Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Reschke on February 03, 2005, 11:47:45 AM
-
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.
-
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.
-
What do you guys think about the proposed Social Security amendment?
I'm all for it
-
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.
-
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) :D
Have a nice day!
-
Aaaaaand they're OFF!
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
I think I'm glad I'm saving for my own retirement.
-
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.
-
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?:D
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
This "explains" the problem with SS:
explainantion (http://www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm)
-
Originally posted by 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?
the way that it was explained to me, the funds would only be able be moved or changed once per calendar year.
-
Originally posted by jEEZY
This "explains" the problem with SS:
explainantion (http://www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm)
interesting.
-
Does Social Security Really Face an $11 Trillion Deficit?
Bush and Cheney say yes. But actuaries say the figure is "likely to mislead" the public on the system's true financial state.
January 21, 2005
Modified: January 21, 2005
President Bush and Vice President Cheney have told audiences that Social Security faces an $11 trillion shortfall if nothing is done to fix the current system. But they fail to mention that this is over the course of the “infinite future." Over the next 75 years -- still practically a lifetime -- the shortfall is projected to be $3.7 trillion.
The "infinite" projection is one that the American Academy of Actuaries says is likely to mislead the public into thinking the system "is in far worse financial condition than is actually indicated," and therefore should not be used to explain the long-term outlook.
Analysis
In a roundtable conversation on January 11, the president said the Social Security system “is going to be short the difference between obligations and money coming in, by about $11 trillion, unless we act.”
President Bush
Remarks at Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium, January 11, 2005
Bush: Now, I readily concede some would say, well, it's not bankrupt yet; why don't we wait until it's bankrupt? The problem with that notion is that the longer you wait, the more difficult it is to fix. You realize that this system of ours is going to be short the difference between obligations and money coming in, by about $11 trillion, unless we act. And that's an issue. That's trillion with a "T."
Vice President Cheney echoed this claim in a January 13 speech at Catholic University when he said, “Again, the projected shortfall in Social Security exceeds $10 trillion.”
Both are correct -- but fail to mention that nearly two-thirds of that colossal bill doesn't come due until after the year 2078.
The Trustees Report
The projection comes from the 2004 Social Security Trustees report which estimates that the system’s unfunded obligations are $10.4 trillion over the course of what they call the "infinite horizon." Historically, the infinite-horizon projection has not been included in the annual report, and was only added in 2003.
Previously the Trustees had used only a 75-year projection to estimate the system’s long-term deficits, roughly the length of a human lifetime. (Average life expectancy at birth has now increased to just over 77 years, up from just under 75 years as recently as the 1980's, according to the National Center for Health Statistics .) The Social Security Trustees' 2004 projection shows a $3.7 trillion shortfall over this 75-year period.
The Trustees reasoned that the 75-year window should be extended to the infinite future to give policymakers a better idea of the changes necessary to keep the system sustainable indefinitely -- especially beyond 2078 when they said Social Security’s deficit will be increasing even faster than during the next 75 years.
Vice President Cheney
Remarks at Catholic University, January 13, 2005
Cheney: Another argument against Social Security reform with voluntary personal accounts is that the so-called transition costs would be too high. Yet focusing merely on transition costs is to overlook the greater cost of doing nothing. Again, the projected shortfall in Social Security exceeds $10 trillion; that figure is nearly twice the combined wages and salaries of every single working American last year. There will be no -- there will be costs no matter what we decide.
A technical panel set up to advise the Social Security Administration later said that infinite-horizon model is useful but “it is difficult to understand." The panel recommended that the infinite-horizon calculations be expressed more prominently as a percentage of the taxable payroll rather than the actual dollar amount. Referring to the 2003 trustees report, the panel said:
Technical Panel on Assumptions and Methods: The Report also briefly mentions the infinite horizon actuarial deficit of 3.8 percent. This figure is more informative that the dollar value of the infinite horizon unfunded obligations, and should be presented more prominently….
While the…information is useful, it is difficult to understand. The $10.5 trillion is a large figure, but it needs to be seen in the context of the present value of taxable payroll over the infinite horizon, which is on the order of $275 trillion.
Later, in the 2004 report issued last March, the Trustees updated those figures to a $10.4 trillion deficit and a $295.5 trillion taxable payroll.
