What do we do about social security

[actsnoblemartin]

Can it be saved?, should it be ended for a new program, what do you think about privitization?

your thoughts

[Immanuel]

Privatize it.

No, it should not be ended.

I only have 10 minutes so I will leave the discussion to go on for now and add more to this later.

Immie

[typomaniac]

Can it be saved?, should it be ended for a new program, what do you think about privitization?

your thoughts

One step will solve a huge part of the problem: stop putting SS payments into the general fund to mask the level of national debt.

Privatization will never be appropriate UNLESS everyone is free to invest in any publicly traded security or commodity. Anything less is just a kickback for brokers or fund managers.

[Trigg]

One step will solve a huge part of the problem: stop putting SS payments into the general fund to mask the level of national debt.

Privatization will never be appropriate UNLESS everyone is free to invest in any publicly traded security or commodity. Anything less is just a kickback for brokers or fund managers.

Stop the presses...............we agree. :clap: :clap:

There will probably be no SS when I get ready to retire. There just arn't enough people paying into it anymore.

[JohnDoe]

it's good through 2050, if we pay back the SS surplusses borrowed, which we will...

after 2050, we will be able to pay 75% of what has been promissed to recipiants if not one single reform is made.

IF done soon, some minor reforms to SS now, could shore up social security for another 75 years, taking us beyond the last baby boomer.

there are a number of things that should be considered and done together:

-slowly extend the retirement age
-gradually raise the SS income level for taxation
-privatization of a portion
-lockbox the surplus now/cut spending
-base future payments on cost of living as basis

SS can be addressed and will be there for you trigg, actsnoblemartin etc....if the real problem of Medicare costs doesn't bankrupt us first!

:D

jd

[Joe Steel]

Can it be saved?, should it be ended for a new program, what do you think about privitization?

your thoughts

You listen to too much hate radio.

There's nothing wrong with Social Security that a small adjustment wouldn't fix.

[April15]

Post #3 says it all!

[PostmodernProphet]

how about we stop paying benefits to seniors who have incomes in excess of $100,000 a year from their investments.....and we use the money saved to double the payments to people who have nothing except SS....

I would rather see gramma get $26,000 than see Ross Perot get $13,000.......

[Mr. P]

how about we stop paying benefits to seniors who have incomes in excess of $100,000 a year from their investments.....and we use the money saved to double the payments to people who have nothing except SS....

I would rather see gramma get $26,000 than see Ross Perot get $13,000.......

How about we stop taking peoples money by force and let them invest in their own retirement?

[PostmodernProphet]

won't work.....those that screwed up would sit there hungry and we would end up using taxpayer money to feed them anyway....might as well have them contribute something to the cost while they can......

have to agree, of course, that using SS money to offset the general fund was a really stupid thing for Congress to do (back in the 40s and ever since).....

reminds me of that thing they always tell you when you turn 18....."if you put just $10 a week in savings, by the time you retire you will have over a million".....I don't recall any one ever saying "if you pretend that you put $10 in savings every week but really spend it on something else instead, when you retire you will still have it".....

[glockmail]

Can it be saved?, should it be ended for a new program, what do you think about privitization?

your thoughts http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=86963&postcount=19

[Immanuel]

One step will solve a huge part of the problem: stop putting SS payments into the general fund to mask the level of national debt.

Privatization will never be appropriate UNLESS everyone is free to invest in any publicly traded security or commodity. Anything less is just a kickback for brokers or fund managers.

I agree, but the first part will never happen. Come to think of it, neither will the second part. Politicians are not going to give up this goose that laid the golden egg until we yank it from their grasps.

Privatization is the way to go. Let me choose where my retirement is going to go. I'm sure a third grader could do a better job with it than the government has done over the last almost 100 years and let me decide what to do with it when God calls me home.

Now, having said that, we can not just end the current system. There are too many people who have put their life's savings into the program and depend upon it. The privatization of Social Security will need to be done in a step by step manner. Not only that but we need to develop a method to handle people who become disabled early in life and are not able to fund their retirement or people who die early and leave a family. This would mean taxation in some way.

