Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Silat on March 06, 2005, 04:26:33 PM
-
Try this and compare. http://www.cepr.net/pages/sscalculator.htm
Then one of you that is gung ho about the proposed change in SS please tell me how the radical rights plan, saves the system that isn't in trouble. Then tell me why we arent fixing medicare instead.............
I love America
-
Too bad that calculator doesn't take into account that there won't be any funds to pay me by the time I retire.
I'll take Bush's plan, thanks. I'm a big boy. I can' handle my money.
-
Not taking sides on this. I just want to say that many years ago when I started working I had been advised to plan for something else besides SS for retirement. I took their advice and was able to retire well before I will be eligable for SS.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Try this and compare. http://www.cepr.net/pages/sscalculator.htm
Then one of you that is gung ho about the proposed change in SS please tell me how the radical rights plan, saves the system that isn't in trouble. Then tell me why we arent fixing medicare instead.............
I love America
Its always the radical right isn't it? Just a big giant conspiracy of the right to put old people on the street.
Koolaid anyone?
-
OK I dont get it so help me out here.
sorry but I really dan't read this chart. Is the garunteed benifit INCLUDING what I put into my private account?
FWIW I dont plan on retiring on any SS or PA really I just know SS isn't going to last.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Not taking sides on this. I just want to say that many years ago when I started working I had been advised to plan for something else besides SS for retirement. I took their advice and was able to retire well before I will be eligable for SS.
Union provided disability insurance, or you chose extra coverage?
-
I was told in 1980 that SS wouldn't be around long enough to pay me, so I started saving in my teens.. As far as Im concerned its an extra windfall if I ever see a cent ... Nothing is guaranteed in life, plan for every possibility as best you can while your young...or dont..
TOJO
-
Of course TOJO, everyone knew that at 17, duh! I was going to buy a car and chase *****, but I thought I'd better invest my pizza joint money.
Lotsa retards here weren't as clever as us, the dip****s.
-
friends the issue here is that by the time we late boomers retire there will be a ratio of one contributor to one recipient. my concern is what if my guy gets sick? the system is in dis-array. I'm with martlett on this. also it is my sincere desire to die as a functional contributing member of society. I believe that my creativity will actually extend my life. I just don't want to work 40-50 hours a week. I haven't since about eight years now. I hope I don't need to return to that so I can afford mine and my wife's future meds.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
Its always the radical right isn't it? Just a big giant conspiracy of the right to put old people on the street.
Koolaid anyone?
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.
-
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.
It would be a waste of time to answer a question you have already put in the "radical right" column.
BTW,
That gang was elected with far more votes than you care to admit to.
-
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.
-
Funny how that works....
-
Originally posted by Krusher
It would be a waste of time to answer a qustion you have already put in the "radical right" column.
BTW,
That gang was elected with far more votes than you care to admit to.
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?
-
To say the system is not in trouble is just not true my friend. Yes, it is ok for now but common sense dictates the longer we wait the more of a problem it will become.
I agree that the private accounts are not necessarily a fix because such a small % of what you pay in would actually go into the private account. The rest of the money in the system would still be subject to the same drain that is occurring now.
However, being younger that you ;) I'd like to see some sort of privatization of the system were it's possible to make a greater rate of return than what SS gives presently. I mean, comeon, unless the market crashes 1930's stye there's really no way in the long run that you would make less than what the system would pay out in the future. We can do better than what we have now and I'm open to all sorts of ideas.
It really bothers me that the party that talked so much of fixing SS in the late 90's now claims that there is no crisis, in what is essentially a political move to not have their crown jewel of social programs stolen from them. There has to be a good way to do this, but I fear politics on both sides will kill it.
-
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?
-
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 $$$$$.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
50.01% of a population could plunder a nations wealth, curtail personal liberties, imprison wihout due process, oppress or subdue any group or enrich any group, and still be called a democracy.
That's the main reason america was designed to be a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Something crypto-socialists and right wing theocrats have allways been trying to change.
-
Originally posted by Suave
That's the main reason america was designed to be a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Something crypto-socialists and right wing theocrats have allways been trying to change.
A very true statement.
The judicial system has had some interesting affects on the result lately, though.
-
Originally posted by DieAz
the plan is simple. basically it is setup, if the private account makes XXX amount of $$$. 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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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. (http://www.socialsecurity.org/daily/05-22-99.html)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
I plan to move to Mexico to retire.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
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.
Put away your bush pom poms bud. Chile proves nothing.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60A13FC3C5F0C748EDDA80894DD404482
http://www.econop.org/SS-SocialInsecurityChile.htm
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/01/21/BUGLHATVQP1.DTL&type=printable
You to can google:)
Please show me something of substance from Bush and company that shows how private accounts will FIX SS. I bet you cant. The reason you cant is they have already admitted it has nothing to do with fixing the "problem".
And they are the right wing and even the mod reps say the bush admin is radical and has strayed from the rep way. So why are you still argueing that they arent right wing and radical? Do you feel insulted that they are right wing and radical ?
:)
-
Originally posted by Silat
Put away your bush pom poms bud. Chile proves nothing.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60A13FC3C5F0C748EDDA80894DD404482
http://www.econop.org/SS-SocialInsecurityChile.htm
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/01/21/BUGLHATVQP1.DTL&type=printable
You to can google:)
Please show me something of substance from Bush and company that shows how private accounts will FIX SS. I bet you cant. The reason you cant is they have already admitted it has nothing to do with fixing the "problem".
And they are the right wing and even the mod reps say the bush admin is radical and has strayed from the rep way. So why are you still argueing that they arent right wing and radical? Do you feel insulted that they are right wing and radical ?
:)
Too bad for you eh? your plan (the dems) is to do nothing and point fingers.. congratulations. Admit it bud, the democrat koolaid is tasty :)
As far as your google on Chile. I will take the economist over nytimes and paul krugman.. not to mention my better half has been on the Chile run for years and has had many conversations with people who love every aspect of it.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
Too bad for you eh? your plan (the dems) is to do nothing and point fingers.. congratulations. Admit it bud, the democrat koolaid is tasty :)
As far as your google on Chile. I will take the economist over nytimes and paul krugman.. not to mention my better half has been on the Chile run for years and has had many conversations with people who love every aspect of it.
