Post by: wingman on March 05, 2005, 05:39:28 PM
ss will work. I just don't see it, my cynical mind tells me there is big money to be made for large corporations on this plan. There will be bucks
(taxpayer) spent on getting this done and 30 years from now it will be less
money for the retired working poor.
Post by: Wingshooter on March 05, 2005, 06:04:39 PM
Post by: johnster999 on March 05, 2005, 07:53:22 PM
IF the plan can provide true personal ownership, it will be a very good thing for younger workers as well as their decendants who will inherit some of their money from generation to generation.
It's a big "if". Time will tell.
Post by: Unisaw on March 05, 2005, 08:00:40 PM
So buy stock in the large corporations that are going to profit from the switch.
The current system is so flawed given the demographics of the US that almost anything would be an improvement.
Post by: nico on March 05, 2005, 09:13:40 PM
From what I've heard about it, I think Bush's plan is a step in the right direction. I don't know how you could do it without seriously ripping off a lot of people, but I'd be perfectly happy if social security became nothing more than a requirement that people set aside a certain amount of their income in a retirement fund of some sort (completely getting rid of it would be even better, but I can't see that happening after the government dependence that SS has created).
Post by: wingman on March 06, 2005, 03:42:37 AM
Quote
I have a question for you, wingman. Do you think the current Social Security system can work indefinitely even with the top heavy population we're developing?
No, however if the money had been held in account rather then "borrowed" from, etc. perhaps it would work. However
again when government tells you they will do something good
for you be aware.
We have large numbers of people who have no clue about stock market
in my opinion this will be a mess however only time will tell.
No, however if the money had been held in account rather then "borrowed" from, etc. perhaps it would work. However
again when government tells you they will do something good
for you be aware.
We have large numbers of people who have no clue about stock market
in my opinion this will be a mess however only time will tell.
Post by: trapperjohn on March 06, 2005, 04:14:40 AM
That being said, I have Major problems with the current proposals I have heard to "privatize" part of it. The current proposals that i am aware of have individulas "keeping" a portion of it and puttign it into 3 or 4 government approved mutual funds. I really dont want the government dictating my investements. Allowing us to put them in our own 403b's or 40lk's would be much better. The best scenario would be let let whoever wanted to to opt out of the system altogether.
Post by: wingman on March 06, 2005, 05:05:50 AM
Quote
a portion of it and puttign it into 3 or 4 government approved mutual funds
I think this part is my biggest concern.
I think this part is my biggest concern.
Post by: Ready on the Right on March 06, 2005, 05:09:36 AM
The social security system we are currently burdened with DOES NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF COMPOUND INTEREST.
The only way to make the current scheme work as people live longer and Baby Boomers retire is to raise the FICA tax and make young workers wait longer and longer for benefits.
Investing a portion of the Social Security money ripped out of our paychecks will free up more cash for investment so corporations can buy equipment, create jobs and (HORRORS!) make profits. It will also add the mathematical miracle of compunding interest to the mix.
I'm 40 and I've been paying FICA tax since I was 15 years old. Without some change in the system, I don't expect to ever see a return on the hundreds of thousands taken from me and squandered on the poorly designed Social Security system.
Post by: Ready on the Right on March 06, 2005, 05:15:35 AM
Quote
30 years from now it will be less
money for the retired working poor.
money for the retired working poor.
As it stands now, the system will be insolvent in 30 years. Without a change, the "working poor" will have more $$ ripped out of their paychecks while they are working, work longer before they receive benefits and depend on a system that everyone on both sides of the issue agrees will be insolvent by the time they retire.
Other than Bush-hating*, I just don't see why anyone would not want to improve the system.
*Edited to say -- I'm not accusing anyone of anything, this is just the only reason I can see that people disagree with even discussing changes to Social Security. Any President who fixes it will create a legacy. If Clinton had tried to fix it, I'm sure many on the Right would have fought him on it.
Post by: macavada on March 06, 2005, 06:46:57 AM
Post by: Monkeyleg on March 06, 2005, 06:32:34 PM
My father is 87. He started paying into SS in the 1930's when his "contribution" was maybe ten cents a week.
Even in the 1960's, when he was at the peak of his earning years as a computer engineer, he was "contributing" 2.5% of his pay.