Personally, I would not object to a portion of my earnings on my "Social Security" Retirement Plan being used for disability or death benefits or even a tax on my income. I do not object to helping those who run into hard times. I would be happy to give in such a case.

Immie

[Immanuel]

won't work.....those that screwed up would sit there hungry and we would end up using taxpayer money to feed them anyway....might as well have them contribute something to the cost while they can......

have to agree, of course, that using SS money to offset the general fund was a really stupid thing for Congress to do (back in the 40s and ever since).....

reminds me of that thing they always tell you when you turn 18....."if you put just $10 a week in savings, by the time you retire you will have over a million".....I don't recall any one ever saying "if you pretend that you put $10 in savings every week but really spend it on something else instead, when you retire you will still have it".....

I disagree with you here and in some respects with Typo. I don't think people should be allowed to throw their money into commodities or even fully into the stock market. The government could set guidelines and recommend, in fact, license mutual funds as Social Security funds. Only licensed funds would be eligible to receive these accounts and if they don't perform, they don't get licensed.

Immie

[Mr. P]

won't work.....those that screwed up would sit there hungry and we would end up using taxpayer money to feed them anyway....might as well have them contribute something to the cost while they can......

have to agree, of course, that using SS money to offset the general fund was a really stupid thing for Congress to do (back in the 40s and ever since).....

reminds me of that thing they always tell you when you turn 18....."if you put just $10 a week in savings, by the time you retire you will have over a million".....I don't recall any one ever saying "if you pretend that you put $10 in savings every week but really spend it on something else instead, when you retire you will still have it".....

Ahhhh but it works great! Privatization anyway...check it out.

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba215.html

[Yurt]

Ahhhh but it works great! Privatization anyway...check it out.

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba215.html

As you link says, for some. What about the masses?


won't work.....those that screwed up would sit there hungry and we would end up using taxpayer money to feed them anyway....might as well have them contribute something to the cost while they can......

Being young, I have not really thought about this, all I hear is that baby boomers are *movie voice* here. Ok. If SS is privatized, what then? What then to those that do not save? Do they go on welfare? What happens?

To me, social security doesn't seem right, but, my grandparents had it. Now, one set used it and the other "used" it.

If we want to abolish it, fine. But to "privatize" it, what does that really mean?

[Mr. P]

As you link says, for some. What about the masses?




If privatized it would also work for the masses.

[PostmodernProphet]

But to "privatize" it, what does that really mean?

in current terms it simply means that instead of letting the government spend it and pretend it is going to pay it back, ten percent of it gets kept by us to invest ourselves....probably just as well it didn't pass when it was first proposed, since everyone would have put their money in dot.coms and Enron anyway......

[Yurt]

If privatized it would also work for the masses.

Ok, would the masses the be privately investing the money?

[Mr. P]

Ok, would the masses the be privately investing the money?

Do you have an IRA or 401k? Are either better investment tools than ss?

[Yurt]

in current terms it simply means that instead of letting the government spend it and pretend it is going to pay it back, ten percent of it gets kept by us to invest ourselves....probably just as well it didn't pass when it was first proposed, since everyone would have put their money in dot.coms and Enron anyway......

Ok, current terms. These are current market terms, with today's yields right?

I have no problem with some private control, IF, the government is going to take regardless. But to say pretend is to negate the private investment. That is like saying a private broker promises you this, but in reality you get this.

My problem with social security is that the government takes your wages, and like you said, essentially promises you a return for your """voluntary""" investment, and yet the government cannot give you the promised return. Now, in a completely privatized industry, we say, that is our risk. Yet, with the Government, we say, that is their risk and their fault. Of course, we are forced to invest in the government ""fund"".

My question is:

Do we part with completely? Or is there another way?

[Yurt]

Do you have an IRA or 401k? Are either better investment tools than ss?

I don't.

[manu1959]

I don't.