Its not my plan. Im not a demo. Im for America not just one guy. And the evidence if you would actually look into it shows that Chile isnt working either. It is costing more than our way. Now if you want to talk with facts Im willing but otherwise Im out.
And say hi to your lovely bride:)
-
Originally posted by Silat
Its not my plan. Im not a demo. Im for America not just one guy. And the evidence if you would actually look into it shows that Chile isnt working either. It is costing more than our way. Now if you want to talk with facts Im willing but otherwise Im out.
And say hi to your lovely bride:)
By the time I retire SS will be bankrupt unless something is changed. What's your proposal to fix it?
-
Remove the salary cap on the payroll tax. Why should a worker earning $30,000/yr pay a higher percentage of his salary in SS payroll tax than one who earns $300,000?
Institute a means test for benefits. Perhaps those with six figure incomes or millions of dollars in assets could do with less SS benefits.
Raise the retirement age to 67 now.
Finally, increase IRA tax benefits, especially for low income people to encourage them to start saving at least something additional for their retirement years.
None of these solutions would cost anywhere near the trillions cost of switching SS over to private accounts.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Remove the salary cap on the payroll tax. Why should a worker earning $30,000/yr pay a higher percentage of his salary in SS payroll tax than one who earns $300,000?
A person earning 300k isn't going to use more, why should he pay more?
Institute a means test for benefits. Perhaps those with six figure incomes or millions of dollars in assets could do with less SS benefits.
Remove the cap so they pay more, but then let them collect less? Er. Ok.
Raise the retirement age to 67 now.
By "now", you mean for those people who will retire next year, you tell them "too bad"?
Finally, increase IRA tax benefits, especially for low income people to encourage them to start saving at least something additional for their retirement years.
That's a great idea. It has nothing to do with fixing SS, but it's a great idea.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Its not my plan. Im not a demo. Im for America not just one guy. And the evidence if you would actually look into it shows that Chile isnt working either. It is costing more than our way. Now if you want to talk with facts Im willing but otherwise Im out.
And say hi to your lovely bride:)
This sounds a bit like your "Lawyers don't contribute to the cost of insurance in America argument" I can and have seen solid evidence that Chiles system works. Nobody claims it to be perfect, but unless you are living in a cave our system is not going to last in its current form.
That set aside, you know the pattern for your party is to oppose anything and everything the president proposes. Your parties lack of vision is a leading reason they lost the last election.
Face it, privatization is "part" of the solution not part of the problem. If it fails, its a new reason for people to vote for republicans. Like the president, I have said I am for a compromised solution. It appears that some people are only against the president.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
This sounds a bit like your "Lawyers don't contribute to the cost of insurance in America argument" I can and have seen solid evidence that Chiles system works. Nobody claims it to be perfect, but unless you are living in a cave our system is not going to last in its current form.
That set aside, you know the pattern for your party is to oppose anything and everything the president proposes. Your parties lack of vision is a leading reason they lost the last election.
Face it, privatization is "part" of the solution not part of the problem. If it fails, its a new reason for people to vote for republicans. Like the president, I have said I am for a compromised solution. It appears that some people are only against the president.
Ummm I am not a dem... But if you say it enough maybe you will believe it:)
I never said lawyers dont contribute to costs. I said that the insurance companies and admin costs are the largest portion of costs. Even the insurance companies own studies as I have shown previously back this up. But if the powers that be say that its the lawyers enough times then you will believe it.
Please at least quote me correctly.
Im not going to put links up to show you that the reps and dems are both removed from the real people and show lack of vision. This isnt about the reps being the party of good and the dems being the party of evillll. That is BS. They both are doing a lousy job of representing the majority (99%)of people in this country. Our gov is representing a small ownership class(1%).
What Ive read about Chiles solution is that it costs a lot more than ours and doesnt do nearly the job.
:aok
Remember what GW Bush was saying in 1978...
[Social Security] will be bust in 10 years unless there are some changes ... The ideal solution would be for Social Security to be made sound and people given the chance to invest the money the way they feel.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
A person earning 300k isn't going to use more, why should he pay more?
It's a tax, what do you mean use more?
shamus
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Originally posted by Martlet
A person earning 300k isn't going to use more, why should he pay more?
It's a tax, what do you mean use more?
shamus
Draw.
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Originally posted by Martlet
A person earning 300k isn't going to use more, why should he pay more?
It's a tax, what do you mean use more?
shamus
It specifically to fund SS payouts. Surely you understand that.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
It specifically to fund SS payouts. Surely you understand that.
So you are saying everyone "uses" the same amount?
shamus
-
Originally posted by Shamus
So you are saying everyone "uses" the same amount?
shamus
I'm saying it's comparable. It's also irrelevant to the point. You said raise their payments and lower their benefit.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I'm saying it's comparable. It's also irrelevant to the point. You said raise their payments and lower their benefit.
You better reread that, you sound confused.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Shamus
You better reread that, you sound confused.
shamus
Sorry. change "you" for "oboe" and the point still stands.
-
Does anyone think that this attempt to overhaul (or whatever you choose to call it) SS is going to succeed?
From what I understand, there's enough money right now that they can already pay everyone just fine right up until 2040, and that the (speculated) trouble doesn't actually start until 2050. By that time... who knows what the deal is gonna be?
Strikes me as an ideological fight, nothing more... and every indication is that this fight won't get sanctioned. Honduras won't even touch it.
Anyways, if one were prone to believe Bush, it would seem that there are other, more important things to worry about at the moment. Hitting 60 cities in 60 days on his Bamboozlepalooza tour... yeah, that's gonna help.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Sorry. change "you" for "oboe" and the point still stands.
Well I dont know, I think someone under the current system who pays more does "use" more, so it stands to reason that if the tax is levied on a guy making 300k he would use more than a guy making 30k dont you think?
shamus
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Well I dont know, I think someone under the current system who pays more does "use" more, so it stands to reason that if the tax is levied on a guy making 300k he would use more than a guy making 30k dont you think?
shamus
No, I don't agree.
