Social Security

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by keith

Its cheaper for the state to do it.

How? I mean, I can start a thread for free...

But in all seriocity, I'm presuming there's more details (not to mention debate - this is fencing.net, after all, not to mention the Political 9h3770).

[keith]

Originally Posted by Soldier

How? I mean, I can start a thread for free...

But in all seriocity, I'm presuming there's more details (not to mention debate - this is fencing.net, after all, not to mention the Political 9h3770).

For wealthy nations, as I remember it, the US is top of the list for GDP spending on health care - and top for uninsured.

throw away comment really - in the spirit of the sophisticated debate in political folder

[Maeve_Mari]

Here's the Bush Plan for Social Security. Well, it's the Bushism on the plan:

"Because the—all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those—changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be—or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the—like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate—the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those—if that growth is affected, it will help on the red."— Bush Explaining his plan to save Social Security, Tampa, Fla., Feb. 4, 2005

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Soldier

Perhaps a thread on medical insurance, then?

I wonder, though, will simple adjustments be able to keep up? Or will we simply end up taking more and more money from people for Social Security?

Also, should we be just adjusting it, or trying to find another method entirely? It seems the principal mechanism is flawed to begin with, and we're just trying to keep up with the adjustments.

I planned to open an medical insurance thread, but figured One At A Time... I've been out of town and hence haven't kept up with the board anyway.

I agree with Keith's points, BTW..

More later as I catch up!

[jeff]

From Friday's Wall Street Journal, commenting on how the Medicate drug benefit program pushed by Bush is now estimated to cost $700 billion instead of the previously stated $400B: "the long-term total liability they created is something on the order of $7 trillion, or more than the entire projected Social Security deficit. (italics theirs, not mine)

Putting it in different words, the Bush administration just created a bigger problem than the SS issues they've been labeling a crisis. This from the WSJ, hardly an antagonist to the administration.

Also recently pointed out: there already is a government program for private retirement investment that is tax-protected, provides personal choice, and leaves money in the individual's hands (and to his/her heirs). It's called an IRA. There already is such a program, which doesn't harm SS funding, and provides the same benefits claimed for SS privatization. Not to mention 401Ks, plus the already existing private investment possibilities at banks and brokerages.

[Soldier]

ROTH IRAs are the way to go, no question.

Only problem is, I'm still paying Social Security!

[gojujay]

As far as I can tell, there is no authorization in the US Constitution for the Federal gov. to create any retirement plan. However, a lie told over and over again eventually becomes truth and as the US Courts (those great wise men ) have not found it in themselves to stand firm in a strict constructionist view of the Costitution, we are stuck with the idea of a government run retirement system. Now that that is out of the way, we should turn our efforts to making a VIABLE system.

The current system has expanded past simple retirement, either by design or manipulation. We should call it what it is, a tax, plain and simple. What is intended with these monies is a laudable goal, but by trying to do too many different things under the same name, it confuses people and when people get confused they tend to resist change no matter what the benefits, fearful as they are of the pitfalls. I suggest that the functions be split up into two separate agencies, one strictly for retirement and the other for "social welfare" or disability. These should be funded separately so that the people can clearly understand where and how much their taxes are going to social welfare.

The government run retirement system should be similar to Australia and Chile. They are mandatory savings programs and aren't cheap. I believe both systems run about ten percent of a citizen's pre-tax income. I favor Chile's approach making the citizen responsible for the whole portion as splitting it up just hides the fact that the worker is still paying for his retirement account, when viewed as total compensation.

We need to call it what it is. While I may be personally opposed to forced savings, the rest of the American people, apparently, are not, so I must bow to the will of that majority Show the American people through the lens of personal impact where their taxes, contributions, whatever you want to disguise it as, is going and allow them to judge whether the monies should go there.

[Inquartata]

Well, strict constructionism doesn't imply that everything not specifically mentioned in the Constitution is illicit. It gives Congress the power to write legislation to cope with new and unforeseen circumstances, including the creation of government agencies, powers and programs. Unless you'd rather do without the FDA, the EPA, the FAA, the FCC, the Federal Reserve system, NASA, the Smithsonian, the CDC...

[Bayou Bum]

The point is ... the money withheld from MY earnings for Social Security should be MINE when I retire. Everyone is saying that SS is great and guaranteed and safe. It is not guaranteed. Even best estimates show I will only get back 75% of what I put in. I could put it in a savings account at todays rates and still be better off. If you want to trust the government with your money, great, but why can't I have the option of investing MY money where I want to?

The answer is: Because we all know that SS is only a government dependancy program used to buy votes and redistribute wealth and the leeches of this country depend on it.

[jeff]

You seem to have forgotten that (for example) you can outlive your saved money, but SS will continue to pay out no matter how long you live, so your "I would do better with money in a savings account" isn't correct. There are other reasons, as discussed above. Further, your "best estimates" are wrong - I've seen actual accounts of people adding up their contributions and seeing they got out of it what they put in, and more.

Your claim that "all know that SS is only a government dependancy program used to buy votes and redistribute wealth and the leeches of this country depend on it" is just parroting the smear against the program used for 60+ years by the far right.