Since he began drawing benefits more than twenty years ago, he's gotten roughly $400,000 out of the system. There is absolutely no way that my father put enough into the SS system to warrant that amount of money.
My father figures he's gotten about a 500% return on his "contributions." He's an extremely intelligent man. He knows that this is a scheme.
Yet, he defends it. He defends it because he's an FDR Democrat. He defends it because Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy and all the other opponents of Bush oppose any changes: any positive change to the system drains the Democrat's "scare base."
The Social Security system is going to go broke. It doesn't matter whether it does in 40 years or 70 years. Believe me, forty years goes by like a blink of the eye.
The alternatives to the current situation are thus:
1. Raise the FICA and CO-FICA taxes from the current 12.5% to higher levels.
2. Reduce the "benefit" for people either on SS or those who are factored into the current equation.
3. Raise the retirement age, and significantly so.
4. Raise the FICA ceiling from $90,000 to who-knows-what. My father, and many others, want to see no ceiling at all; Bill Gates, George Soros and other billionaires pay 12.5% as well.
5. Establish "means testing," whereby those who have saved enough on their own receive a lesser--or no--amount of benefits.
6. Gradually introduce privatization accounts over the course of generations, with each being able to put increasingly more of their FICA taxes into personal accounts.
For younger workers, option #1 is not an option.
For those of us who have paid 1/8th of our pay into this system, option #2 is not an option.
For those of us who will continue to work until we no longer can do so, option #3 is not exactly an option.
For those making more than $90,000 a year, option #4 is not an option. For most of my working years, the FICA ceiling chased me; everytime I thought I didn't have to pay in any more, they raised it.
What's more, raising the FICA ceiling to obscene levels is not fair. Of all of the options, it is the least fair. It is forced welfare payments, and exorbitant ones at that.
Option #5 is also completely unfair. It punishes those who planned properly, and rewards those who either didn't plan, or just had things go wrong.
I fall into the last category. I planned properly, but had things just go haywire, many of which were outside my control.
You'd think that, given what's happened to me, I'd favor raising the FICA ceiling, or establishing means-testing. After all, those plans keep my "benefits" the same without any pain, right?
Wrong. It's just wrong to seize more of a person's money as that person earns more. It defeats self-initiative. If we didn't learn anything from the collapse of Communism, we should have learned that much.
The only option that even approaches being "fair" is privatization. At my age, it does little or nothing for me. But it gives my great-nieces and nephews in their 20's a better shot at a better life when they're in their 60's.
As for the solvency question, the answer is a question itself: solvency when? Thirteen years from now, forty years from now, or seventy years from now. Or somewhere in between?
We've gone from 42 workers for every benefiary in the 1930's to 12:1 to 3:1, and we're coming up on just 2:1.
If we stay on the current course, "solvency" will either mean huge tax hikes for younger workers, or drastic benefit cuts for those of us who have had 1/8th of our pay taken to pay into a scheme many of us didn't want a part of.
GW has put SS on the front burner as an issue. He didn't have to do so, and could have let it slide just as other presidents did.
He does these sorts of things, though, and gets a large chunk of what he wants. Prior to raising the issue, it wasn't discussed at all. Now the issue isn't whether Bush's proposals are the right strategy, it's what the alternatives might be.
I suspect that GW is going to get a good portion of what he wants. And, considering the system we have now, that can only be good.
Post by: grampster on March 06, 2005, 06:37:09 PM
Post by: Fly320s on March 08, 2005, 11:28:32 AM
Cut off Social Security.
No new enrollments, no more deductions from the people's paychecks. Yep, lots of folks are gonna get screwed, me included. But the short term pain sure beats the long term pain.
Let me decide where my money goes. If I spend it all on guns and ammo and end up broke, but a good shot, then that is my problem. I don't want you to pay for my retirement and I certainly do not want to pay for yours.
Post by: wmenorr67 on March 08, 2005, 11:37:55 AM
Also think about congress. They nor the President pay into SS. When they "retire" they receive what they were making when they did so. Not a bad gig.
Post by: Monkeyleg on March 08, 2005, 01:53:36 PM
The age requirement of 65 was no accident: few people lived much longer than that.
I was listening to Walter Williams read a brochure from the SSA from 1949. In it was a statement that the SSA would take no more than $3,000 from a worker during his/her lifetime.
Well, taxes have a way of not going away, and politicians lie. That's a truth we can all agree on.