Explain.
-
Well if you pay ss taxes on a 30k wage for 30 years are your ss payments the same as they would be if the wage were 60k for 30 years?
shamus
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Well if you pay ss taxes on a 30k wage for 30 years are your ss payments the same as they would be if the wage were 60k for 30 years?
shamus
That's why they have wage indexing.
Again, irrelevant though, since the example I was responding to also called for lowering the benefit for higher wage earners.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
A person earning 300k isn't going to use more, why should he pay more?
This is what I was responding to, this statment is incorrect as stated by you.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Shamus
This is what I was responding to, this statment is incorrect as stated by you.
shamus
And I responded.
Next?
-
LoL ok you responded :)
shamus
-
You asked for a plan so I listed several things we could do right off the top off my head that will:
- go a long way toward "fixing" SS
- not cost several trillion dollars to implement
Just starting points for discussion.
There's no getting around the demagraphic of fewer and fewer workers supporting more and more retirees. More money needs to come into SS, and less per person needs to be paid out.
If we cut back on everybody's benefits equally, the lower end people may be driven into poverty, and staying out of poverty in your old age is kind of the reason for existence of the program, is it not?
At any rate I think we are getting farther here than our representatives in Congress.
-
Originally posted by oboe
You asked for a plan so I listed several things we could do right off the top off my head that will:
- go a long way toward "fixing" SS
- not cost several trillion dollars to implement
Just starting points for discussion.
There's no getting around the demagraphic of fewer and fewer workers supporting more and more retirees. More money needs to come into SS, and less per person needs to be paid out.
If we cut back on everybody's benefits equally, the lower end people may be driven into poverty, and staying out of poverty in your old age is kind of the reason for existence of the program, is it not?
At any rate I think we are getting farther here than our representatives in Congress.
I agree. However, I disagree that pumping more money into a failing system is a good fix. That's only temporary.
Most people admit that there is a problem. No one wants to deal with it, though. Why? It's a hot issue, and political careers will be broken over it.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
It's a hot issue, and political careers will be broken over it.
It's a hot issue? Why is it hot all of a sudden? Did it just become hot all by itself? Were people really all that psyched about it?
Heck, on this very BBS, folks have their ear to the ground and it doesn't take a whole hell of a lot of prodding to get them to post about whatever crazy arsed thing that strikes them....
Yet we haven't seen any posts about Social Security. Until now.
So...
There was no "problem" until recently, and it turns out that the "problem" won't come knockin' for another 50 years.
Mmmkay. What is this really about?
-
Oboe,
The lower end people are already in poverty. I've met several who are in their late 60's and still having to work because all they had was SS and there isn't enough to live on. I know I couldn't make it on 800 to 900 a month. Some of those folks are having a real tough time.
You can't argue with the population shift. There are more folks getting the age to start drawing on it than there will be in the near future to pay for it given it's current situation. Something's got to be done if the pay out will continue at it's current levels even without adjustments for inflation.
-
I agree Mav, and its too bad. And if we cut benefits across the board the number of those lower end people will grow. That's why I'd rather target cuts toward people who are best able to weather it. Some people are not going to agree with that, but that's the nature of politics.
I don't see it as a 'crisis' yet - more of a growing concern. The sooner we act to shore up the system, the better off we will be. But I tend to agree with the AARP on this one - you don't shore up a system by taking even more money out of it. I'd rather see cheap, easy to implement, and effective changes coupled with expanded support for existing retirement vehicles like IRAs and 401Ks - these are essentially 'private accounts' outside SS now.
Nash - I think its a hot issue because Bush is making it one.
-
Originally posted by Nash
It's a hot issue? Why is it hot all of a sudden? Did it just become hot all by itself? Were people really all that psyched about it?
Heck, on this very BBS, folks have their ear to the ground and it doesn't take a whole hell of a lot of prodding to get them to post about whatever crazy arsed thing that strikes them....
Yet we haven't seen any posts about Social Security. Until now.
So...
There was no "problem" until recently, and it turns out that the "problem" won't come knockin' for another 50 years.
Mmmkay. What is this really about?
You just now learn to read and you think it's new news? Reagan was talking about it 20 years ago. Clinton was talking about it 10 years ago. Just because you finally hear about it doesn't mean it just popped up.
The difference being now someone is doing something about it so it gets press. Old news. Keep reading, though. You'll catch up eventually.
-
Is there anyone stupid enough to think that they can retire comfortably on SS benifiets?
lazs
-
That's kind of harsh, Lazs. Quite a few companies don't offer retirement benefits at all. Minimum wage is what, $5.15 an hour? Below the poverty line anyway. How much of your below poverty wages are you going to set aside out of each check to save for retirement? Your check already doesn't cover basic necessities like food, clothing, medicine, and adequate housing.
If you don't have enough for today's needs, why should you save for 30 years down the road?
-
This SS calculator shows a different POV (http://www.heritage.org/research/features/socialsecurity/)
-
Originally posted by oboe
That's kind of harsh, Lazs.
reality is harsh sometimes
-
oboe... are you saying that there are people that work 30 years for five bucks an hour? Most people make 3 times that or more when they get out of their teens or twenties.
If you made 5 bucks an hour and put 2 bucks a week into a 401 you would have more when you retired than all the SS sucked out of you would give you.
This is really silly. No one makes minimum wage their entire life... if there are such people they could not possibly retire in any case.. they would have to die on the job. How can you live on 5 bucks an hour in any case? even if you could... would your SS benifiet have to be.... 100% of that to live on or what... 90% ??? who gets 100% of their wages from SS when they retire?
SS is useless. I have allways figured that it was a really bad deal that my pay my phone bill and the electric bill when I retire.
lazs
-
I don't intend it to sound silly. It should be a serious discussion.
But I think there are many people who work their whole lives at mediocre salaries and jobs who don't offer retirement benefits (my older brother being one of them). When you've got a house payment, car payment, and gotta put food on the table and buy clothes for the kids there's not a lot left over to think about stashing away for 30 yrs down the road. I think many people are in this situation. (I think someone from the SSA estimated its nearly 1/3 of all workers).