[esskreemr]

There is a fundamental idea to SS that seems to be practically ignored. SS is a system that was set up as a safety net for retired WORKERS. This isn't welfare! To be a part of the system, at least now, you have to pay into the system, ie earn money. The company you work for also pays. The more you work, the greater the benefit. There is an income cut-off point above which the payment into the system is ceilinged (along with the benefits).

The primary thread of my post, though, is that it is a guarantee that someone who works for the majority of his/her life, may have to eat dog food when they retire, but at least they'll be able to afford the dog food.

The problem is, IMO, not SS, but how it has been handled. The funds should be hands off but have been raided, and not just by Repulicans!! Dems have and are continuing to allocate SS as part of the general budget. This is the true problem. Rather that pull a safety net that is America's promise of at least a modest lifestyle to the workers who are responsible for America's properity once they can no longer work, fix the true cause of the problem. In addition, the fund is solvent until 2042 or so (under some estimations). Even after that, the fund won't be tapped out, it will require more money than it is bringing in for a decade or so (unless those damned doctors keep increasing life expectancy again!!) and then once the Baby Bloomers start....ummmm...well, once they STOP "requiring" funds, the system will once again be balanced. Also, pulling SS funds from the general budget would show it even further to be what it trully is, a bloated monstrosity that makes a few people lots of money.

Oh yeah, also to make sure it doesn't happen again, free birth control should be issued to returning soldiers.

[Bayou Bum]

The simple question is: Why can't I make decisions for myself? If you like the current system, fine, but why can't I have the option of investing a portion of my withholdings into something else? I'm currently paying the maximum and paying both employee and employer contribution because I am self employed. By the time I retire, I will have paid in hundreds of thousands into SS and will never see it.

Below is a link to the GATO institute for a calculator on how it affects you.

http://www.socialsecurity.org/reform...alc/sscalc.php

[keith]

Originally Posted by Bayou Bum

The simple question is: Why can't I make decisions for myself?

.. because most people choose not to. Google up the rates of participation in 401s and IRAs, and the distrubution of investment choices (a hell of alot of people seem to think money market funds are great long term investments )

Originally Posted by Bayou Bum

If you like the current system, fine, but why can't I have the option of investing a portion of my withholdings into something else?

only if you agree to let us leave you to starve in the gutter if your retirment and the market don't coincide in a nice way. That is the point of SS, a safety net.

Originally Posted by Bayou Bum

I'm currently paying the maximum and paying both employee and employer contribution because I am self employed. By the time I retire, I will have paid in hundreds of thousands into SS and will never see it.

Any form of progressive taxation is unfair if you earn an above average wage - now you may not like it but as far as I am concerned you can enjoy your sour grapes.

[jBirch]

By those of us that earn above average wages, it's called "Wine".

[keith]

Originally Posted by jBirch

By those of us that earn above average wages, it's called "Wine".

you see to much money to waste; have another glass and quit yer whining and pity us poor slobs who have to make do with rubbing alcohol.

[Larrison]

Originally Posted by jBirch

By those of us that earn above average wages, it's called "Wine".

And a fine California Pinot Noir it is too....

[jeff]

What keith said - well done.

And for jBirch: I suggest a nice Chianti.

Another point or two besides what keith said. Nothing stops people from investing themselves: that's what 401Ks, IRAs and regular investment channels. There's no need to create "private investment accounts" - they already exist (there is a Wall Street, after all) - and you should be using them so you can have a higher standard of living than the basic living provided by SS.

Social Security provides an additional benefit: it's shielded from seizure or being used in means testing. Money held in your bank or brokerage account is subject to creditors, being taken in lawsuit, being used to calculate whether your kids get a college scholarship or you (when elderly) can get into assisted living. Your money in SS is held in trust for you (that's why they call it the "Social Security Trust Fund") and is not an asset that can be taken away through bankruptcy or other catastrophes. So, if somebody slips on a crack in your sidewalk and sues you for all your assets, or (as is a leading cause of bankruptcy) you get sick, lose your job and health benefits, and then run through all your money trying to get treated for your illness - SS is still there, even if the rest of your assets are depleted. Something to think about instead of just looking at %yield.

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

Oh yeah, also to make sure it doesn't happen again, free birth control should be issued to returning soldiers.

Thank you Parson Malthus

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by jeff

You seem to have forgotten that (for example) you can outlive your saved money, but SS will continue to pay out no matter how long you live, so your "I would do better with money in a savings account" isn't correct. There are other reasons, as discussed above. Further, your "best estimates" are wrong - I've seen actual accounts of people adding up their contributions and seeing they got out of it what they put in, and more.

Question: For those people wha are adding up "their " contribution, are they including the part that the employer "contributed"? Some may disagree, but the employee is actually paying both contributions. The cost to the employer is the same, only the net pay to the employee is different. People seem to forget this.

[jeff]

I believe (but am not 100% sure without looking again) that the answer to that is "yes". I'm familiar with the employer side of it too (IIRC, "941 withholding tax"). Obviously the calculation should include both parts feeding into the fund.