SS calculator

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Silat
They won . It is my country and pres too. Did I dispute that? Why are you so defensive about it? Can you or can you not tell me how private accounts will fix SS?

You've done a lot of foot stomping, but you've yet offered up a better solution.

Did you cry when Clinton suggested we privatize aspects of SS during his term?

[DieAz]

Originally posted by Silat
Can you or can you not tell me how private accounts will fix SS?

the plan is simple. basically it is setup, if the private account makes XXX amount of $$$. then SS does not pay anything to the holder of the private account.

if the private account doesn't make XX amount of $$, then the private account holder gets a small amount of SS to make up the XXX amount difference.

if the private account is zero amount, then the holder would get full SS benifits, which is a whole lot less than they would have gotten if they didn't have a private account in 1st place.

the results of this is kinda hard to explain, but I'd say the gov't trying to steal younger generations $$$$$.

[Suave]

Originally posted by Rolex
50.01% of a population could plunder a nations wealth, curtail personal liberties, imprison wihout due process, oppress or subdue any group or enrich any group, and still be called a democracy.

That's the main reason america was designed to be a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Something crypto-socialists and right wing theocrats have allways been trying to change.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Suave
That's the main reason america was designed to be a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Something crypto-socialists and right wing theocrats have allways been trying to change.

A very true statement.

The judicial system has had some interesting affects on the result lately, though.

[oboe]

Originally posted by DieAz
the plan is simple. basically it is setup, if the private account makes XXX amount of $$$. then SS does not pay anything to the holder of the private account.

if the private account doesn't make XX amount of $$, then the private account holder gets a small amount of SS to make up the XXX amount difference.

if the private account is zero amount, then the holder would get full SS benifits, which is a whole lot less than they would have gotten if they didn't have a private account in 1st place.

the results of this is kinda hard to explain, but I'd say the gov't trying to steal younger generations $$$$$.

This is not even close to my understanding of the proposed private accounts.   What you describe is risk-free private investing - "if the private account is zero amount, then the holder would get full SS benefits".

Please post a link if you have a reference.

My understanding of the proposal is that a worker, in return for reduced guaranteed SS benefits, would be allowed to direct a portion of their payroll tax into a private investment account.   The full amount invested, plus 3%, must be paid back by the worker - he only keeps the excess earnings above 3%.   That is why detractors have referred to the plan as a "loan".

Martlet's statement complaining that there won't be any funds to pay him when he retires is also wrong.    SS is a 'pay as you go' system, so as long as there are workers employed, they are paying in SS payroll tax and there will be funds available to pay out benefits.   The "crisis" is that by 2042, SS will no longer have enough $$ to pay out full benefits for everyone.   But it will be able to pay out 70% of the full benefit.

That is why I agree Republicans that something should be done now.   I just disagree with their private account plan as I understand it.     And I was against Clinton's plan to invest SS funds into the stock market, too.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by oboe
This is not even close to my understanding of the proposed private accounts.   What you describe is risk-free private investing - "if the private account is zero amount, then the holder would get full SS benefits".

Please post a link if you have a reference.

My understanding of the proposal is that a worker, in return for reduced guaranteed SS benefits, would be allowed to direct a portion of their payroll tax into a private investment account.   The full amount invested, plus 3%, must be paid back by the worker - he only keeps the excess earnings above 3%.   That is why detractors have referred to the plan as a "loan".

Martlet's statement complaining that there won't be any funds to pay him when he retires is also wrong.    SS is a 'pay as you go' system, so as long as there are workers employed, they are paying in SS payroll tax and there will be funds available to pay out benefits.   The "crisis" is that by 2042, SS will no longer have enough $$ to pay out full benefits for everyone.   But it will be able to pay out 70% of the full benefit.

That is why I agree Republicans that something should be done now.   I just disagree with their private account plan as I understand it.     And I was against Clinton's plan to invest SS funds into the stock market, too.

I'll revise my statement to:  SS won't have the funds to pay me what I'm due.

[OneWordAnswer]

Originally posted by Silat
please tell me how the radical rights plan, saves the system that isn't in trouble.
                            I love America

???

According to three former top administration officials, President Clinton was strongly considering the partial privatization of Social Security prior to his impeachment in 1999. The revelation was contained in a paper delivered by David Wilcox, an assistant treasury secretary, Douglas Elmendorf, a deputy assistant treasury secretary, and Jeffrey Liebman, an aide with the National Economic Council, at a Harvard University conference last month.