Social Security Deficit and Payroll Taxes
The percent of taxable payroll is the portion of an employee’s payroll tax that goes toward Social Security and is currently set at the rate of 12.4 percent, half of which is paid by the employer and the other half by employee. Over 75 years, the Trustees estimate the actuarial deficit is 1.8 percent of taxable payroll. This means that for the system to be completely solvent over the next 75 years, without adjusting benefits, payroll taxes would have to go up to 14.2 percent immediately. And to be solvent for the "infinite future," the $10.4 trillion shortfall equals 3.5 percent of taxable payroll, or a tax increase to15.9 percent of wages.
The Infinite Horizon – Is it useful?
Contrary to the technical panel’s endorsement, the American Academy of Actuaries, a nonpartisan organization that sets standards of practice for actuaries in the US , disputes the value of the infinite horizon projection. In fact, they said it probably would mislead anyone lacking technical expertise and that it provides “little if any useful information” about the system’s long-term finances. In a December 2003 letter to the Social Security Advisory Board, the Academy wrote:
American Academy of Actuaries: …The new measures of the unfunded obligations included in the 2003 report provide little if any useful information about the program’s long-range finances and indeed are likely to mislead anyone lacking technical expertise in the demographic, economic, and actuarial aspects of the program’s finances into believing that the program is in far worse financial condition than is actually indicated.
The Academy states that there is already much uncertainty using 75-year projections, and that extending estimates into the infinite future only increases that uncertainty, producing results that "are of limited value to policymakers.” They point out that changes which took place over the last 75 years were unforeseeable to actuaries in 1928, such as the Great Depression or the baby boom, and therefore have no reason to expect that unforeseeable changes will not occur in the future.
Demographic and economic assumptions have always been a controversial issue among demographers predicting the long-term sustainability of Social Security. Significant advances in life expectancy have taken place over the last century, which exert more pressure on the system's finances as people live longer lives. Whether future mortality rates will continue to slow or increase with medical technology, the Academy of Actuaries argues that the inconsistencies which arise from such long-range assumptions are "inevitable" when making projections over the course of infinity. For this reason, they conclude that the infinite-horizon measurement is a “detriment” to the Trustees Report. They write:
American Academy of Actuaries: Thus, we believe that including these values in the Trustees Report is unnecessary and is, on balance, a detriment to the Trustees’ charge to provide a meaningful and balanced presentation of the financial status of the program.
One final note: The Trustees and actuaries give the $10.4-trillion figure and others what is called "present value," a theoretical lump-sum figure that takes into account expected future inflation and interest rates. Otherwise, any continuing deficit projected into the infinite future would automatically become an infinitely large sum.
Sources
Table IV.B7.--Unfunded OASDI Obligations for 1935 (Program Inception) Through the Infinite Horizon, "THE 2004 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE FEDERAL OLD-AGE AND SURVIVORS INSURANCE AND DISABILITY INSURANCE TRUST FUNDS," 23 March 2004: 59.
Technical Panel on Assumptions and Methods (2003), Report to the Social Security Advisory Board. Washington, D.C., October 2003.
Related Articles
Social Security Ads: Risk or Protection?
Pro-Bush group's first TV ad states the problem correctly. But the AARP uses a misleading photo.
Get FactChecks Automatically
FactCheck.org will send each new FactCheck and Special Report directly to your mailbox (disable pop-up blocker first).
Sign Up Now >
Copyright 2004 Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania
-
Well, it would help to actually see the final plan. However, if you paid attention to the SOTU address, Bush said no ideas are off the table at this point. He also mentioned that younger workers would likely be able to divert a small percentage of their SS taxes into individual accounts, voluntarily. He further mentioned that any plan that involves individual accounts must have some checks and balances, such as no "lump-sum" withdrawels, protection from sudden and catastrophic market swings, and be mostly free from broker loading and fees. Yes, there would be a short-term decrease in the amount of SS revenue coming in, but a reduction in the amount paid out in the long term. With the huge influx in money for investment and capitalization resulting from all those people putting money into the market, you may (MAY) see enough economic growth in the short term to somewhat offset the decrease in percentage of contributions made by people. Wealth is not a zero-sum game. Spur growth and you increase the revenues collected.
Bottome line, it is accepted fact that SS needs reform. How imediate or great that need is may be up for debate, but not the need itself. I personally would like to see the IRA option availble. Let's see what get's proposed before digging our heels in, shall we?
Oh, and JB88, here's a rebuttle to the FactCheck.Org article you posted above. It is from National Review, several days ago.
As a Matter of FactCheck.org
The truth about Social Security even eludes the supposed truth-seekers.
