1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

a fix for social security

Discussion in 'The OT' started by olgeezer, Feb 3, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    But say you don't pay everyone 70%, and instead you pay people 100% until.... you're out of money. Does that happen around the time the President said?
     
  2. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Most people, in the beginning anyway, understood that this was only a supplement. Ministers were not allowed to participate in SS until 1953. Even now, under certain circumstances, it is possible for clergy people to opt out. Few take it. Back when ministers were allowed into the program, some people made the claim that SS would provide for all a retiree needed, and they could opt out of the denominational pension program. Few ministers saw it that way, and none that I know took that advice. Figures today show that SS is the only source of income for only about 20% of retirees. It is a PART of the retirement plan for most people, in particular, the safety net part.

    3 workers are currently paying for each retiree, PLUS adding to the surplus. It returns about 2%. Retirees I know put their money into very safe investments, because they can't afford to lose what they have. CD's, one of the traditional investments for retirees, are not yielding as well as SS. Besides, this isn't the part of my retirement where I am expecting the greatest return. This is the portion which is the safety net. Its the insurance policy. I'm getting my high returns in other areas. I also don't mind paying into SS because it supports my mother and mother in law. Because they have SS neither of them has to come and live with me. :)
    You are free to do this with IRAs. Raise the cap on IRAs, and you will get no argument from me. However, taking even a small percentage of mony from contributions will make a big difference in the stability of SS.

    I'm all for more fiscal responsibility. However, I don't know how you can say that the money was "taken" to cover social programs. I believe that the deficit the government has run up, requiring the Treasury Bonds that are the only form of investment allowed to the Social Security Administration, was used for unnecesary military spending and unwise tax cuts. I'm still upset that my SS contribution went to provide Bill Gates and Warren Buffet with huge tax cuts.

    It is an insurance plan (and its also a tax, but they didn't stress that one when it was set up). But not every insurance plan is the same. Some pay out in the event of disaster, some pay out when you die (might or might not be a disaster, depending upon your point of view), and some pay out in regular installments. The latter are know as annuities. Sometimes you beat the insurance company, and sometimes you don't. When you don't beat the "insurance company" in this one, you just help out other retirees, not the insurance company executives.

    As noted previously, the lockbox analogy from previous campaign rhetoric is not the best one available. Unless you want your money stuck in a huge tin can in the SS administration's back yard. The SS Trust Fund is only allowed by law to be invested in one way. U.S. Treasury Bonds. Otherwise known derogatorily as the governments IOUs. Why Treasury Bonds instead of the stock market? Treasury Bonds were seen as safer. The assumption is that the Bonds would have to be sold to someone, so selling them to the SS Trust Fund seemed better than to just any old investor. The idea was that this would help keep the overall debt down, making paying these bonds off easier. The thought was not getting the greatest return on the dollar, but keeping the money in the safest investment possible.

    It is not that the fund has been "raided." No one specifically spent Trust Fund money. What the surplus in the Trust Fund made possible was to hide the amount of the deficit. For many years the Trust Fund money was reported separately from the general fund. Then someone got the bright idea that if the Trust Fund, with that huge surplus, was lumped into the general fund, the deficit wouldn't look so bad. It also lumped SS benefits in with the rest of the general fund allowing right wingers to complain about how much the government spent in "welfare" payments. Except if you want to live dangerously, go into any retirement center and make the statement that SS benefits are welfare. First, make sure your health insurance is paid up. :lol:
     
  3. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    You could have included a little more of what I said, which is that this means that the system, as is, would meet 70% of benefits, and that a minor amount of tweaking would cover the rest. I even gave examples of how I think this could be accomplished without much pain.
     
  4. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    This just in:
    President George W. Bush has stated that WMDs have been unequivocally identified in the SS Administration, and the invasion will commence immediately.
     
  5. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    You forgot to mention that while casualties in the administration are expected to be extremely light, those on the opposition (aka the American people) will likely suffer heavy losses.
     
  6. goodcableguy

    goodcableguy Legend

    127
    0
    Feb 19, 2004
    We were privileged? yesterday to have a visit By G.W. yesterday and his explanation lived much to be desired. Even if you supported privation it didn't make sense. Besides if the government is going to back the program then why have it. The SSA might as well take the money to start off with. There many better fixes then privatization.
     
  7. sikma

    sikma Godfather

    471
    0
    Dec 11, 2003
    Can someone translate that last message?
     
  8. olgeezer

    olgeezer Guest

    1,833
    0
    Dec 5, 2003
    What's not to understand--"privation" or "lived" a bunch of happy faces-- wait there's more i can't stand it. i've lost it. i understand the message and fully agree :D
     
  9. sikma

    sikma Godfather

    471
    0
    Dec 11, 2003
    :scratch: :shrug: :bang
     
  10. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1321204/posts

    http://www.aarp.org/bulletin/socialsec/ss_britain.html

    (BOLD added)
     
  11. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    1
    Mar 25, 2002
    aarp. :lol: I just tore up my renewal notice today along with my membership card.
     
  12. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Wow, now there's an intelligent, insightful rebuttal.:sure:

    You could have chosen to present counter evidence to show the British stab at privatizing their national retirement plan, eerily similar to the one proposed by President Bush, ISN'T a total disaster. But instead you chose the far more convincing:nono: argument ,insinuatiing anyone who disagrees with you must be an idiot, misinformed and/or probably a "Bush-hater".

    I know I now see the error of my ways. How about everyone else?
     
  13. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    1
    Mar 25, 2002
    The British system is a full pension system, the SS system is not. So, the two can not be compared, other than of course by AARP. Apples/oranges.
     
  14. Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003

    But that's what Bush is essentially saying--it will go belly up and we should fix it. (I'd rather it was completely taken out with time, myself, as it shouldn't be there).

    But to say Bush is wrong to say it will be insolvant is incorrect--it will.
     
  15. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    I certainly didn't say it the system is going to go belly up. That is exactly the opposite of what I was saying. I said that the problem is NOT that big, and can be adjusted without dismantling it. While you are fortunate to be very well off, and won't need Social Security when you retire, many are not going to be as fortunate. If everyone was as fortunate as I will be with a very generous pension program paid for by my employer and administered by my denomination, we wouldn't need SS either. But neither is true. Increasingly, pensions are not provided as a benefit, and many people are working at low paying jobs that don't allow for big investments. SS keeps our old people from living on the streets. That seems to be a good thing in the minds of many.
     
  16. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Or by those who don't want to acknowledge that the attempt was a disaster, and those who tried it are envious of the program we have and some want to dismantle.
     
  17. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    I shredded my invitation to join tonite, but thats just because I turn 51 in a few days and I don't want the reminder I am getting older. :lol:
     
  18. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Very simple, he doesn't like Bush's plan.
     
  19. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    1
    Mar 25, 2002
    We have something in common. I felt highly insulted when I received my first invitation to join at the age of 50. :lol: I finally gave in last year for the first time. When they put Richard Gere on the cover of their monthly rag one time this year and spent the whole issue drooling over a bunch of Hollywood wackos I decided that this organization wasn't for me. When they started bashing proposed changes to SS that made up my mind. It's nice to see someone finally attempting to touch the "third rail" and do something about it.
     
  20. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Apples and oranges eh? Let's see, both are government mandated systems to provide income for retirees. The main difference being one is designed as a total retirement package and the other intended mostly as supplemental income. Sounds more like macintosh and granny smith to me. What exactly are the other attributes of each that make them so non-comparable.

    So what you're saying is "anyone who disagrees with you must be an idiot, misinformed and/or probably a "Bush-hater"?:D
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page