Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: oboe on January 18, 2005, 06:17:21 AM
-
Just wondering if anyone else remembers. There is a lot going on nowadays I know...
This from a Oct 19, 2004 LA Times article:
Kerry today accused his rival of launching an "an all-out assault on Social Security" with a plan to privatize the entitlement program that would jeopardize the financial security of senior citizens.
During a midday speech in eastern Pennsylvania, the Democratic candidate pressed his argument that Bush intends to privatize Social Security, a charge the Bush campaign has adamantly denied.
Kerry said that Bush used $509 million of surplus Social Security payroll contributions since taking office to pay for his tax cuts, and warned that his plan to allow younger workers to create private retirement accounts would gut the program.
To support his charge, Kerry referred to a recent New York Times Magazine article that quoted the president telling donors that he plans to "come out strong" after his reelection with an effort to privatize Social Security.
The Bush campaign dismissed the account as "made up" and said Bush has no intention of privatizing the program.
Bush, Kerry Clash on Social Security (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/la-101904campaign_lat,1,1285571.story?coll=la-home-h&ctrack=1&cset=true)
-
Interesting topic; I did read day or two ago that social security is running out of money in US.
Anyways I'm not interested about register myself to that site.
-
skerry lost as did a record number of his buds
LOL LOL LOL
as for SS, something has to be done and soon
don't know about you but I think i could get a better return for MY money than the gov does
oh yeah, the Bush plan is VOLUNTARY, if you are too stupid to manage your own money (only a small portion of your total ss contribution), Uncle Sam will be more than happy to do it for you.
-
Bush would lie?:eek:
-
Bush has been talking about allowing taxpayers to control a portion of their Social Security since he first ran for President. This LA Times article was written right before the election so it is obviously just another attempt by the neutral press to help Kerry.
Right now you pay 14% of your income to Social Security and you have no control over what happens to it whatsoever. Congress doesn't even have to give you any of it back when you retire unless they feel like it. That's the way the Democrats like it.
The system is a Ponzi scheme and it will have major funding problems when today's workers start to retire. Allowing taxpayers to keep control over some of it is a step toward creating a national retirement system that isn't owned by the politicians.
ra
-
So how do you pay for it during the transition?
68Parker
-
I am sure glad I'm not in the SS system anymore.
What is the max benifiet for this truly horrible and costly program? like 1500 bucks a month? even eating dogfood an old person couldn't survive on that.
If you didn't make personal investments then SS won't do it for you.
What is the age up to now? 67 or so.. if they just raise it to 90 they can make it work and not have it cost more than 50% or so of the federal budget.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I am sure glad I'm not in the SS system anymore.
What is the max benifiet for this truly horrible and costly program? like 1500 bucks a month? even eating dogfood an old person couldn't survive on that.
If you didn't make personal investments then SS won't do it for you.
What is the age up to now? 67 or so.. if they just raise it to 90 they can make it work and not have it cost more than 50% or so of the federal budget.
lazs
How did you get out of the SS system?
I didnt know not being in it was an option
-
Originally posted by ra
Bush has been talking about allowing taxpayers to control a portion of their Social Security since he first ran for President. This LA Times article was written right before the election so it is obviously just another attempt by the neutral press to help Kerry.
ra
When I read that I was thinking the exact same thing.
And not just when he first ran for president. but when he ran the 1st time
-
You don't have many options but... Calpers is a program that is so superior to SS that you are allowed to opt out... there are like three states that I know of that have a Calpers like program.
Basicly, it gives you 2-3% of your last years salary at age 52 for every year of service. It is possible to get 100% + of your last years wages for retirement. It also pays cost of living increases every year after you retire.
It is a also..... PROFITABLE.... yep... it is not subsidized and makes money instead of sucking it up. It is so profitable that they ask members how to better serve us... an example is that they gave veterans year for year service for their time served.
It is so profitable that state governments like The peoples republic of California think it is "unfair" and wish to raid it's funds..
They feel that Calpers is unfair in that it only invests in profitable realestate and shuns ghetto "investmet". They feel that it (and it's members) should share in the pain of the less fortunate who turn their areas into ghettos.
This is how it could be everywhere but.... not if the government gets their hands on it.... Pers won't pay someone who never worked... the government can't have that.
lazs
-
Making a portion of SS taxpayer directed could work out in the long run, short term funding could be problematic,
I do feel that any retirement accounts and private pension plans should not be guarenteed by the government.
