on him.  

Pensions EVERYWHERE should be in the employee's own name and they should transfer if the employee changes jobs or companies.

Pension benefits are benefits you EARN. They are part of your compensation package and they should belong to you.

Sadly, that's not the way it works.

[Silat]

Originally posted by Lizard3

Private enterprise gets things done faster, cheaper and with better quality than any government agency could dream of.
Thats what I think.
Enjoy!

Im a capitalist. But private enterprise wants one thing and one thing only.
they want YOUR MONEY.They dont give a care about your future..........I want my government to handle this.

[Eagler]

Originally posted by Silat
Im a capitalist. But private enterprise wants one thing and one thing only.
they want YOUR MONEY.They dont give a care about your future..........I want my government to handle this.

spoken like a true lib

lol lol lol

[oboe]

Capitalism works:

(CNN) -- A Washington state utility released audiotapes Thursday that it said revealed bankrupt energy trader Enron Corp. plotted to take a power plant off-line in 2001 to jack up electric prices in Western states.

That same day, shortages of power forced rolling blackouts in northern California that affected about 2 million customers.

Snohomish Public Utility District in Everett, Washington, released the tapes as part of its effort to void a $122 million lawsuit Enron has filed against it seeking payment for electricity it was contracted to provide.

The utility says an Enron employee and a worker at a power plant in Las Vegas, Nevada, made up phony repairs, taking the plant off-line January 17, 2001.

"We want you guys to get a little creative ... and come up with a reason to go down," the Enron worker tells the plant employee on one of the tapes.

[Shamus]

Originally posted by Toad

 
Pensions EVERYWHERE should be in the employee's own name and they should transfer if the employee changes jobs or companies.

Pension benefits are benefits you EARN. They are part of your compensation package and they should belong to you.

 

Probably why defined benefit plans are on the way out in the private sector, you get to take the 401 with you.

shamus