You may not think highly of SS, but its going to be virtually ALL some people have in their retirement, sadly.
btw in your example, $2/wk saved for 52 weeks/yr for 30 yrs results in a future value just short of $7,000. And odds are someone with that small amount of money to invest will not have enough to make the minimum balance needed to start a typical investment account, and not all companies offer 401Ks. They might have to stick it in a traditional FDIC bank savings account, which pay less than 1% interest.
How can anyone possibly live on $5/hr? I don't think its possible. I read this morning that the Senate defeated 2 bills that attempted to increase the minimum wage.
-
So what would be wrong with holding an individual's social security contributions from both employer and employee in distinct "named" accounts?
These could even be in T-bills like they are now. However, the Feds couldn't play as fast and loose with the numbers.
When an individual retired, he'd have a known quantity IN HIS NAME.
-
Toad,
Every year I get a statement from the SSA that shows my contributions to SS and my expected payout after I retire. Not sure what would be gained from the expense modifying the system to include my employers' contributions and holding the sums in distinctly named accounts.
I do believe a change like this would destroy the nature of SS as "social insurance". (Insurance being the sharing of risk by a group of people). But perhaps that is really the purpose behind the proposed private account changes after all?
-
Well, for one, I think it would introduce more accountability and honesty in the government's handling of the SS money.
Beyond that, it's a "known" quantity; if a guy worked all his life and had ...whatever... $100K in his personal account, it'd be pretty hard for the Feds to say..."Whoa, there! we're not going to be able to pay the benefits we said we would. We're only going to give you $50K." Think of it as "insuring" the benefit amount at some value.
Also it highlights the entire "shell game" nature of this system. As you say, it's "insurance" where we've all collectively promised to pay far, far, far more in insurance settlements than we collect in premiums.
How's that work, exactly? ;) How long can that go on?
-
I'm no expert in SS, but I *think* the problem is part demographic and part political.
Back when it was set up, with 16 workers per retiree, and retiree's expected to live oh, say 4 or 5 yrs after retiring, on average, the system collected more than was necessary to pay the benefits.
Along came the baby boom, and when they started working enmasse, then SS was really rolling in the Benjamins. I think shortly after this was when the SS fund was mingled into the general fund (Nixon?) to help fund government spending. That was a huge political mistake I think, and probably reinforces your distrust of the system?
Now as the baby boomers retire, fewer and fewer workers are in the workforce supporting retirees (I think we are down to 3 to 1) and retirees are living longer and longer after retiring (I think we are up to 7 or 8 yrs, on average). I don't blame the SSA or the government for these demographic realities, but I do expect them to recognize them and make adjustments to ensure the system's viability, though not necessarily at current benefit levels for all retirees.
Your example 100K account probably isn't enough for a typical retiree. That's less than $15,000/yr for 8 yrs. What is that individual going to do after it runs out?
-
What's the government going to do when the money they collect isn't anywhere near enough to pay him?
It's all a shell game. And there is NO PEA under any of the shells. ;)
-
After the projected exhaustion of the trust fund in 2042, SS would still be able to pay 70% benefits to retirees. That's bad, and that's the cut we look at if nothing is done. But its not what I would call "flat-busted" as Bush is fond of saying.
btw, I only trust these long term forecasts so far. Lots can happen between now and then. For example, it probably doesn't take into account the expanded offshoring of US jobs and the resultant depression of wages here. That's going to hurt SS collections too, (and also the ability of people to save on their own for retirement).
-
The government is never right on its short-term fiscal forecasts. They are wide of the mark on the "worse case" side.
Why do you think their long range forecast will be anywhere near what you just posted?
Step back and look at it objectively, considering inflation and changes in technology and lifestyle, and it's clear that benefits are going to be cut significantly or else SS taxes are going to have to go way, way up.
To me, it's a question of accountability. If I put $100k (or whatever) into this system, where's my guarantee I'll get at least that much out? I want a guarantee not a politician's promise.
Put it in my name, pay me interest... at least at T-bill level if nothing else. Then when I retire.. I want it back.
I much prefer a retirement account than an insurance policy with terms that can be rewritten every time Congress is in session.
-
Originally posted by Toad
The government is never right on its short-term fiscal forecasts. They are wide of the mark on the "worse case" side.
Why do you think their long range forecast will be anywhere near what you just posted?
Step back and look at it objectively, considering inflation and changes in technology and lifestyle, and it's clear that benefits are going to be cut significantly or else SS taxes are going to have to go way, way up.
To me, it's a question of accountability. If I put $100k (or whatever) into this system, where's my guarantee I'll get at least that much out? I want a guarantee not a politician's promise.
Put it in my name, pay me interest... at least at T-bill level if nothing else. Then when I retire.. I want it back.
I much prefer a retirement account than an insurance policy with terms that can be rewritten every time Congress is in session.
And one that you can leave to your family if you die before the payout.
-
Yeah.. that too.
I deposit $XXX,XXX into SS, my wife pre-deceases me and I kick off before collecting a single cent from SS......... what do my kids get?
Zippo from SS from my $XXX,XXX.
-
Originally posted by Toad
The government is never right on its short-term fiscal forecasts. They are wide of the mark on the "worse case" side.
Why do you think their long range forecast will be anywhere near what you just posted?
Step back and look at it objectively, considering inflation and changes in technology and lifestyle, and it's clear that benefits are going to be cut significantly or else SS taxes are going to have to go way, way up.
To me, it's a question of accountability. If I put $100k (or whatever) into this system, where's my guarantee I'll get at least that much out? I want a guarantee not a politician's promise.
Put it in my name, pay me interest... at least at T-bill level if nothing else. Then when I retire.. I want it back.
I much prefer a retirement account than an insurance policy with terms that can be rewritten every time Congress is in session.
I am trying to look at it objectively. It doesn't help to look at it any other way. I reasonably expect benefits to be reduced and taxes increased. The sooner we do it, the better. And I have a healthy skepticism for all the long term forecasts, which I why I advocate, small, simple, cheap, and effective changes started as soon as possible, not the huge investment of borrowing 2-3 trillion dollars more to privatize the system. Private accounts already exist in the form of IRAs. Encourage and reward people to make use of those.