While the idea of eliminating SS completely right now may seem attractive to some, it isn't for someone like me who's 54 and paid--as I keep repeating--something like $130,000 into the system. It would be awfully difficult to put aside that much money over the next decade or so.
I've paid it, and I want as much of it as I can get. If I could get even 1/2 of that in a lump sum now, I'd be happy.
That's not going to happen, though. The only alternatives that I'm aware of are those I outlined above.
So, pick and choose.
Post by: critter on March 08, 2005, 02:01:14 PM
I believe the following:
1. SS is in deep trouble and without something done, will soon collapse.
2. I believe deeply in keeping and using my own money rather than sending it to DC and letting a bunch of bureaucratic crooks seeking only reelection deciding when, if and how much of MY money to send back to me.
3. I had a friend die last week or so who was 57 years old. He will never see one cent of his SS nor will his wife nor will his kids. That is not right in anybody's book. Privitization would let him pass on that part to his heirs.
4. As has been said, SS was to be a suppliment to retirement, not the 'cradle to grave' socialistic program some would seem to think. Make your own preparations for retirement!
5. It's gonna be a long, hot, dry, contentious road and the bureaucrats, crooks, pols and party friction will most likely screw it up worse than it is now!
Post by: bountyhunter on March 08, 2005, 02:15:49 PM
Quote
Can anyone tell me why they think the administrations plan for reforming
ss will work. I just don't see it, my cynical mind tells me there is big money to be made for large corporations on this plan. There will be bucks
(taxpayer) spent on getting this done and 30 years from now it will be less
money for the retired working poor.
ss will work. I just don't see it, my cynical mind tells me there is big money to be made for large corporations on this plan. There will be bucks
(taxpayer) spent on getting this done and 30 years from now it will be less
money for the retired working poor.
AMEN.
Bush's plan is built around ATAMO financing.
And
Then
A
Miracle
Occurs
Somehow, money just pops out of thin air. All the lost revenue when money is diverted into private accounts must come from somewhere... expensive bonds sold to raise money. The bonds have to be paid off in the future.... that's when the miracle occurs. In the future, there will be so much money we will pay off old bond debts, current SS benefits, and have money left over......
Post by: bountyhunter on March 08, 2005, 02:20:50 PM
Quote
Monkeyleg has some good ideas, but I like mine better.
Cut off Social Security.
.
So, under your plan, the old people currently eligible for benefits who paid in all their lives are just SOL?Cut off Social Security.
.
The sad thing is, that is only slightly worse than Bush's plan.
Post by: nico on March 08, 2005, 02:26:07 PM
Post by: bountyhunter on March 08, 2005, 02:41:26 PM
Quote
bountyhunter, what would you propose?
I propose doing what was done under Reagan. make sane, sensible adjustments to retain solvency when needed... and admit it is always skewed such that fewer workers support more recipients as life spans increase and that will take some decisions. We will have to increase contributions, and/or decrease benefits and/or raise eligibility age limits.... there is no magic cure, but the only fair thing to do is make adjustments when required that spread the pain evenly.Bush's plan is a train wreck. It is just more borrow and spend hocus pocus.
The thing is, people believe their SS money is "invested" and the cure is to invest it someplace else. It is NOT invested, it is a tax that pays SS recipients and also other government functions so it is not an investment program at all... the money is spent before it gets to Washington. If that money is diverted, it would have to be replaced by other money... which Bush wants to borrow. How is that fixing SS?
The other big lie is that SS is on the verge of collaps: in reality, it's solid until about 2050 with no changes, and can be extended indefinitely if adjustments are made in contributions and benefits.
The first step toward fixing it would be for Bush to stop pretending that the magic fix is to give everybody private accounts. In reality, that fixes nothing and doesn't even address the core issues. Second, he should stop ringing the alarm bell and claiming it is about to collapse.
Post by: Phantom Warrior on March 08, 2005, 03:05:40 PM
Quote
I propose doing what was done under Reagan. make sane, sensible adjustments to retain solvency when needed... and admit it is always skewed such that fewer workers support more recipients as life spans increase and that will take some decisions. We will have to increase contributions, and/or decrease benefits and/or raise eligibility age limits.... there is no magic cure, but the only fair thing to do is make adjustments when required that spread the pain evenly.