It seems that we have developed a "have my cake and eat it too" mindset where we can promise ourselves grand returns on private investments, and large pensions and health benefits , but if they go bust we run to the Government crying "make me whole" expecting the large share of taxpayers that dont receive those benefits to foot the bill.
We saw how this abuse can happen in the 80's in the savings and loan debacle, these guy's admitted to inflating the estimated returns knowing that when the institution failed the taxpayer would end up paying that inflated return.
shamus
-
I think it was a mistake for the government to get into the retirement business in the first place.
Same goes for charity.
-
"like 1500 bucks a month? even eating dogfood an old person couldn't survive on that."
Not saying that paying into a system for 40 years only to get $1500/month out of it isn't pretty pitiful, but my old man gets by on less than that and has no debt.
"It is so profitable that state governments like The peoples republic of California think it is "unfair" and wish to raid it's funds.. "
Everybody I know who is old enough to remember swears up and down that this is exactly what happened to SS back in the '50's.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Basicly, it gives you 2-3% of your last years salary at age 52 for every year of service. It is possible to get 100% + of your last years wages for retirement. It also pays cost of living increases every year after you retire.
lazs
so what happens if you work your whole life and for whatever reason you make much less than normal for a couple years in your early 50's? If I'm understanding what you're saying it seems like a risky venture to gamble your retirement on how you'll do on any particular year.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Y
It is so profitable that state governments like The peoples republic of California think it is "unfair" and wish to raid it's funds..
Being a public fund all bets are off...it will be subject to political pressures.
shamus
-
Careful, Oboe, bring up dishonest campaign promises during a time of war might get you hurt.
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
Everybody I know who is old enough to remember swears up and down that this is exactly what happened to SS back in the '50's.
J_A_B
Social Security began in its own protected private account. Then Congress in its greediness voted to move SS into the general account where they could legally spend SS money for other areas.
-
Originally posted by KBall
Social Security began in its own protected private account. Then Congress in its greediness voted to move SS into the general account where they could legally spend SS money for other areas.
excess SS taxes are invested in interest bearing govt bonds and always have been, what would you do with the money? put it into algores "lock box"?
-
Originally posted by john9001
excess SS taxes are invested in interest bearing govt bonds and always have been, what would you do with the money? put it into algores "lock box"?
I don't quite understand what you are saying here. Exactly what are excess SS taxes? As far as I know SS is going broke. Or are you saying that we are being taxed to much for SS to arrive at "excess"?
At the least I would take the money and put it BACK into a secure interest bearing account where Congress can't borrow or otherwise screw with the money at will. Preferably I would have the choice to invest my SS taxes. I know damn well I handle my earnings better then Congress does.
-
Originally posted by KBall
I don't quite understand what you are saying here. Exactly what are excess SS taxes? As far as I know SS is going broke. Or are you saying that we are being taxed to much for SS to arrive at "excess"?
If I understand correctly, SS currently has a surplus, but they expect that surplus to drain away once the baby boomers start retiring.
-
Originally posted by john9001
excess SS taxes are invested in interest bearing govt bonds and always have been, what would you do with the money? put it into algores "lock box"?
These so called "interest bearing govt bonds" are not traded and therfore have no value, so you can put them in a "lock box", the ditch or burn them for that matter.
shamus
-
i think it was in the 80's that congress increased SS taxes to create a surplus to build up a fund to handle the baby boomers when they retire, estiments vary but SS will break even( taxes equel paid benifits) in 2041 or 2077 or going bust today depending on which politician is trying to get re-elected
-
Originally posted by Shamus
These so called "interest bearing govt bonds" are not traded and therfore have no value, so you can put them in a "lock box", the ditch or burn them for that matter.
shamus
the bonds can be traded(bought/sold) on the secondary mkt, but i think SS just holds them to muturity.
-
i worked for a huge project that Calpers was the major backer..
wow..what a scam...talk about milking...
Im suprised that calpers is still around...dam i seen so much back door deals....I guess they dont get caught often..what a huge black hole of money
-
Just shows bush says whatever he needs to
-
let younger workers invest a single digit of their confiscated salary
fees for SS in a narrow and confined set of interests....Ive always wondered what the socilaists had against this idea. Anyway, keep harping and soon there will be more libertarians then democrats holding political office. The party of ted kennedy and jessie jackson is waning big time and its no wonder.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
How did you get out of the SS system?
I didnt know not being in it was an option
You need to work for a government agency to opt out of Social Security, and you need to be a state or local government worker in California to be a member of CALPERS.
-
Originally posted by john9001
the bonds can be traded(bought/sold) on the secondary mkt, but i think SS just holds them to muturity.