It sounds like you just do not approve of social insurance or Social Security the way it was set up to work. What you describe is simply everybody saving for their own retirement on their own - like it was before SS. We had lots and lots of old people living in poverty before SS. In fact, the plight of old people then was one of the drivers to starting the whole social security system. I think it might be a mistake to ignore that lesson of history.
-
Originally posted by oboe
I am trying to look at it objectively. It doesn't help to look at it any other way. I reasonably expect benefits to be reduced and taxes increased.
I don't think there is anything reasonable about that.
I'd rather take the risk of losing some than the guarantee the government will take some.
-
Tell me this... if any SS participant invested the same monthly amount for 25 years in a simple Whole Life insurance policy, how much would he have available for withdraw at retirement IN HIS NAME?
And in the meantime, his family would have how much insurance in case of untimely death/
-
Martlet,
It is reasonable to expect some form of SS tax increase and/or some form of benefit cuts. If nothing is done to shore up SS, it will result in a benefit cut. In order to shore up SS, you must have increased pay-ins and/or decreased payouts. Sorry, but I don't see any other possibilities. Doing nothing = benefit cut.
Doing something probably means increased taxes somehow/someway. I didn't say I liked the prospect but there it is.
Toad,
You haven't provided enough information, but in general Whole Life policies aren't real hot investment vehicles. I did a short net search to try to find some policy illustrations but everybody wants an email address to sell something. In general though the investments underneath life insurance policies are very conservative - 3-4% guaranteed. "Whole Life" means the premiums are payable to age 100 usually, though some plans accelerate premium payment schedules so you can pay it in a shorter time period. His family would of course have the death benefit if he died, but doesn't SS also provide survivor benefits?
I'll keep looking for a free, quick policy illustration and post back here when I find it.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Martlet,
It is reasonable to expect some form of SS tax increase and/or some form of benefit cuts. If nothing is done to shore up SS, it will result in a benefit cut. In order to shore up SS, you must have increased pay-ins and/or decreased payouts. Sorry, but I don't see any other possibilities. Doing nothing = benefit cut.
Doing something probably means increased taxes somehow/someway. I didn't say I liked the prospect but there it is.
.
I see plenty of things.
We can start with "give me my money and let me invest it."
-
Originally posted by Martlet
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?
Foot stomping? I asked if private accounts fix the problem as the Pres insinuated. And I dont have a solution.Do you?
-
Originally posted by Silat
Foot stomping? I asked if private accounts fix the problem as the Pres insinuated. And I dont have a solution.Do you?
Yep. Bush's looks fine to me.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
This SS calculator shows a different POV (http://www.heritage.org/research/features/socialsecurity/)
That is certainly bipartisan:)
The Calculator does not model the Bush reform plan, but it does estimate for comparison purposes how much you could accumulate with all your Social Security taxes in a personal retirement account.
Guess the stock market will always be going up:)
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Yep. Bush's looks fine to me.
Bush plan??? I havent heard a Bush plan yet. Please enlighten all of us as you must know something the rest of us dont. He has only mentioned private accounts which as has been pointed out already, does nothing to fix SS.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Bush plan??? I havent heard a Bush plan yet. Please enlighten all of us as you must know something the rest of us dont. He has only mentioned private accounts which as has been pointed out already, does nothing to fix SS.
That's what I was referring to.
Of course it does nothing to fix social security. It can't be fixed. It needs to be replaced.
Hence, private accounts.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Toad,
You haven't provided enough information, but in general Whole Life policies aren't real hot investment vehicles....In general though the investments underneath life insurance policies are very conservative - 3-4% guaranteed.... His family would of course have the death benefit if he died, but doesn't SS also provide survivor benefits?
And SS is a "real hot investment" vehicle?
Checked the returns on T-bills over the last few decades? Not a "real hot investment vehicle" either. About like Whole Life, isn't it?
Yet let Bush even mention letting people put some money into their own name in the market... which HAS been a "real hot investment vehicle" for some people at some time and for a select group nearly all the time.... and people SCREAM.
So do you want a "real hot investment vehicle" or not? Because SS surely does not qualify.
Death benefits: the famous "it depends". Depends on who dies first, how old the kids are, etc., etc. Not the case with Whole Life.
Consider this: Employer and Employee taxes are about 15% of a worker's income. So, for ease of purpose, let's say the worker makes $50,000. 15% of that is $625 per month that goes to SS.
What amount of Whole Life could you get for that kind of monthly payment? I suggest a HUGE amount.
-
oboe... I can't really believe you are serious. A person can't afford a couple of bucks a week that will snowball into, not 7,000 but tens of thousands of dollars over 30 years... they can't afford that but they can afford to piss away hundereds of dollars a month on SS??
NO ONE works 30 years for minimum wage. Mininmum wage is not a guarentee of a living wage. it is meant to keep from exploiting teenagers or some such.. Adults do not even think about minimum wage.
SS is simply a poor investment and thinking that having SS is your entire retirement plan is the height of stupidity.
lazs
-
I think I misunderstood your intention regarding the WL, Toad.
No, its not a real hot investment vehicle, neither is SS. Real hot investment vehicles imply somebody could lose their shirt. I don't think we'd want that with a person's retirement savings.
That is why people scream about investing retirement income in the stock market, I think. Retirement income just has to be there for us.
So no, I don't want a 'real hot investment vehicle' for my retirement income. I want something conservative that is going to be there for me when I need it.
I take your point about the WL now. I'll try to find out what $625/month could buy in Whole Life for a40 yr old male in good health.
-
OK, Oboe.. perhaps I wasn't very clear. I'll be interested in what you find as well.
Might run it for a 25 year old worker going up to age 62 retirement. Even averaging $400/month over all those years, $200K invested in Whole Life should be pretty impressive at retirement. Not to mention the insurance security for anydesignated heirs should the worker die before that age.
Maybe we've stumbled upon something that both the Dems and Reps could support.
:rofl I must be drunk!
-
Here's a quick answer from an insurance agent (sorry I missed the changes from your post above):
Here's results with a large mutual (A++ / AAA) company whole life.