Did you listen to what Monkeyleg said at all? Especially the part about the worker to beneficiary ratio going from 42:1 to 2:1? With the enormous Baby Boomer generation starting to retire combined with the increased life expectancy Social Security is going to be taken to the woodshed over the next few decades.
Now, we can either string this colossal joke along by "making sensible adjustments", which means huge tax increases, because there is NO WAY anyone is going to accept cuts to their SS payments. Or we can move towards privatization and private savings accounts. This will turn SS into an investment, rather than a bottomless money pit. Each person will be financing their own retirement and building capital that can be passed on to heirs, rather than sending a check to to DC every payday.
I agree with you that private accounts will not address the issue of solvency RIGHT NOW. It is going to require additional money (borrowing, most likely) to fill the gap created by transfering money to private accounts. But, instead of looking at insolvency in 40 years we would be looking at a system where most of the old SS system beneficiaries have passed on and the majority of those approaching retirement will have enough capital built up in their private accounts to finance their own retirement, rather than expecting that the government will take care of them.
Solvency, both short-term and long-term, is not a simple issue. I would like to see some more concrete plans from Bush on this issue. But simply sticking your head in the sand and saying "There are no problems that can't be fixed without a little more taxing and benefit readjustment." is ridiculous. Something new has to be done.
Post by: Ready on the Right on March 08, 2005, 03:35:04 PM
Eliminate the $90K earnings cap.
Raise the withholding % to an even 10% for workers.
Force employers to pay a matching 20%.
Raise the retirement age to 120.
This is what I expect when I retire if we do not do something now.
Post by: Ready on the Right on March 08, 2005, 03:39:45 PM
Quote
I would like to see some more concrete plans from Bush on this issue.
Bush has mentioned privitization, but from what I saw in the State of the Union Address, he is trying to open up the debate and get Congress to come up with some solutions, not push a pre-determined plan.
I think we should replace Social Security with Gun Rights as America's political "Third Rail".
Post by: macavada on March 08, 2005, 03:54:13 PM
Post by: Chris Rhines on March 08, 2005, 05:48:32 PM
Bush's Social Security plan does not. It is a bad idea, badly concieved, and it will make matters worse instead of better.
Social Security does not need reform. It needs to be done away with.
- Chris
Post by: Monkeyleg on March 08, 2005, 07:15:14 PM
We can't cut off benefits for those in the system, or those who are just a few years away. Chris, you're being completely unrealistic on any number of levels. For as long as I can remember, Democrats especially used the Social Security "he's going to cut your benefits" bogeyman to attack Republican challengers. I worked the campaigns for many of those Republican challengers, and I know that it was a false charge, designed to scare the elderly.
But talk of raising the retirement age, cutting benefits, or other reductions to those my age aren't bogeyman stories. They're real. And they get my trigger finger itching.
Look: I didn't ask that Congress raise the SS tax from 2.5% in the 1960's (when I got my first after-school job washing dishes) to the 6.2% rate it's at today. I didn't ask that employers match the "contributions." I didn't ask that Congress keep raising the FICA ceiling every time I was able to increase my pay.
I didn't ask that JFK, LBJ, RMN, GRF, JEC, RFR, GHWB, WJC and GWB and their accompanying congresses raid the trust fund to divert the dollars that I and other workers paid in to government programs that had nothing to do with Social Security.
All I ask is that I get some portion of my money back. Considering that my father paid in dimes per month, and I've paid in nearly $1,000 per month while supporting him, that doesn't seem unreasonable.
There's always talk of "SHTF" scenarios on gun forums, and most of them are the words of keyboard commando's. But, take away the money I've worked my butt off for--under threat of deadly force by the SSA--and you'll see a real SHTF scenario. Take the food off my table, and you're going to see some bullets fly.
There is no easy fix to a program that was corrupt and immoral from the outset. History has taught us that corrupt and immoral governments and systems collapse under their own weight.
And so will SS. Again, it's not a question of if, but when.
In the meantime, we need to establish a transitional plan, one that gives my father, my older brothers, me, and everyone else who's been forced into the "system" what's been promised. At the same time, we need to give my nieces and nephews a plan that will increasingly give them a better retirement.
The biggest obstacle to any sort of SS reform over the last ten to twenty years has been seniors: they vote, often. Imagine the obstacles awaiting younger generations when my generation--the Baby Boomers--hold that sway.