The bonds issued to the SS Administration by the government for the transfer of funds to the general fund are not traded on any market.
I will be happy to retract if you can provide valid evidence.
shamus
-
"Congress designed Social Security to operate as a pay-as-you-go system. That means no money is actually set aside by the government to pay benefits in the future. When workers pay taxes into the Social Security "trust fund," most of the money is immediately paid out as benefits to today's retirees.The leftovers go straight to the Treasury in exchange for federal IOUs and are used to finance the national budget.
But when Social Security begins running a deficit in 2014, there will be no more leftovers, and the government must begin paying back its IOUs to keep the system afloat. Because no money has actually been saved for this purpose, Congress will be forced to significantly increase public debt, cut spending or raise taxes."
http://www.socialsecurityreform.org/problem/index.cfm
-
Social Security monies SHOULD have been placed in private sector investments from the very start. A committee comprised of the nation's top businessmen could have made it a profitable and healthy program. Give them 5% of the net from such a system and I GUARANTEE you that they would have made it work.
Instead of that, Social Security has always been a government milch cow presided over by politicians who have used it to satisfy their greed for "campaign funds." Therefore, the system is rapidly approaching bankruptcy.
-
Originally posted by KBall
Social Security began in its own protected private account. Then Congress in its greediness voted to move SS into the general account where they could legally spend SS money for other areas.
Actually KBall, this occured during the Lyndon Johnson Administration. He needed large amounts of Capitol for his Great Society and War on Poverty. (Welfare) And at the same time funding the war in Vietnam. He would have run up huge deficits. So they simply moved the SS funds into the General funds, raided
it to their hearts content replaceing the funds with I.O.U's. It has continued to the present day. They are now stuck with millions of baby boomers ready to retire in the near future on a watermelon load of Government I.O.U's. It will be pay as you go until the burden becomes to great on those left to foot the bill. Mention SS in the hallowed halls of congress and watch them dive for cover .
-
USa is not the first country having to free the SS money, to make parts of it free to invest.
It will benefit your country. These money are now locked up doing roughly nothing. If they are invested, they will boost economy.
Then, if you will loose or win, personaly in the end, is just left to be seen. Sure the country is a great winner, so actully so would you be.
-
Originally posted by patrone
USa is not the first country having to free the SS money, to make parts of it free to invest.
It will benefit your country. These money are now locked up doing roughly nothing. If they are invested, they will boost economy.
Then, if you will loose or win, personaly in the end, is just left to be seen. Sure the country is a great winner, so actully so would you be.
You must not be an American...Our Government can do things with American taxpayers money that would confound Houdini....:lol
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Just shows bush says whatever he needs to
You ever see a politician that didnt?
Kerry turned it into an art form LMAO
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
You must not be an American...Our Government can do things with American taxpayers money that would confound Houdini....:lol
Yes, I dont doubt that. But letting people make their own choice for some of that amount surelly would just benefit economy. Or is the thought to socialistic?
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
You ever see a politician that didnt?
Kerry turned it into an art form LMAO
Yeah but Bush is the one who made such a big deal out of doing it. Just adds hypocrite to my list of bush adjectives.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Social Security monies SHOULD have been placed in private sector investments from the very start. A committee comprised of the nation's top businessmen could have made it a profitable and healthy program. Give them 5% of the net from such a system and I GUARANTEE you that they would have made it work.
Then how about not stealing the money from the citizens in the first place and let them decide where they want to invest thier money. If the citizens have faith in these business men, they will invest in their companies. Communism by any other name...
-
I don't think giving the money to corporations is the answer. Private corporations are one of the few things I trust less than the government.
J_A_B
-
Ok... on the Calpers thing... they pay a percentage of the last HIGHEST year of your salary. As public employees tho... that is allmost allways the last year of employment. the policy used to be an average of the last three years but Calpers has so much money that they need to disperse more of it to members.
SS was allways under the gentle and competent hands of the government so it's demise was certain... Calpers has nothing to do with the government of the state of california.
greencloud... I was a contractor for more than a dozen years I have never seen one large project that wasn't rife with padding and extras. Calpers is hugely profitable and has been for decades.
Calpers is what we should all have if we weren't being bilked by our government. A reasonable return on our money instead of a socialist extortion scheme.
contrast the SS benifiet for someone age 67 who has put over 40 years into the system.... what? $1500? with.... a 52 year old man under Cal pers with 30 years in the system... Both men were making $5000 a month the last year they worked... the SS guy gets $1500 and the Calpers guys gets $4500...