Male 40yo 2nd best class (select preferred n/s).
I used 12.4% of $50,000 as my premium ($6200/yr). (Didn't use the 2.9% Medicare tax). This ignores likely increases in wages (makes believe there is zero inflation).
I subtracted $1000 from the $6200, because social security provides some disability insurance, so assuming this 40yo would use the $1000 to purchase disability insurance to replace Social Security Disability Insurance.
So using $5200/yr premium into a $350,102 face participating whole life contract with waiver of premium, using non-guaranteed dividends to purchase paid up additions, values at age 65 are:
Age 65 guaranteed cash value: $144,091
Age 65 guaranteed death benefit: $350,102
Age 65 cash value including dividends: $214,637
Age 65 death benefit including dividends: $471,337
Decreasing the face amount to $200,000 and using the same $5200/yr premium results in less life insurance but more cash value as follows (this policy is a Modified Endowment Contract/MEC):
Age 65 guaranteed cash value: $158,053
Age 65 guaranteed death benefit: $332,826
Age 65 cash value including dividends: $235,766
Age 65 death benefit including dividends: $467,697
So, roughly $214,000-230,000 cash value is not a great deal of money to fund a retirement. But that is a guaranteed value so actually it may end up higher. And I suppose every year you could purchase additional insurance with any salary increases (although the Cost Of Insurance increases with your age).
Really, its not as much as CV I thought it would be. It'd be higher if you started younger than 40, but I still doubt we've found a secret solution to the SS 'crisis'.
Couple of other things -
The insurance company may not be as likely to be around in 50 years as the US government. Small chance, but still a risk.
A significant portion of people would simply choose NOT to do this with their money, and they would survive to be a burden on society in the old age. Just human nature. Making it required for everybody through SS is one way to solve that problem.
-
Originally posted by Silat
That is certainly bipartisan:)
The Calculator does not model the Bush reform plan, but it does estimate for comparison purposes how much you could accumulate with all your Social Security taxes in a personal retirement account.
Guess the stock market will always be going up:)
ok you win. your facts are non-biased and proof positive that SS is here to stay and nothing should be done at all. Its a perfect system that we all can live a middle class lifestyle with in our retirement.
I will continue to add my spare change to the stock market and my 401k and live in poverty and despair because I missed the SS boat.
-
Originally posted by oboe
So, roughly $214,000-230,000 cash value is not a great deal of money to fund a retirement.
[/b]
How many guys do you know that work a $50K/year job from age 40-62 have more than that? Remember, this is on top of any retirement they have from their company.
So the real question is will SS give them as much from age 62 to death? The answer is probably not on two fronts.
First, average life expectancy is now ~78 from recent news. Will SS pay them $200k in 16 years? That's about $12K/ year; they'll probably get a little more than that from SS but not much. More importantly, when they die there's that $300K face value of the policy to their heirs, since most WH policies go beyond age 78. So the total package is going to be way better than SS. in terms of return.
It'd be higher if you started younger than 40, but I still doubt we've found a secret solution to the SS 'crisis'.
[/b]
It'd be WAAAY higher if you took all premiums a worker paid into SS (including employer contributions) and stuck them in a WH policy from day one in the work force. Surely you won't argue against that?
The insurance company may not be as likely to be around in 50 years as the US government. Small chance, but still a risk.
The top rated companies are all older than 50 years, with a pretty good future. Yeah, they might fail. But then SS is supposed to "run out of money" too.......... Small chance but still a risk either way.
A significant portion of people would simply choose NOT to do this with their money, and they would survive to be a burden on society in the old age. Just human nature. Making it required for everybody through SS is one way to solve that problem.
Make it required to invest in Government-sponsored WH. It's do-able. The Government could still collect the money and pay the insurance provider of your choice for a WH policy in YOUR name, increasing/decreasing the insurance as your wages fluctuate.
It'd be less of a crapshoot than SS is, with a legacy for your heirs. Particularly if you take the case of a spouse that didn't work after the wage earner dies. SS doesn't pay much then, but WH would pay a whopping amount. Which would be better for the survivor?
-
Well I've been trying to think critically about the idea, find pitfalls, etc, and it seems to me you may have something worth looking into. I'm no actuary so a signoff by me doesn't mean much, though.
What about the transition? Current retirees depend on current workers to pay their benefits. If current workers start instead making payments on their own personal WL policies, what will happen to retiree's incomes? And what about workers so close to retirement that they have no time to build Cash Value in their Whole Life policies?
SS has a large surplus right now, so I suppose you could start drawing that down immediately, but I don't know if the time before its exhausted will give workers under the new plan time to build sufficient cash values for retirement.
Still, I think your idea has merit. Float it out to some smart people you know. I'm interested to hear what they say.
-
Originally posted by oboe
What about the transition? Current retirees depend on current workers to pay their benefits. If current workers start instead making payments on their own personal WL policies, what will happen to retiree's incomes? And what about workers so close to retirement that they have no time to build Cash Value in their Whole Life policies?
That's the big issue with any fix. How do we do it without screwing the people currently collecting, or so close to it they don't have time to switch.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
ok you win. your facts are non-biased and proof positive that SS is here to stay and nothing should be done at all. Its a perfect system that we all can live a middle class lifestyle with in our retirement.
I will continue to add my spare change to the stock market and my 401k and live in poverty and despair because I missed the SS boat.
Ummm Bud that statement is from the HERITAGE FOUNDATION site that you linked to. So by your reaction I guess you disagree with the site you linked to.
I invested also.
But the original question was "What will private accounts (at the cost of trillions to convert) do to fix SS?, which you still havent answered.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Ummm Bud that statement is from the HERITAGE FOUNDATION site that you linked to. So by your reaction I guess you disagree with the site you linked to.
I invested also.
But the original question was "What will private accounts (at the cost of trillions to convert) do to fix SS?, which you still havent answered.
I did, though. You just chose to ignore it.
-
Originally posted by oboe
What about the transition?
Real simple. Initially, it's totally optional. You can stick with what you have now or you can switch to WL.
For some, it just won't make sense to switch, for others it'll be a no-brainer type decision. The folks in the middle will undoubtedly be pitched by the WL companies and they'll have to make a decision. I'm sure the financial advising community will respond. It gives them something to write about in all the magazines.