I'd much rather deal with the problems now, before the slick politicians start scaring those of my generation, and the possibility of real reform is in front of us.
And, for those who don't think there's a problem: your turn is next. This is not going away.
Ready on the Right: I know you were being facetious with your post, but what you outlined are the very real possibilities if nothing is done now.
As I've mentioned repeatedly, I've paid in roughly $130,000 into SS since the 1970's. Do the math: break that figure down into thirty-year increments; put those dollars into conservative investments, and calculate where my account would be today. I've already done so. I'd be retired right now.
That's what I want for my young nieces and nephews. And for those here who are still young enough to benefit from decades of compound interest.
Finally, for those who think that Bush's plan is to help his Wall Street friends get rich (just like Halliburton): Wall Street isn't excited. The brokerage firms want clients who are contributing thousands of dollars a month, not hundreds. Given the paperwork involved, their profits will be a small percentage of what they get from the "real" investors now.
As usual, this is just plain political infighting when a serious issue is on the table. And, as usual, the politico's will do just fine while the rest of us take the real damage.
And, by the way, members of congress and the president pay into Social Security. But there's another retirement plan available to them that has real returns on investment. Anywhere from 5% to 9% annually.
But it's not available to those who work in the private sector.
Post by: Sean Smith on March 09, 2005, 04:55:19 AM
People would tell you that SS is basically just mandatory investment in government securities with employer matching. If that was true, the current situation would simply be impossible, because the program wouldn't ever "run out" of money if there were 1 person or 100,000,000 people in it, unless T-bills suddenly quit paying 5% interest (or whatever).
(Of course this leaves out the whole question of validity of the government forcing investment in itself, to be paid back by itself, as it skims extra cash from it at the same time... but that makes my head hurt, so I'll ignore it for now. :shock: )
But of course, even supporters of the current SS scheme can't really say that. Demographics are placing the program in financial danger as much as anything else, which of course is the giveaway that this is more like a Ponzi scam and less like a benign way to give taxpayer money to what is arguably the richest demographic in the country already.
The flipside of this is that I don't see how Bush's plan adds up, unless it is a small step toward eliminating SS entirely. In which case, it is small even by baby-step standards, hysterics notwithstanding.
Post by: bountyhunter on March 09, 2005, 08:00:22 AM
Quote
Solvency, both short-term and long-term, is not a simple issue. I would like to see some more concrete plans from Bush on this issue. But simply sticking your head in the sand and saying "There are no problems that can't be fixed without a little more taxing and benefit readjustment." is ridiculous. Something new has to be done.
I never said it was simple, but your claim that SS can not be sustained using common sense (and fair) adjustments is ludicrous.
I also never said it was NOT a pyramid scheme, because it has some of those aspects. But here is the real question:
SO WHAT?
The brain disconnect here is you are trying to believe that SS is some kind of self sustaining entity that can exist without change. It can't, because of two reasons: declining birth rates and longer life spans keep shifting the ratio of workers to benficiaries.
The point is not to scream and whine that it isn't self sustaining, it is to recognize what it is and what it isn't and do what's right. SS is nothing more or less than a program to guarantee a baseline existence for old people... so they don't have to eat cat food casserole more than two times a week. That is something we can choose to do as a nation, or we can choose not to do and say: "Screw em".
If we have to divert tax funds to pay the benefits, then that is how it is. If we have to reduce benefits, that is another option. If we choose to increase contributions, that is on the table.
The point is, SS is not an investment program, it is taxing working people to feed non working people. The program can be maintained without ripping it to shreds, and the best way to start would be to make what the govt does now illegal: as much as 50% of money collected for SS gets diverted into the general fund and spent on all kinds of other crap.
Bottom line, sanity should prevail and could maintain SS benefits. Bush is grandstanding with a program that does not address the core problem and will only make things worse.
Post by: bountyhunter on March 09, 2005, 09:12:41 AM
Bottom line, that folks is what is called a:
social program
GASP!!!! The nemesis of all republicans, taxing the hard workers to pay people sitting on their butts!
But that's what it is, and it does not fund itself because of the shrinking ratio of payers to payees.... and we need to recognize it is nothing more or less than an entitlement program you buy your way into by paying in at an earlier date. If the program is to maintain existence, there are a set of options: reduce benefits or increase taxes.
PERIOD.