According to these officials, the Clinton administration spent nearly 18 months secretly studying issues surrounding individual accounts and concluded that:

Individual accounts were administratively feasible and would likely cost $20-30 per year per account to administer. However, to hold down costs, individual investment choices would have to be limited until accounts accumulated some level of minimum balance, perhaps $5,000.


Market risks were not a sufficient reason to oppose individual accounts. Administration analysts found that long-term investment was, in reality, relatively safe. The administration also noted that the current Social Security system contains political risks that may well be worse than market risks.


Concerns over redistribution could be addressed through the adjustment of benefit formulas, matching contributions or other means.



Wilcox, Elmendorf, and Liebman confirmed what many in Washington have whispered about for some time, that, while some in the administration -- -notably Vice president Al Gore and Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin -- -strongly opposed individual accounts, Clinton leaned in favor of them. Indeed, Clinton had his staff consider whether the administrative structure for individual accounts could be set up before Congress acted on any legislation to ensure that the accounts would be in place before Clinton left office. However, Clinton's plans were derailed by his impeachment over the Monica Lewinski affair. Faced with a need to strengthen his liberal base, Clinton abandoned any proposal for significant Social Security reform.



http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-13-01.html

[OneWordAnswer]

Originally posted by Silat
Guess you cant answer the question:)
It is the radical right admin that is pushing the private accounts as a fix to ss. It isnt a fix and I challenge you to show how it is a fix. Bush and his gang have nothing in common with the majority of republicans. They are radicals. [/B]

Bipartisan.

[Nash]

lol.... it's so funny watching you  now Ripsnort with your self imposed ball gag. Prolly fallin' all over yourself tryin' to keep it to just one word.

Don't think we don't appreciate it, because we do.



On second thought.... Unless you could find a way to get some braggin' into a thread, all you ever did was make a post, paste text and a link in there, and that was it. It was like NoWordAnswer. I guess you're kind of still doing the same thing now.

Nuts.

[OneWordAnswer]

Originally posted by Nash
lol.... it's so funny watching you  now Ripsnort with your self imposed ball gag. Prolly fallin' all over yourself tryin' to keep it to just one word.

Don't think we don't appreciate it, because we do.

no.

[ygsmilo]

What I like about the personal accounts,

Any money that goes into those accounts cannot be borrowed against by the gov.

What I don't like about the personal accounts,

Many people in this country are unable to save any money, how are they going take the responsibility for this?

[Toad]

They could make the "personal accounts" invest in T-bills and it would still be better than what we have now.

Now they invest in T-bills but it's never "your money" until it's doled out a teaspoon at a time by Uncle Sugar.

They need to personalize some of that money somehow, some way. There's a lot of bennies to that for the working stiffs.

Of course, it's not convenient for the politicos to have people actually having any of the money in their own names. That's the real reason the politicos are fighting it.

[Krusher]

Originally posted by Silat
They won . It is my country and pres too. Did I dispute that? Why are you so defensive about it? Can you or can you not tell me how private accounts will fix SS?

you are the one who feels the need to add "radical" and "right wing" to every plan or proposal republicans make.  

In the long run not only will privatization fix SS, it will make it better.


Example Chile.

Studies show that Chile's retirement system has contributed to the country's rapid rate of economic growth over the past 20 years.

The annual rate of return excluding fees during the first 22 years was 10 percent above inflation  

If the rate of return falls to 4.9 percent above inflation (a figure the U.S. Social Security Administration uses as the expected return of a mixed portfolio of stocks and bonds) while wages grow at 2 percent above inflation, the average worker who contributes until he retires at 65 would get 60 percent of his final wage plus a survivor's pension for his spouse. (Under Social Security, a middle-income U.S. worker currently gets about 42 percent of his pre-retirement earnings.)

----------
If it takes a mixture of plans, so be it a compromise is not a bad thing.  The dems plan (so far) is to say no to anything proposed.

If you are planning on SS benefits to hold you over, you sir are not going to be happy.

[JoOwEn]

I plan to move to Mexico to retire.

[oboe]

Can people supply some references for statements, please?   I am sincerely interested.   I have read than even the Bush administration says privatization will not "fix" SS.