For people that are just entering the SS system, make the government-sponsored WL program mandatory.
So it takes 100 years to convert everyone... at least it's a plan.
-
A plan it is, and more appealing than others I have heard.
I'd still expect some actuaries to go over it and run some numbers - what happens to the SS fund if the no-brainer folks and 1/2 the people in the middle opt for the WL plan? Will there be enough left in the SS pot to meet the benefit guarantees for the people staying traditional?
Still, the idea for making it mandatory and keeping the investments out of stocks. This should be the most conservative piece of a person's retirement investment portfolio. Let them go a little crazy with stocks in their IRAs or 401Ks if they want.
-
Originally posted by oboe
what happens to the SS fund if the no-brainer folks and 1/2 the people in the middle opt for the WL plan?
What happens when the SS system "runs out of money" under the present setup? They raise taxes and/or cut benefits.
You still have that option open. You can take a bit of Bush's idea too, and make only part of a worker's SS taxes available for the WL plan for the present. A 'blended" program, if you will.
-
More from the insurance agent who did the initial calcs:
For a 65 year old male, the $235,766 and $142,800 cost basis could be annuitized (single life income, no period certain) as follows:
Monthly Income $1,464.95
For the first 20 years, 40.6% of each payment would be a tax-free return of principle. Any payments after 20.0 years will be fully taxable.
This is I think a much better payout than Social Security would offer for the same input.
Kudos, Toad.
-
Is he saying that there'd be a 40 year payout of ~$1500 per month with the first 20 years tax free?
AND the family gets $350K insurance coverage throughout?
Maybe I oughta run for office on this one....
Nah, my parents were married... still are. ;)
-
Ok, lets start with this,
All of the Baby Boomer Draft Dodgers, NO SS
Convicted Felons, NO SS
Didn't pay child support for 1yr or more after ordered(even a little bit).. NO SS
Hit my hog with his cage,, NO SS
I don't live in a Socialist county,, there for, I don't expect nor am I demanding that the Government give me my retirement. I would Like all the money I have put in to SS back, but that just isn't going to happen in this life time.
I am a dog faced American, I will make my own way and I will make it. I don't need to feed off of the great Democatic Tit. I have saved a bit, invested a bit, and god willing and the river don't rise, I will make it ok. If not, oh well, I will just keep working.
The only thing I have been guaranteed is death and taxes, the rest is Bonus...
Stay Safe :cool:
-
I'm sorta of that mindset myself.
However, when my mother-in-law finally used up all the estate left by her husband and had to rely on SS alone at 89 it made me wonder what those that can't "just keep working" are expected to do.
I'm pretty self-sufficient but I still feel compassion for those who tried and through no fault of their own can't make ends meet.
I think we do need to do something for them.
And, as you point out, SS isn't going to go away so it seems we ought to try to come up with a better system.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Ummm Bud that statement is from the HERITAGE FOUNDATION site that you linked to. So by your reaction I guess you disagree with the site you linked to.
I invested also.
But the original question was "What will private accounts (at the cost of trillions to convert) do to fix SS?, which you still havent answered.
I was refering to "That is certainly bipartisan" like the link you posted was?
You have the answer, you just dont like it.
-
I just love rough and tumble Republican-speak.
A dog-faced American, determined to make his own way in the world.
Well.... Y'all aint that tough, hard working, nor bright. Hell... most of ya are prolly in unions or work for the government in some fashion or other. The rest? I bet they're gay. And then there's these guys....
Lets take a peek at where Del calls home.
Mission Viejo, the tiny oasis nestled in a sleepy Californian valley... er... I mean the place where the gritty reality of life is always a hair's breadth away from clutching onto your ankles and dragging you right back down into the stink with it.
(http://bestofmissionviejo.com/LakeMissionViejo.jpg)
Life's a *****, eh?
-
Nash........ it's tough for the rich guys too.
Just a different kind of tough is all. "Do I take out the GT40 today or just drive the SL600? Man... this is tough!"
;)
-
Hehe.
My point was really badly put though.
I guess what I'm saying is that when it comes to recommendations over what to do about something like Social Security, I'd probably want to hear it from people who actually have a stake in the outcome.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
I was refering to "That is certainly bipartisan" like the link you posted was?
You have the answer, you just dont like it.
This dialogue has one its course. I dont have the answer . And you obviously think the Bush private account issue is the answer against all experts who say it has nothing to do with fixing SS>
-
Originally posted by Silat
This dialogue has one its course. I dont have the answer . And you obviously think the Bush private account issue is the answer against all experts who say it has nothing to do with fixing SS>
Your problem is you keep harping on the "fix SS" notion.
This doesn't fix it. It rebuilds it.
You sound like a parrot.
"it's not fixed....RAWK...we're going to starve....RAWK"
-
Toad:
Is he saying that there'd be a 40 year payout of ~$1500 per month with the first 20 years tax free?
AND the family gets $350K insurance coverage throughout?
I think he is saying 60% of the $1500/month is taxable income for the first 20 yrs, after that the entire $1500 is fully taxable. But the payout continues until you die - there is no period certain.
Here is one more hurdle to clear: With SS, your earnings and contributions are kept track of, and once you pass certain milestones, you are eligible to draw benefits when you retire - the longer you work and the more you put in, the more you will qualfy for to draw out. You can stop and start working during your career without having your SS benefits expire or lapse.
A WL policy, however, depends on you to make regular, on-time premium payments, and will LAPSE if you do not make these payments. Thus, if you are laid off and unable to find employment for a while, or stop working by choice, you still must make these premium payments or you will be without both your cash value and your family's death benefit. Now companies don't want their policyholder's contracts lapsing, so most have some automatic premium loan mechanism that kicks in and starts paying premiums out of the accumulated cash value. But if that happens, it will reduce your projected cash value and thus your retirement benefits. And if it goes on long enough, you lose your benefits (less the paid-up additions purchased with the policy dividends), which is something that wouldn't happen under SS.