If you allow money diversion to private accounts, the lost tax revenue has to be replaced either now with increased taxes or in the future with increased taxes to pay off the bonds Bush would use to raise the near term cash.
Bottom line, we need to get together and first recognize SS for what it is and then figure out how to fund it... and admit there is no magic "money machine" that is going to allow people to live longer, draw more benefits, and yet magically never reduce premiums paid or require increased revenue from either worker contribution, employer contribution, or general tax revenue.
The math is simple folks.
Post by: Monkeyleg on March 09, 2005, 01:42:17 PM
And, just because SS is an entitlement program/scheme--which it is--doesn't mean it always has to be.
Some of the proposals for privatization involve younger workers being able to divert one-third of their SS payments (or roughly 4% of their gross income) to private accounts.
Let's take a typical college grad starting a new job at, say, $30,000 a year. He/she puts $1200 into a bond fund or other relatively conservative instrument. Each year that amount goes up as the worker gets raises and moves up on the career ladder.
In less than ten years, that worker will have accumulated enough in the account that, if left untouched, would by itself more than quadruple in value over thirty years (assuming a 5% rate of return). That's a whole heck of a lot better than SS has done with our money over the last thirty years.
It's possible to slowly increase the amount of privatization until nearly every worker owns his/her account. It would take decades, but it's possible.
There are plenty of other alternatives out there. But raising FICA taxes or cutting benefits just won't fly. At best such proposals will result in a stalemate, and a continuation of the status quo. And that's what many politico's in DC want.
Post by: bountyhunter on March 09, 2005, 01:55:19 PM
Quote
Bountyhunter, it's true that privatization is going to cost us money now or cost us later. The question is how much now versus how much later. Many, including Greenspan, have concluded that the cost later will be much greater.
I don't necessarily dispute your item points, but I was pointing out the big picture: SS is just welfare for old people paid for by younger people. And welfare comes from tax money, period. Taking it out of different pockets doesn't change the fact that it comes out of some tax revenue somewhere.
All the razzle-dazzle about shifting the source to private accounts, selling bonds now and praying tax revenue goes up when they are due, and all the rest just misses the point:
There will be "X" number of old people needing to be paid their benefits. The money has to come from somewhere. I am certainly not convinced "private investment" will assure some greater return... I watched the market crash and then lay dead for four years. But I know for a fact the lost tax revenue now has to be replaced in order to pay current benefits.
IMO, SS should be a program set up with fixed benefits for citizens regardless of what they paid in, possibly with a "wealth derating" for people with high taxable incomes who don't really need the money as much as others who are poor. I realize that means many of us will pay in more than we get back, but we do that now. And that may be more fair if the other alternative is cutting benefits for all.
If Bush wants to enable a private fund program IN PARALLEL where we have the option of investing a portion of our income before it is taxed....I would love that. It used to be called an IRA until they did away with the "pre tax" part. That would give people incentive to save without risking their SS benefits.
The point is, Bush's plan is just selling the old cow for magic beans.
There is no magic plan that will make it all right.
Post by: Moondoggie on March 09, 2005, 02:23:58 PM
The biggest thing that worries me about the private account concept is the number of Wall Street types that won't be able to resist temptation, trading untold millions skimmed into Swiss Banks in exchange for a few years in club fed.
Post by: Fly320s on March 09, 2005, 04:36:36 PM
All of the previous posts deal with fixing Social Security to make it last longer. Have none of you realized that Social Security is a Socialist System retirement plan? Do all of you who wish to fix SS also want other Socialist forms of government? Socialized medicine? Socialized schools?
The fact is that SS was designed to take money from lots of people to give it to a view people. It is a somewhat mild form of wealth redistribution. Now that we have a shift in the median age of our population the scheme is falling apart.
I can't count the number of times that people on THR, TFL, and the like were screaming about the Welfare program and what a crock that is. How is that different than SS? They are both designed to take money from those people to give to these people.
Not many people ever get back what they paid into SS, with the exception of the first beneficiaries. I know I never will. That's because I am already saving my money and investing my money so that when I retire I won't have to rely on someone else to support me which means I won't qualify for SS benefits because I will have too much income. So all of my money will go to someone else. Sounds real fair to me.
I think that most people here would agree to the theory that each person is responsible for himself. So, why then do so many of you want to maintain this socialist system?