401k, profit sharing and personal investments ..... not expecting anything from ss.....

guess i will write off ss as a bad investment when the govt. comes up empty.....

[Yurt]

401k, profit sharing and personal investments ..... not expecting anything from ss.....

guess i will write off ss as a bad investment when the govt. comes up empty.....

I do know about them, but, how does that effect social security? I have to admit, now that I have my license, the money is slightly better, but will get more, hopefully, and I actually have never looked at SS before. I assumed it was a given.

Well, ASS U ME always gets me far.....

Seriously, is it possible to get rid of SS?

[Mr. P]

I do know about them, but, how does that effect social security? I have to admit, now that I have my license, the money is slightly better, but will get more, hopefully, and I actually have never looked at SS before. I assumed it was a given.

Well, ASS U ME always gets me far.....

Seriously, is it possible to get rid of SS?

In it's current form, yes. Exactly what the link I posted was about.

[JackDaniels]

I don't.

I hope you're young enough to start investing into a 401(k) or IRA, because you're going to need to if you ever want to retire...

[JackDaniels]

it's good through 2050, if we pay back the SS surplusses borrowed, which we will...

after 2050, we will be able to pay 75% of what has been promissed to recipiants if not one single reform is made.


I hope you don't honestly believe this...

The trust fund doesn't exist. It's in the form of T-Bills sitting in a file cabinet.

In other words, government owes money to itself. There's nowhere to just "pay back" the funds from except through raising payroll taxes, which is just as good as considering the trust fund gone.

We're only good through the period of time which receivables > payables. Which last through roughly 2018. After that we're fucked.

Think of the trust fund like this...You have money in your right pocket and in your left pocket. You want to save the money in your left pocket but your right pocket comes up short when you want to make a purchase so you "borrow" from your left pocket to pay, and then say "oh I'll pay my left pocket back later"...either way it means nothing, you are out that money.

Social security is a broken system, and it has utterly failed, like most government programs. Give the people back their money and allow them to do with it as they wish.

[glockmail]

If privatized it would also work for the masses. As I have shown with simple math anyone would retire with 2 to 3 times their salary if privatization was in effect when they started working.

[Joe Steel]

I hope you don't honestly believe this...

The trust fund doesn't exist. It's in the form of T-Bills sitting in a file cabinet.

In other words, government owes money to itself. There's nowhere to just "pay back" the funds from except through raising payroll taxes, which is just as good as considering the trust fund gone.

We're only good through the period of time which receivables > payables. Which last through roughly 2018. After that we're fucked.

Think of the trust fund like this...You have money in your right pocket and in your left pocket. You want to save the money in your left pocket but your right pocket comes up short when you want to make a purchase so you "borrow" from your left pocket to pay, and then say "oh I'll pay my left pocket back later"...either way it means nothing, you are out that money.

Social security is a broken system, and it has utterly failed, like most government programs. Give the people back their money and allow them to do with it as they wish.

I hope you don't honestly believe this...

It's all wrong, you know.

Social Security is not in trouble. It's facing a small deficit over the extremely long run but there's nothing wrong a small adjustment wouldn't fix.

And all your babbling about left pockets and right pockets is drivel. The U. S. Treasury obligations are the most trusted financial assets in the world. They're as good as gold. Better, actually. They pay interest.

[Immanuel]

Being young, I have not really thought about this, all I hear is that baby boomers are *movie voice* here. Ok. If SS is privatized, what then? What then to those that do not save? Do they go on welfare? What happens?



To me, I don't think it should be a choice. Just as SS is required today a person should have 6.2% (today's percentage) deducted from his check and contributed to SS in his account. We can discuss the employers portion and what to do with it whether it be set aside for disability or early death. Anyway, there should be no choice.

If you had put 6.2% of your gross check away even in a savings account and not touched it from the time you started working until retirement age, you would have a significant sized savings account even if you only worked for minnimum age all your life.

Immie

[PostmodernProphet]

Ok, current terms. These are current market terms, with today's yields right?


I meant current political terms....when Bush talked about privatization, he was talking about 10%.....the Dems like to paint it as if it were 100%......