Still, I don't think is a show-stopper. I'm sure some clever actuary could find a way around that problem - maybe instead of a traditional WL policy, you would just purchase a stream of Paid-Up Additions as you worked...
-
Originally posted by oboe
But if that happens, it will reduce your projected cash value and thus your retirement benefits...
Still, I don't think is a show-stopper.
The amount of SS they will pay you varies with how much you work as well, IIRC.
As you say, there might be a work around. I think if you dangle that much WL investment money in front of the insurance industry, they'll find a way to make the Congress happy.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Your problem is you keep harping on the "fix SS" notion.
This doesn't fix it. It rebuilds it.
You sound like a parrot.
"it's not fixed....RAWK...we're going to starve....RAWK"
Original question was . How do private accounts fix the problem? Answer "It doesnt". Get it? And as far as I am concerned there is no problem. Oh but if we throw 4 trillion dollars at it there will be.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Original question was . How do private accounts fix the problem? Answer "It doesnt". Get it? And as far as I am concerned there is no problem. Oh but if we throw 4 trillion dollars at it there will be.
Ahhhh, I get it. Trick question. You don't think being bankrupt is a problem.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Ahhhh, I get it. Trick question. You don't think being bankrupt is a problem.
It is not bankrupt nor will it be according to our own government. The scare tactics and talking points dont jibe with the truth.
But you might get a better understanding at this site.
http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/social-security/index.asp
-
Originally posted by Silat
It is not bankrupt nor will it be according to our own government. The scare tactics and talking points dont jibe with the truth.
But you might get a better understanding at this site.
http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/social-security/index.asp
our own gov't? You must have a different gov't than I do.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
our own gov't? You must have a different gov't than I do.
Mart feel free to show independent Gov studies that show SS going bankrupt.
And dont forget:
1978 GW says we have only 10 years till SS is bankrupt.:)
-
Originally posted by Silat
Mart feel free to show independent Gov studies that show SS going bankrupt.
And dont forget:
1978 GW says we have only 10 years till SS is bankrupt.:)
How about this one? (http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/09/social.security.ap/)
-
Originally posted by Martlet
How about this one? (http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/09/social.security.ap/)
Good article. But no mention of Bankrupt. I agree the system needs "tweaking". But it isnt in imminent danger.
Or maybe Rummy knows exactly when it will be:) (JOKE)
Quote from the article:
Even some of Bush's fellow Republicans have questioned his early focus on the accounts, which will not solve the financial problem posed by Baby Boomers and may exacerbate it with a $2 trillion so-called transition cost as younger workers begin to divert tax payments from the trust fund into their private accounts.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Good article. But no mention of Bankrupt. I agree the system needs "tweaking". But it isnt in imminent danger.
Or maybe Rummy knows exactly when it will be:) (JOKE)
Quote from the article:
Even some of Bush's fellow Republicans have questioned his early focus on the accounts, which will not solve the financial problem posed by Baby Boomers and may exacerbate it with a $2 trillion so-called transition cost as younger workers begin to divert tax payments from the trust fund into their private accounts.
You must have skipped this part:
The funds' trustees are expected to release their 2005 report on the long-term financial outlook of the Social Security and Medicare programs later this month. However, Palmer and Saving told the House panel that little has changed since their report a year ago, when they said Social Security benefits would start exceeding the annual revenue for paying them to beneficiaries in 2018.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Original question was . How do private accounts fix the problem? Answer "It doesnt". Get it? And as far as I am concerned there is no problem. Oh but if we throw 4 trillion dollars at it there will be.
So why did you ask?
Oh yea, it was to point out that Republican ideas are "Right Wing" and "radical"
So we dont have any problem with SS and we wont be needing any tax increases, means testing, cap adjustments or raising of the retirement age?
-
Originally posted by Krusher
So why did you ask?
Oh yea, it was to point out that Republican ideas are "Right Wing" and "radical"
So we dont have any problem with SS and we wont be needing any tax increases, means testing, cap adjustments or raising of the retirement age?
Krusher I didnt say that. The system needs tweaking but it is a far cry from "imminent" danger as the pres said originally. He has since backed down. He has also backed down from saying his private accounts idea is the cure as he had previously said.
And it is the radical repubs that are radical Krusher. :)
Just like the radical dems:)
Neither of those groups represents the majority of citizens.
And by the way it is obvious you that subscribe to one of the 2 major parties. My guess is republican. I on the other hand, contrary to your assertions, am a registered Independent. I vote for whom I think will be best for the country.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Krusher I didnt say that. The system needs tweaking but it is a far cry from "imminent" danger as the pres said originally. He has since backed down. He has also backed down from saying his private accounts idea is the cure as he had previously said.
And it is the radical repubs that are radical Krusher. :)
Just like the radical dems:)
Neither of those groups represents the majority of citizens.
And by the way it is obvious you that subscribe to one of the 2 major parties. My guess is republican. I on the other hand, contrary to your assertions, am a registered Independent. I vote for whom I think will be best for the country.
You say you have no suggestions on how to fix it. Then you say it just needs tweaking. But of course, you don't have a tweaking suggestion, you just "know" it needs it.
You say it isn't bankrupt, and ask for a panel that says it is. I give you one. You ignore it, pretend it doesn't exist, and continue to say it isn't in "imminent danger".
For a person that knows so much, you certainly have very few facts or answers.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Krusher I didnt say that. The system needs tweaking but it is a far cry from "imminent" danger as the pres said originally. He has since backed down. He has also backed down from saying his private accounts idea is the cure as he had previously said.
And it is the radical repubs that are radical Krusher. :)
Just like the radical dems:)
Neither of those groups represents the majority of citizens.
And by the way it is obvious you that subscribe to one of the 2 major parties. My guess is republican. I on the other hand, contrary to your assertions, am a registered Independent. I vote for whom I think will be best for the country.
I grew up as a democrat in a democrat family. I voted for Perot twice hoping for a viable 3rd party. Bush was not my first choice but Gore or Kerry was not a choice I could make under any circumstances. too be sure, I probably will never vote for a democrat again in my lifetime.
Bush has attempted to look at big issues and consider big ideas. I guess thats why he is a radical right winger eh Lew? His opponents only answer seems to be NO.