It’s a sad commentary on the state of public discourse when you have to fact-check FactCheck.org. But that’s what it’s come to. The non-partisan project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania was a reliable guide to the issues during the last presidential election, even-handedly finding fault and favor with statements made by both candidates. But now that the debate over Social Security reform has gotten increasingly nasty and complex, FactCheck.org seems to have lost its way.
In a posting last week, FactCheck.org asked, “Does Social Security Really Face an $11 Trillion Deficit?” The answer, in the feature’s headline, was: “Bush and Cheney say yes. But actuaries say the figure is ‘likely to mislead’ the public on the system’s true financial state.”
It’s that headline that is “likely to mislead.” And you can be sure that the opponents of reform will seize on it to do just that — mislead. That headline gives the impression that the $11 trillion deficit is a number created by Bush and Cheney in defiance of expert advice to the contrary. In reality, Bush and Cheney are simply quoting an official deficit estimate of the Trustees of the Social Security Trust Fund in their 2003 and 2004 annual reports.
The trustees relied on the work of actuaries to come up with that deficit estimate. So, to be fair, the headline should have read, “Actuaries say yes. But other actuaries say the figure is ‘likely to mislead’ the public ... ” But that wouldn’t be an exciting headline, would it? Battling actuaries is about as dull as, well — it’s just about the dullest thing in the world.
Beyond the headline, FactCheck.org’s analysis is also “likely to mislead.” When you get right down to what was really said by the actuaries who differ with the Bush/Cheney quote, it’s not a matter of the accuracy of the number — which is the proper domain for actuarial opinion. Instead, the dispute is only about whether the number is “likely to mislead.” If the number is accurate, do we really care what one or another actuary thinks about how “likely” it is that it will “mislead the public”? Actuaries are supposed to be experts on mortality rates — not public relations.
One of the actuarial groups cited by FactCheck.org is the American Academy of Actuaries, which sent a letter to the Social Security trustees on December 19, 2003, raising these concerns. I asked Ronald Gebhardtsbauer, the American Academy’s senior pension fellow (and a member of the committee that sent the letter) what it was all about. He said it was a response to the trustees’ adoption in 2003 of a new “infinite-horizon” analysis that examines Social Security’s solvency to perpetuity, as opposed to the arbitrary 75-year period mandated by statute. That 75-year analysis shows a deficit of $3.7 trillion, but by considering the years beyond 75, the infinite-horizon analysis naturally shows a larger deficit — and a more honest one: $10.4 trillion.
According to Gebhardtsbauer, while the American Academy committee had concerns about public perceptions, the new infinite-horizon analysis has distinct advantages:
Policy wonks can use this to compare different proposals. Any solution that has effects beyond the 75th year doesn’t see those effects included. I totally understand why they developed this. With private accounts, the system bears all the costs up front, but the benefits often don’t come until after the 75th year.
A conspiracy-theory-minded critic might conclude that the new “infinite horizon” analysis was cooked up to flatter Bush administration proposals for personal accounts. But then a similarly minded critic on the other side of the debate could conclude that seeking to suppress the new analysis is a way of making personal accounts look bad.
Indeed, Gebhardtsbauer was concerned by the way the American Academy’s 2003 letter had been referenced in a New York Times editorial several weeks ago. It was cited as justification for calling the $10.4 trillion deficit number “the closest you can get to pulling a number out of the air” and “essentially bogus.” Both he and the letter’s author, Eric J. Kleiber, chairperson of the American Academy's Social Insurance Committee, strongly denied that was the meaning of the letter. Gebhardtsbauer told me, “We didn’t say it was a bogus number.”
FactCheck.org also cited concerns about public perceptions of the $11 trillion deficit number in the 2003 report of the Technical Panel on Assumptions and Methods — a group of actuaries, economists, and demographers appointed by the Social Security Advisory Board. The report recommended that the infinite-horizon deficit figure should be presented as a percent of payroll, and next to the value of payrolls to the same infinite horizon. This was done in the Social Security trustees’ 2004 report. The deficit amount of $10.4 trillion was given as 3.5 percent of payroll and compared with $295.5 trillion of total payroll.
If you want context — so that the public is sure not to be misled — then how about this? That $10.4 trillion number represents the value of economic assets today that would have to be contributed to the Social Security system to assure its perpetual sustainability based on the best estimates we can make at this time. To set things right, then, we would have to contribute today virtually the entire market value of the S&P 500. We would have to throw down the gaping maw of Social Security almost every share of every major company in America today in order to satisfy the hungry beast.
-
Personally I look forward to Bush re-implementing the SS.