One is an old man allmost 70 and the other is in his 50's Is there any possible way to defend this abortion called SS? even cost of living raises are based on benifeit so the SS guy gets even further behind every year...
Some, like myself will get both. I have paid my minimum 40 quarters and then some into SS so will get some pitance from them at age 62 (younger guys got to wait to age 67).
It's a scam... the biggest example of why socialism sucks in the U.S. today.
lazs
-
Just a few of questions for you Laz:
1) How profitable will Calpers remain when the real estate bubble in California bursts, and bursts hard? You mentioned earlier it invests in real estate...if its for retiremnet savings I would hope al the financial eggs aren't in one basket.
2) Assuming the program is all you say it is (I have no reason to doubt you) then why do you suppose are we not hearing more discussion about it in the media, in this time of proposals for drastic change to SS? Seem like more people should hold it up as an example.
Seriously, if the program is that good I'd like it as an option to my 401K or something. It wouldn't be the first time Cali has been ahead of the game.
-
oboe... it is not just California, there is a very similar and interchangeable system in at least 3 near states.
you can go to their site and see what they invest in but there have been several "bubbles" for real estate in California just as in the stock market but.... it never really goes down people will allways want to live by the coast and where the weather is good. They invest in all sorts of things and have to maintiain a certain surplus. They have a lot more room to play with too since they have such generous plans and such early retirement dates... SS is simply increasing the minimum age to retire... they are 15 years worse off for minimum age right now and getting worse.
I have no idea what the media is saying or not saying about cal pers (I don't follow the media) but millions of people are in it and all of us are doing quite well. My folks have been collecting for over 20 years and their benifiet has more than doubled over that time. I don't believe you are hearing much about it because.... It simply can't exist like SS.... It won't and can't pay out to everyone no matter if they have contributed or not... it is not a charity like SS.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Calpers is what we should all have if we weren't being bilked by our government. A reasonable return on our money instead of a socialist extortion scheme.
Have you been reading what Ahnold is planning to do to CALPERS?
-
no.. tell me about it. I am certain tho that if a politician or government entity has anything to do with it that it will make things worse.
lazs
-
LOS ANGELES TIMES
January 6, 2005
STATE OF THE STATE
Governor Targets Public Retirement Plans
-Unions oppose proposal to make state pension packages more like private-sector 401(k)s.
By Evan Halper, Times Staff Writer
SACRAMENTO — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Wednesday called for fundamental change in pensions for all government workers in California — schoolteachers and garbage collectors, police and policy analysts — a step that over time would reduce retirement security in the public sector, which employs one in eight California workers.
Schwarzenegger said the changes were needed to reduce costs for state and local governments. The state legislative analyst's office says California's public employee pensions are among the most generous in the nation.
Public employees unions and many Democratic lawmakers denounced Schwarzenegger's plan, saying it would cut benefits for government retirees and make government service less attractive for new workers. They said it would not produce the savings Schwarzenegger claimed.
During the late 1990s and the beginning of this decade, when the booming stock market made pension accounts fat, many cities and counties boosted pension benefits. Police, firefighters, prison guards and other public safety employees benefited.
Now, with the market lower, the bills are coming due, and in some cases, pensions are threatening to cost so much that public services are being cut to pay the bills.
Orange County and the city of San Diego are among the local governments struggling to cover huge deficits in their pension plans. In Contra Costa County, more than 12% of the general fund budget goes to pension plan payments for its workers.
The current pension system is "out of control, threatening our state," Schwarzenegger said, calling it "another train on another track headed for disaster."
Although he mentioned his proposal only briefly in Wednesday's speech, it may portend a dramatic political battle with government employees unions. In taking on that fight, his advisors hope he can tap into a voter backlash against well-financed public benefit plans.
The governor's plan would replace pension packages for all new employees with private plans similar to the 401(k) plans offered by private companies.
Instead of being guaranteed a fixed benefit when they retire, new employees, starting in 2007, would contribute money into a retirement account with a choice of funds. The state would also put money into the account. The payments retirees received would be based on how well their investments performed.
The plan, along with a companion proposal to base raises for schoolteachers on merit rather than on seniority, already is attracting intense opposition from public employees unions.
Schwarzenegger's plan also would diminish the clout of the state Public Employees Retirement System, which has used its enormous stock holdings to pressure businesses into adopting more union-friendly policies.
Under the current pension system, government employees are guaranteed an annual payment upon retirement. It can be as much as 90% of a worker's highest salary as a government employee — plus a generous health insurance package. Many law enforcement employees who have been working at their job for 30 years can begin collecting such payments at age 50.