[Monkeybone]

then what is that small adjustment Joe? just wondering

so will we have a flux again and will there be more ppl puttin money into SS like there was? or will it remain steady?

i liked JD way of putting it, it was clear and showed what is happening. the only thing that would've been better was a picture book with pop ups and mazes....and maybe some coloring areas.

[glockmail]

I hope you don't honestly believe this...

It's all wrong, you know.

Social Security is not in trouble. It's facing a small deficit over the extremely long run but there's nothing wrong a small adjustment wouldn't fix.

And all your babbling about left pockets and right pockets is drivel. The U. S. Treasury obligations are the most trusted financial assets in the world. They're as good as gold. Better, actually. They pay interest. As I have proven, the return on my social security "investment" is in the negatives.

[Hagbard Celine]

First we get Congress' greedy little hands out of the coffers. Then we continue on as normal. It's simple math. The baby boomers were a huge generation, but they all had kids, which means my generation is exponentially larger than theirs was. There's always going to be enough money for Social Security available--as long as we can get Congress to stop raiding the piggy bank. What we should DO about social security is enforce a little fiscal responsibility in Washington.

[Monkeybone]

yah, but alot of those baby boomer fams were having more than two kids most of the times. adn then when the baby boomers grew up, you started to see two or one kid families. no, i don't have a link or a poll, just my personal thought/opinion from what i have seen. so how does that work out when there are more collectors than providers?

and what about how some ppl are waiting until they are older (30's'ish) to even get married. and if they don't have kids right away, if they have them at all, they are just starting their careers/college when the rents are getting to retire. so what then? i know that there are ppl of all ages throughout America so there won't be open 'gaps' of ppl not working. just thoughts.

[remie]

How about we stop taking peoples money by force and let them invest in their own retirement?

Amen to that brother.

[Hagbard Celine]

Every few years they come out with a study telling us that in a decade SS will be out of money. It never happens. It's bs.

[glockmail]

Every few years they come out with a study telling us that in a decade SS will be out of money. It never happens. It's bs. Actually the "studies" are simple financial projections by the OMB, and they have been consistent. The only variable has been the growth of the economy when the GOP is in power and the slow downs when the Dems are. Its not like global warming where there are ga-zillions of unknown variables.

The projections are always the same. When the baby boomers start retiring there will be more money flowing out then flows in, and in a few short years we're screwed. So you can either raise the retirement age, kill off the old folks, raise rates, or privatize.

Which option do you prefer? :coffee:

[Hagbard Celine]

Actually the "studies" are simple financial projections by the OMB, and they have been consistent. The only variable has been the growth of the economy when the GOP is in power and the slow downs when the Dems are. Its not like global warming where there are ga-zillions of unknown variables.

The projections are always the same. When the baby boomers start retiring there will be more money flowing out then flows in, and in a few short years we're screwed. So you can either raise the retirement age, kill off the old folks, raise rates, or privatize.

Which option do you prefer? :coffee:
That's Republican bs. SS isn't going anywhere.

[Monkeybone]

i vote for kill the old folks and privatize.

we can have little jewel like thing in one of our hands that will change color when it is our time to "move on for the better good of the society"

[glockmail]

That's Republican bs. SS isn't going anywhere. So you are blind to reality, with zero basis for your assessment of the situation. It won't be the first time.


But this is blatantly obvious. It's up there with a train comng at you while you're wanking on the tracks. :wank2:

[Immanuel]

That's Republican bs. SS isn't going anywhere.

No, it is not going anywhere. The politicians are not going to let that happen. The only place it will go to is more red ink on the Budget and more debt for the American Taxpayers in the year 2100 to pay off.

As long as the U.S. Government's credit rating is still good then all will be fine, but eventually even our credit is going to run out if we don't reign it in.

Immie

[Monkeybone]

are you saying Hag to just leave it alone and that it will work itself out with the 'flow' of population? or that it will never go anywhere, cuz we will make an adjustment here and there to 'fix it'?