-
Originally posted by indy007
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.
And what hat did old george pull these scary numbers from?
-
Originally posted by slimm50
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?:D
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.
-
What do you guys think about the proposed Social Security amendment?
I dont think about it.
-
Originally posted by Halo
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.
BINGO we have a winner:aok
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Personally I look forward to Bush re-implementing the SS.
(http://www.axishistory.com/fileadmin/user_upload/s/ss-sport-insignia.jpg)
::::: ? :::::::
-
Forget the future, what about the present?
Right now I pay a huge chunk of my check into this (cess)pool fund that is supposed to suppliment my retirement income.
I pay now in SSI a lot more than I pay in federal taxes. I pay almost as much in SSI as I do in federal, state and sales taxes combined ! For a suppliment?
This quagmire FDR entagled us in to get us out of a depression should've been temorary. This socialistic baggage we carry is bringin us down.
If I invested only a quarter of what they're taking from me in the S&P500 for the next 20 years, even giving ups and down in the market, I would be able to retire comfortably.
I WANT OUT!
-
Originally posted by wombatt
And what hat did old george pull these scary numbers from?
Those numbers are statistically accurate. They aren't new, either. Do a little research before you make yourself look silly.
I support privatization for several reasons. That isn't to say if someone offers a better suggestion, I won't like that better.
First, the system is in trouble. No one wants to touch it because it's a political landmine. There are just more people collecting than the work force can support and remain solvent. They cut benefits in 1977.
Privitization has numerous benefits.
For one, it's YOUR money. Today, if you pay into the system your entire life, retire at 70, collect your first check, then die, the rest is gone. With privatized accounts, what's in the account is yours. To leave to whoever you'd like.
It's also protected. Unlike today, the gov't can't cut your benefits. They also don't own your money. If your with holding increases, it doesn't go to support others, your account increases. It's YOUR money.
In essence, absolutely nothing changes for you from day to day now, but when you retire you control your retirement, not the Feds.
-
I've been paying into SS exactly one year longer than into my teacher retirement program.
In November of 2004, I retired from teaching and began to draw my retirement check from the Arkansas State Teacher Retirement System. My net from that check is $1500 dollars a month.
According to the last report I got from the Social Security system, if I continue to work for another 16 years, contributing the same amount that I am currently contributing, my monthly benefit check will be in neighborhood of $1300 a month. Bear in mind, that my monthly donation to SS is slightly higher than that which was made to the teacher retirement system.
Do you really have to ask which system I would prefer to put my money in?
-
Originally posted by Halo
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.
DING DING we have a loser!
How can they "surely" do that? If they stop doing all those things you listed, yeah sure, in 2075 they'll be able to get you yer check. Fact is, its not governments job to get you a check every month. Nor should it be. It should provide an environment conducive to working and raising a family. Private enterprise is what got us this far and frankly, involving the government in anything like a retirement system (SS) is asking for just what we got. An inept run slush fund for politicians. Private enterprise gets things done faster, cheaper and with better quality than any government agency could dream of. Of course, I would'nt ask P.E. to wage a war overseas, or negotiate an arms treaty or secure our borders.
Ya see, its the leeches of this nation that think of corporations and private enterprise as bad or evil. Painting them as some kind of devil for seeking to better themselves and the lives of Americans. They want a nation of herd following Euro socialistic on the dole slugs to sit on there couch watching Good Times reruns untill it implodes into anarchy and oblivion. Who are the leeches? The hangers on who contribute squat and suck the life out of the American ideals most of us revere.
Thats what I think.
Enjoy!
-
Originally posted by Nash
Aaaaaand they're OFF!
So Nash, do you have an opinion? Any brain cells left? You jump in most of the threads on this board, but never bring anything to the table.
You said you had a "huge stake" in our last elections, but never explained yourself.
Since you don't have an opinion, at least bring something witty, artsy or funny, or do you just do this for finger exercise?
^that how it works Nash?
-
Actually, he mentioned in an earlier thread how inane and pointless it would be to discuss SS on an Intardnet BBS, but that it would probably happen here anyhow. He was right on both accounts.
-
No more pointless than discussing any other political topic on the bbs.
-
Originally posted by SOB
Actually, he mentioned in an earlier thread how inane and pointless it would be to discuss SS on an Intardnet BBS, but that it would probably happen here anyhow. He was right on both accounts.
Ah, so he's nostradamus. I didn't know.
Uh, SOB, that pretty much sums up ANYTHING discussed on intardnet BBS's, porn included.
