SS calculator

[Nash]

Hehe.

My point was really badly put though.

I guess what I'm saying is that when it comes to recommendations over what to do about something like Social Security, I'd probably want to hear it from people who actually have a stake in the outcome.

[Silat]

Originally posted by Krusher
I was refering to "That is certainly bipartisan"  like the link you posted was?  


You have the answer, you just dont like it.

This dialogue has one its course. I dont have the answer . And you obviously think the Bush private account issue is the answer against all experts who say it has nothing to do with fixing SS>

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Silat
This dialogue has one its course. I dont have the answer . And you obviously think the Bush private account issue is the answer against all experts who say it has nothing to do with fixing SS>

Your problem is you keep harping on the "fix SS" notion.

This doesn't fix it.  It rebuilds it.

You sound like a parrot.

"it's not fixed....RAWK...we're going to starve....RAWK"

[oboe]

Toad:

Is he saying that there'd be a 40 year payout of ~$1500 per month with the first 20 years tax free?

AND the family gets $350K insurance coverage throughout?

I think he is saying 60% of the $1500/month is taxable income for the first 20 yrs, after that the entire $1500 is fully taxable.  But the payout continues until you die - there is no period certain.  

Here is one more hurdle to clear:    With SS, your earnings and contributions are kept track of, and once you pass certain milestones, you are eligible to draw benefits when you retire - the longer you work and the more you put in, the more you will qualfy for to draw out.    You can stop and start working during your career without having your SS benefits expire or lapse.

A WL policy, however, depends on you to make regular, on-time premium payments, and will LAPSE if you do not make these payments.    Thus, if you are laid off and unable to find employment for a while, or stop working by choice, you still must make these premium payments or you will be without both your cash value and your family's death benefit.    Now companies don't want their policyholder's contracts lapsing, so most have some automatic premium loan mechanism that kicks in and starts paying premiums out of the accumulated cash value.    But if that happens, it will reduce your projected cash value and thus your retirement benefits.    And if it goes on long enough, you lose your benefits (less the paid-up additions purchased with the policy dividends), which is something that wouldn't happen under SS.

Still, I don't think is a show-stopper.   I'm sure some clever actuary could find a way around that problem - maybe instead of a traditional WL policy, you would just purchase a stream of Paid-Up Additions as you worked...

[Toad]

Originally posted by oboe
But if that happens, it will reduce your projected cash value and thus your retirement benefits...  
Still, I don't think is a show-stopper.  

The amount of SS they will pay you varies with how much you work as well, IIRC.

As you say, there might be a work around. I think if you dangle that much WL investment money in front of the insurance industry, they'll find a way to make the Congress happy.

[Silat]

Originally posted by Martlet
Your problem is you keep harping on the "fix SS" notion.

This doesn't fix it.  It rebuilds it.

You sound like a parrot.

"it's not fixed....RAWK...we're going to starve....RAWK"

Original question was . How do private accounts fix the problem? Answer "It doesnt". Get it? And as far as I am concerned there is no problem. Oh but if we throw 4 trillion dollars at it there will be.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Silat
Original question was . How do private accounts fix the problem? Answer "It doesnt". Get it? And as far as I am concerned there is no problem. Oh but if we throw 4 trillion dollars at it there will be.

Ahhhh, I get it.  Trick question.  You don't think being bankrupt is a problem.

[Silat]

Originally posted by Martlet
Ahhhh, I get it.  Trick question.  You don't think being bankrupt is a problem.

It is not bankrupt nor will it be according to our own government. The scare tactics and talking points dont jibe with the truth.

But you might get a better understanding at this site.
http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/social-security/index.asp

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Silat
It is not bankrupt nor will it be according to our own government. The scare tactics and talking points dont jibe with the truth.

But you might get a better understanding at this site.
http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/social-security/index.asp

our own gov't?  You must have a different gov't than I do.

[Silat]

Originally posted by Martlet
our own gov't?  You must have a different gov't than I do.

Mart feel free to show independent Gov studies that show SS going bankrupt.


And dont forget:

1978 GW says we have only 10 years till SS is bankrupt.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Silat
Mart feel free to show independent Gov studies that show SS going bankrupt.


And dont forget:

1978 GW says we have only 10 years till SS is bankrupt.

How about this one?

[Silat]

Originally posted by Martlet
How about this one?

Good article. But no mention of Bankrupt. I agree the system needs "tweaking". But it isnt in imminent danger.

 Or maybe Rummy knows exactly when it will be:) (JOKE)

Quote from the article:
Even some of Bush's fellow Republicans have questioned his early focus on the accounts, which will not solve the financial problem posed by Baby Boomers and may exacerbate it with a $2 trillion so-called transition cost as younger workers begin to divert tax payments from the trust fund into their private accounts.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Silat
Good article. But no mention of Bankrupt. I agree the system needs "tweaking". But it isnt in imminent danger.

 Or maybe Rummy knows exactly when it will be:) (JOKE)

Quote from the article:
Even some of Bush's fellow Republicans have questioned his early focus on the accounts, which will not solve the financial problem posed by Baby Boomers and may exacerbate it with a $2 trillion so-called transition cost as younger workers begin to divert tax payments from the trust fund into their private accounts.

You must have skipped this part:

The funds' trustees are expected to release their 2005 report on the long-term financial outlook of the Social Security and Medicare programs later this month. However, Palmer and Saving told the House panel that little has changed since their report a year ago, when they said Social Security benefits would start exceeding the annual revenue for paying them to beneficiaries in 2018.

[Krusher]

Originally posted by Silat
Original question was . How do private accounts fix the problem? Answer "It doesnt". Get it? And as far as I am concerned there is no problem. Oh but if we throw 4 trillion dollars at it there will be.

So why did you ask?  

Oh yea, it was to point out that Republican ideas are "Right Wing" and "radical"

So we dont have any problem with SS and we wont be needing any tax increases, means testing,  cap adjustments or raising of the retirement age?

[Silat]

Originally posted by Krusher
So why did you ask?  

Oh yea, it was to point out that Republican ideas are "Right Wing" and "radical"

So we dont have any problem with SS and we wont be needing any tax increases, means testing,  cap adjustments or raising of the retirement age?

Krusher I didnt say that. The system needs tweaking but it is a far cry from "imminent" danger as the pres said originally. He has since backed down. He has also backed down from saying his private accounts idea is the cure as he had previously said.


And it is the radical repubs that are radical Krusher.
Just  like the radical dems:)
Neither of those groups represents the majority of citizens.

And by the way it is obvious you that subscribe to one of the 2 major parties. My guess is republican. I on the other hand, contrary to your assertions, am a registered Independent. I vote for whom I think will be best for the country.