[Hagbard Celine]

So you are blind to reality, with zero basis for your assessment of the situation. It won't be the first time.


But this is blatantly obvious. It's up there with a train comng at you while you're wanking on the tracks. :wank2:

It's not going anywhere. In the late 1980s "they" predicted SS would be bankrupt by '97. '97 came and went. Then they said by '01. '01 came and went. It's bs. SS is here to stay.

[Hagbard Celine]

are you saying Hag to just leave it alone and that it will work itself out with the 'flow' of population? or that it will never go anywhere, cuz we will make an adjustment here and there to 'fix it'?

I'm saying both. Baby boomers have had enough kids to cover them. And nothing is static in the US economy or in US politics--adjustments are made every year to account for changes. All this talk about the collapse of SS is just alarmist bs designed to sell papers. When these studies come out that say SS will dry-out in a given time, the projections are based on current economic factors. But the economy ebbs and flows. It's all bs. It gives pundits something to talk about.

[Monkeybone]

kinda like global warming? it is there, but then agian it isn't. just as long as we watch what we do?

[glockmail]

No, it is not going anywhere. The politicians are not going to let that happen. The only place it will go to is more red ink on the Budget and more debt for the American Taxpayers in the year 2100 to pay off.

As long as the U.S. Government's credit rating is still good then all will be fine, but eventually even our credit is going to run out if we don't reign it in.

Immie A 80 or 90 year loan means that rates will be raised even higher, as 99% of the payments will be merely to pay interest. That's about as dumb a financial move as possible, which explains why I didn't list it as an option.

[JackDaniels]

I hope you don't honestly believe this...

It's all wrong, you know.

Social Security is not in trouble. It's facing a small deficit over the extremely long run but there's nothing wrong a small adjustment wouldn't fix.

And all your babbling about left pockets and right pockets is drivel. The U. S. Treasury obligations are the most trusted financial assets in the world. They're as good as gold. Better, actually. They pay interest.

No, you don't get it.

Of course they're good investments. But let me spell it out for you: The government owes the money to itself. If you understood economics, you'd know that the trust of the T-Bills is irrelevant. That's not the issue.

The issue is that the same entity that will need to pay the interest on the T-Bill is the same entity collecting the interest. Do you get it?

[glockmail]

It's not going anywhere. In the late 1980s "they" predicted SS would be bankrupt by '97. '97 came and went. Then they said by '01. '01 came and went. It's bs. SS is here to stay. My recollection was that "they" were saying that in the late 70's. As these were the Carter years, based on the economy being in the crapper into the future, they would have been right. But Reagan came along and saved our asses, the economy soared and gave us a reprieve.

[Hagbard Celine]

My recollection was that "they" were saying that in the late 70's. As these were the Carter years, based on the economy being in the crapper into the future, they would have been right. But Reagan came along and saved our asses, the economy soared and gave us a reprieve.

Of course that would be your recollection. Your conservative mind is incapable of filtering any fact or opinion that doesn't completely jive with your Rush Limbaugh, Fox News view of the world. "They" come out with a new estimate every year and it never comes true. It's bs. It's like looking into a crystal ball--bs.

[TheSage]

Of course that would be your recollection. Your conservative mind is incapable of filtering any fact or opinion that doesn't completely jive with your Rush Limbaugh, Fox News view of the world. "They" come out with a new estimate every year and it never comes true. It's bs. It's like looking into a crystal ball--bs.

Hagbard, think mathematically. Use that brain. The Pyramid Scheme of social secruty relies on an everexpanding base of people paying in for the everexpanding number of recipients to keep getting their payout as when they hit retirement. It's mathematically insolvent, given our population/age dispersal pattern.

GO look up Pyramid Scheme or Ponzi Scheme if you need helping understanding the principles involved.

this would be illegal if it were attempted in the private sector.

[glockmail]

Hagbard, think mathematically. Use that brain. The Pyramid Scheme of social secruty relies on an everexpanding base of people paying in for the everexpanding number of recipients to keep getting their payout as when they hit retirement. It's mathematically insolvent, given our population/age dispersal pattern.