Generous pensions have long been a part of the government pay package. Public employees and their unions have argued that the pensions make up for salaries that often are lower than those in private companies.
But at a time when many private companies have cut back or eliminated pensions, the generous pensions for government workers may strike many voters as unreasonable, some political analysts say.
"People are looking next door, seeing that their 50-year-old neighbor who is in good health and works for the government is retiring with a pension of $80,000 or $90,000 for the rest of his life," said Steve Frates, of the Rose Institute for State and Local Government at Claremont McKenna College. "That is sticking many taxpayers in the craw."
Critics of Schwarzenegger's plan say it would do nothing to reduce state and local deficits over the next few years. Even in later years, they say, the administrative costs of handling hundreds of thousands of individual accounts would make the whole system far less efficient than now.
Under the current system, the government's costs plunge when the stock market rises. During the height of the stock market boom of the late '90s, investment returns were so high that many cities and counties did not have to contribute any money to employee pensions.
When the market falls, the costs to local government can soar, as costs are doing now.
Under the governor's plan, governments would not face the higher costs in down years but would not benefit from investment returns in good years.
"It is a bad idea, and it is built on false premises," said Assemblyman Alberto Torrico (D-Newark), chairman of the Assembly Public Employees, Retirement and Social Security Committee.
Torrico said 90% of the state and local governments in the country have the kind of traditional pension plans, or defined benefit plans, that Schwarzenegger is seeking to do away with. The ones that have experimented with 401(k)-style plans found they were a failure, he said.
The governor's pension plan was originally conceived by Assemblyman Keith Richman (R-Northridge). Richman's proposal will be considered in the special session of the Legislature. Richman also has filed his proposal with the secretary of state as a ballot initiative.
Schwarzenegger's aides made clear Wednesday that the governor would campaign for that ballot measure if the Legislature failed to act.
-
Cuts have to be made. We have prisons to pay for.
-
MZ what I get out of that is that he wants the employee to pay for his benifiet...
In most cases the entire 7% is paid by the employer. We just negotiated for a better plan but had to pay for it.... it was like 1.5% cost to us.
I see nothing wrong with this. Since Pers members don't pay SS at all they are pretty much getting a 7-10% bennie by having the employer pay for the pers.
Some will still pay this as an incentive to get new employees... If not.... no big deal. It is like any other (in this case state) benifiet... you either get it or you don't... It is no different than say suggesting that employees pay a percentage of rising health care costs.
It appears that Arnie is asking state employees to pay a share or all of their pers benifiets... He would offer also the ability to opt out if this seemed to expensive or odious to employees.
Even if the employee paid the entire 7% he would still be way ahead of the poor socialist schmo who was stuck with SS... wouldn't you agree?
Also with pers... you can cash out at any time.... take your entire contribution out in cash... You can also pay it back if you feel you made a mistake later on.
-
Lots and lots of prisons to pay for.
-
so sandie... what is your point? we should close the prisons or....
we should cut back to pay for em? making an employee pay for his own pension seems reasonable to me... same for healthcare but.. You cut deep enough and you won't be able to keep good people.
If I had my choice of closing prisons or stopping welfare benifiets say for the second baby by an unwed mother.... Sorry... rather keep the bad guys locked up.
either we can afford to pay benifiets or not. Both sides will get to argue their case.
lazs
-
I think we should take a good hard look at who we are locking up. I believe that the drug war is costing us billions.
-
I have no problem with looking at laws and getting rid of some of the more silly ones but.... if you simply made drugs legal with no restrictions you would cause all kinds of related crime... If you make restrictions you still create criminals..
please lay out in detail how you would reform the current drug laws so that the prison population would decrease. Please explain how those who make a living by having drugs illegal will now all become law abiding accountants.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
if you simply made drugs legal with no restrictions you would cause all kinds of related crime...
What makes you think this is true?
-
are you claiming that the only crimes that drug users and drug dealers commit are dealing and possesion? Are you claiming that drug laws do not slow drug use?
lazs
-
I think there are lessons to be learned from Prohibition. It didn't work then and it won't work now.
-
Not sure that you can put most drugs in the same class as booze... users or substance. The effects are different also.
I have no problem with reforming drug laws but it needs to be done slowly IMO.
and... we still need the prisons for now even if you turn out to be right so.... we need to cut back on freebies from the government (people paying taxes). The people deserve to have the criminal off the street. They don't really deserve to have everything paid for by the state including their mistakes.
lazs