-
Originally posted by Lizard3
Uh, SOB, that pretty much sums up ANYTHING discussed on intardnet BBS's, porn included.
Now you've stepped over the line, mister. Porn is always a worthy topic of discussion, no matter the venue.
And Nash isn't so much nostradamus as he is a slightly more gay david copperfield.
-
The way its been explained to me is Bush's numbers are pretty accurate.
Those that claim SS wont go bankrupt until after 2050 are counting money in the system thats there on paper only and is really nothing more then government IOU's because of the federal government borrowing from it.
When the time comes to actually come up with that money the money will have to come from someplace because it isnt really physically there which would mean a tax hike that would be alot more expensive if done then, then any costs relating to fixing now.
Also it is my understanding and to quote Bush that this privatization would be "voluntary" Which I am taking to mean you can opt to take part of it and go private, or just put it all in SS as you have always done. And that choice would be yours to make.
If thats the case it seems like a fair deal to me.
In any event its obvious that something is going to need to be done about it. sooner or later I personally would rather not wait till later when it really does become a crisis
Funny thing I noticed is I seem to remember Clinton also talking about the future of SS and the Reps were against doing anything.
Now its the other way around.
Like I said, taking an opposing view just to take the opposing view.
-
Originally posted by SOB
Now you've stepped over the line, mister. Porn is always a worthy topic of discussion, no matter the venue.
And Nash isn't so much nostradamus as he is a slightly more gay david copperfield.
:yank:
Discuss porn? Thats...uh...retarded. Like...uh...smelling loud, seeing farts, or hearing green. :D
Yeah, and I agree he is gay.
-
Originally posted by Lizard3
So Nash, do you have an opinion? Any brain cells left? You jump in most of the threads on this board, but never bring anything to the table.
What exactly is it that I'm supposed to bring to this so-called table, mon frere?
Or is that beside the point?... If so, lets not fight tonight, honey... I gotta headache.
-
Originally posted by JB88
(http://www.axishistory.com/fileadmin/user_upload/s/ss-sport-insignia.jpg)
::::: ? :::::::
You sick Nazi basdard! What does that have to do with Social Security?
-
Originally posted by SOB
Actually, he mentioned in an earlier thread how inane and pointless it would be to discuss SS on an Intardnet BBS, but that it would probably happen here anyhow. He was right on both accounts.
If you think about it we are only carrying on a centuries old tradition whereas they used to gather in the neighborhood pub smoking pipes,drinking ale and discuss/debate the issues of the day.
Which was no more or less inane and pointless then, then it is now.
The only real differences are we arent sitting in a pub and the stuff some folks are stuffing in their pipes is a little different:)
Doesn't make it any less interesting or fun
-
SOB got it slightly wrong (but he's right too).
He's referring to a thread I made earlier called "3 things that I'm already sick of, and they haven't even happened yet".
#1) The "Trial of the New Century".
If you thought the talking heads poring over the boring details of the Scott Peterson case every single night was bad....
#2) The Social Security fight.
It may be important, but couldn't be more boring. I don't know which will be worse, the media saturation or the BBSers' here instant conversion into Social Security experts, fighting about it with a passion unbeknownst to them now.
#3) The Pope death-watch and replacement coverage.
You KNOW that every network already has the story, profiles, bios - the entire shebang already written, recorded and canned. They're just waiting to roll it out.
What am I leaving out?
(Sorry - I've got a nasty cold so I'm miserable)
So... I didn't call it pointless. Er... let me rephrase that. I didn't single it out as being pointless.... because pretty much everything here is.
I hope that explains the "Aaaand they're OFF!" post for you, Liz. If it still doesn't make sense, just chalk it up to my lack of brain cells and step down.
-
So, you're saying I'm right about you being more gay than David Copperfield? :p
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Doesn't make it any less interesting or fun
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.
-
Oh yeah baby. I'm Fruit Loops!
:D
-
LOL!
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?!!?!??!?!?!?!?!
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
If they remove the defined benefit plans and replace them with 401k's, the amount the company contributed to the DB plan should also be contributed to the 401k by the company.
As I said, pension benefits are an integral part of compensation. If they want to remove them, compensation has to rise in some form. 401k is fine......... as long as they contribute an amount equal to the old DB.
-
Originally posted by 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.
i couldnt agree with you more.
corporations have a nasty habit of letting these things go when its convenient for the bottom line.
happens every day.
-
Originally posted by Toad
If they remove the defined benefit plans and replace them with 401k's, the amount the company contributed to the DB plan should also be contributed to the 401k by the company.