GO look up Pyramid Scheme or Ponzi Scheme if you need helping understanding the principles involved.

this would be illegal if it were attempted in the private sector.

Good analogy. He still won't listen though. Too closed-minded.

[typomaniac]

Hagbard, think mathematically. Use that brain. The Pyramid Scheme of social secruty relies on an everexpanding base of people paying in for the everexpanding number of recipients to keep getting their payout as when they hit retirement. It's mathematically insolvent, given our population/age dispersal pattern.

GO look up Pyramid Scheme or Ponzi Scheme if you need helping understanding the principles involved.

this would be illegal if it were attempted in the private sector.

Yeah, and there's a reason that it's not as bad when governments do it.

Governments have taxing authority. (That's how they can afford deficit spending, too.)

BTW, note that I didn't say "good." I said "not as bad."

[JohnDoe]

My recollection was that "they" were saying that in the late 70's. As these were the Carter years, based on the economy being in the crapper into the future, they would have been right. But Reagan came along and saved our asses, the economy soared and gave us a reprieve.Not really Glock.

Reagan with the advice of Alan Greenspan raised the social security taxes on all of us in 1983 so that from that POINT ONWARD, the usa government was OVER COLLECTING social security from the boomers, a surplus every year since then wa the Boomers and others as they came in to the system OVER PAYING their share so to not have a problem when the boomers retired....

trillions in surplus money paid by us so that Social security would not be such a stress on the generations that were smaller that would follow... Boomers set it up so that they not only paid for their parent's generation but also were paying for their own, via the surpluses.

This brings us through 2050 or there abouts, with no changes in the system.

The problem that has arisen, is thatour government is spending TOO MUCH MONEY adn borrowing this money to fund their spending along with using the SS surplus monies...for example the entire war costs of 1 trillion dollars by the time Bush is done has been borrowed from China, Japan and Saudi Arabia and this borrowing is what the problem is and NOT the SS srplus spending per say...

So when the notes are due to be cashed in to pay the SS recipiants, the loans to Japan and china and Saudi arabia are due in also, or at least the interest on them and THIS IS WHAT has and will bust SS.....the over spending of general revenues....

SS will be paid back, but they will be borrowing from peter to pay paul and some...is how I think it will turn out.

the OVERSPENDING trend of the last decade is what has hurt us the most regarding SS imo.

jd

[glockmail]

Not really Glock.

Reagan with the advice of Alan Greenspan raised the social security taxes on all of us in 1983 so that from that POINT ONWARD, the usa government was OVER COLLECTING social security from the boomers, a surplus every year since then wa the Boomers and others as they came in to the system OVER PAYING their share so to not have a problem when the boomers retired....

trillions in surplus money paid by us so that Social security would not be such a stress on the generations that were smaller that would follow... Boomers set it up so that they not only paid for their parent's generation but also were paying for their own, via the surpluses.

This brings us through 2050 or there abouts, with no changes in the system.

The problem that has arisen, is thatour government is spending TOO MUCH MONEY adn borrowing this money to fund their spending along with using the SS surplus monies...for example the entire war costs of 1 trillion dollars by the time Bush is done has been borrowed from China, Japan and Saudi Arabia and this borrowing is what the problem is and NOT the SS srplus spending per say...

So when the notes are due to be cashed in to pay the SS recipiants, the loans to Japan and china and Saudi arabia are due in also, or at least the interest on them and THIS IS WHAT has and will bust SS.....the over spending of general revenues....

SS will be paid back, but they will be borrowing from peter to pay paul and some...is how I think it will turn out.

the OVERSPENDING trend of the last decade is what has hurt us the most regarding SS imo.

jd
But revenues during the Bush 43 years have exceeded expectations.

[JackDaniels]

But revenues during the Bush 43 years have exceeded expectations.

That is completely irrelevant, because the surplus continues to get spend in the general funds. In the end, the revenue makes ABSOLUTELY no difference.