As I said, pension benefits are an integral part of compensation. If they want to remove them, compensation has to rise in some form. 401k is fine......... as long as they contribute an amount equal to the old DB.
Well if the companies could afford to do that then they could afford to properly fund the plan in the first place.
There are only so many dollars available, in the neverending battle between stockholder and employee, the pendelum has swung in favor of the stockholder currently, not a bad thing really the profits get reinvested to provide more jobs.
shamus
-
At least thats what they say.
shamus
-
for you guys that think that SS is gointg bankrupt because people are living longer..
Do you know what the average age of a person recieving any kind of payment from SS today is? 25 years ago? 50 years ago? The average lifespan hasn't changed that much.
You can make SS work by simply raising the age people are eligable. If you keep people working to age 80 say, you can payu for all the people who don't pay in at all and help fund the governments general fund with all the excess.
does anyone here think that if a 20 year old put half what he is contributing to SS into a 401k or other plan that he would not be able to retire at 50 with a very good income?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Well if the companies could afford to do that then they could afford to properly fund the plan in the first place.
There are only so many dollars available,
shamus
Sorry, mate, I gotta call Bullshirt on this one too.
When a guy works for say.... Eastern... for 20+ years and throughout that career the company makes deposits into a pension plan for him, the amount contributed is easily tabulated. In fact, it MUST Be tabulated to comply with Federal rules.
During this time at the recurring contract negotiations, the company ALWAYS considers these pension costs as an integral part of the employee's compensation.
That bears repeating:
The company ALWAYS considers these pension costs as an integral part of the employee's compensation.
In other words, they tell the employee something like "yes, you're paid less than the pilots at XXXX airline but you have to consider the whole compensation package. We give you $ xxxx more in medical and we give you $xxxx in pension benefits that pilots at XXXX airline don't get."
It is understood by BOTH sides that Pension Benefits are part of an employees direct compensation and that regular payments will be made into the pension fund on the employee's behalf.
However, if the pension payments are not made into an account IN THE EMPLOYEE'S OWN NAME then the corporate raiders and bankruptcy judges feel free to steal... yes STEAL... this money from the employees.
Many companies do have retirement "in the employees name". This precludes the theft of earned pension benefits by the crooks that supervise the breakup of companies. My airline had "partial" retirement in our own name. Other airlines had full retirement in your own name.
It should be the law of the land that ALL pension benefits are in the employees name and this doesn't have to mean ONLY 401k plans. It's been done with regular defined benefit / defined contribution plans as well.
Again, those pension benefits are EARNED. They belong to the employee. It's clearly THEFT when they are given to anyone but the employee.
-
Originally posted by wombatt
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.
I agree. It's sad though that too many families have to have two wage earners, and so few have the time, resources or the desire anymore to take care of their own family members.
-
Originally posted by Toad
However, if the pension payments are not made into an account IN THE EMPLOYEE'S OWN NAME then the corporate raiders and bankruptcy judges feel free to steal... yes STEAL... this money from the employees.
I would agree with you on this point.
Dont forget that most private sector employee are not covered by contract that requires specific contrabutions made based an a persons induvidual compensation to a defined benifit plan, there is a promise of x% of annual wage times years of service.
The plan is funded on the whole using actuarial tables based on a projected return of investment, a real common tactic is to be very optimistic on returns to allow less funding of the plan, when those returns don't happen we get back to my point about "where do the dollars come from" to fund the plan.
I'm sure that you know a lot more about the specifics of the airline pension plans than I do. If your point is to talk about them, I defer to your knowledge.
shamus
-
However the plan is set up, defined benefit, defined contribution, or " x% of annual wage times years of service" all of those companies have to report "the number" to the Feds for tax and other purposes.
So, there is a "number" that relates to each and every employee. That amount is part of their wages and should be in a movable account in the employees name.
If it's the " x% of annual wage times years of service" based on actuarial tables based on a projected return of investment, the investment specified should be deposited into whatever account IN THE EMPLOYEES name. Then, even if the return on investment, proves less than the "optimistic estimate", the employee will still have something.
The Feds shouldn't let these crooks get away with routine underfunding for multiple years in a row, either.
-
Every time I see ole' Granny and Grampy Kanudleheuser lumbering along in their nice new Caddy... I wonder how much of their SS check is covering the car payment.
Ya... I say privatize the whole freekin thing.
-
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.
Hiya Silat!! :)
Say hi the BW'rs for me :)