Post by: macavada on March 09, 2005, 04:55:58 PM
This country doesn't work with just one system - libertarianism, capitalism, conservatism, liberalism, or socialism. It works because all political influences work together so that no one philosophy has complete control or power.
Post by: trapperjohn on March 09, 2005, 05:23:20 PM
Quote
SS is just welfare for old people paid for by younger people. And welfare comes from tax money, period. Taking it out of different pockets doesn't change the fact that it comes out of some tax revenue somewhere.
Agreed. Now please show me in the constitution where congress is given that autority.
Post by: brimic on March 09, 2005, 06:03:28 PM
Quote
Bottom line, that folks is what is called a:
social program
social program
Then cut retirement as a social program- especially to people under the age of 35 who still have time to take responsibility for their own future.
If you don't save enough for retirement, you don't retire. There's no reason .gov has to be a nanny to anyone over the age of 18.
Post by: Monkeyleg on March 09, 2005, 06:03:51 PM
Please go back and re-read what I've said about privatization. It's not about making SS last longer, but rather a way to rid us of the system long-term.
If I had not paid what I keep repeating I've paid, and if I was just waiting until I turned 65 to get some money from the government, then it would be a pure welfare system. Will I receive "benefits" from age 65 until I die that total more than what I put in? Probably.
But...what if I'd been able to put the same dollars into a system that actually had a respectable rate of return, one like the city of Galveston briefly established in the 1980's? If so, you wouldn't have to worry about paying for my "benefits" until I die, and I'd be looking forward to a better future after I stop working.
Higher payroll taxes, lower benefits, later "retirement" age, a raise on the FICA ceiling, or some form of privatization over the long term. Those--or some combination of those--are the only ones on the table now. Pick or choose.
Look on the bright side, though: FDR's probably having to eat Hitler's navel lint in H*** right now.
Post by: Phantom Warrior on March 09, 2005, 06:19:01 PM
Don't get me wrong. I would love to see private accounts replace and ELIMINATE Social Security down the road some day. I think it's a bad idea and waste of money. However, pragmatically, there is no way we can get rid of Social Security today, tomorrow, or even 20 years from now. There are too many people who have paid into it and refuse to give up the benefits they feel they are entitled too. With some justification. If I had spent 40 years losing part of my paycheck to SS I might want something back too. My long term goal is to see SS eliminated, but it is going to have to be sustained in the short term because eliminating it immediately is not politically viable.
Quote
Socialism abounds. State and local taxes used for infrastructure - redistribution of wealth, socialism, whatever you want to call it. Interstate highways, medicare, social security, public schools, local roads and bridges, garbage pickup, wastewater, tap water, all socialism. Or, community and cooperation. If you don't depend on socialistic programs, then you would be independent in every form imaginable.
macavada,
You are misunderstanding the definition of socialism. Or using a different definition. Whichever. Courtesy of m-w.com:
Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
Socialism involves community control of "production and distribution of goods." Which is what Social Security is. The government is controlling the distribution of money in our society. Or reordering it.
Roads, bridges, schools, etc are not socialism. Those are the basic functions of government. The things that we can do more efficently collectively than individually. Imagine if ever person was responsible for paving the road in front of their house. How many nicely paved roads do you think we would have?
Post by: Sean Smith on March 10, 2005, 05:07:04 AM
Quote
SS is just welfare for old people paid for by younger people. And welfare comes from tax money, period. Taking it out of different pockets doesn't change the fact that it comes out of some tax revenue somewhere.
If it is a welfare program, why does it give taxpayer cash to old people who have plenty of money? Why does the richest demographic in the country deserve to suck the government teat simply for sucking oxygen a long time? To a rather large extent, Social Security steals from people with less money and gives it to people with more money. It isn't even socialist, it is bloody random stupid insanity.
Unless it is an "investment," of course, in which case it is just a wildly corrupt racket. In that case, everyone who "invested" in it would be due their slice of the return. Except that there is none, of course. Neither explanation is very comforting.
I actually wouldn't mind a program that straightforwardly gave cash to old people who can't work anymore and don't have much money. At least it would have the virtue of simplicity and exist on an honest basis, not the mountain of B.S. that Social Security is based on.
Post by: Waitone on March 10, 2005, 06:07:13 AM
Two other train wrecks you say? Medicaid and Prescription Drugs for Medicare. Medicaid costs are exploding due to deliberate social policy mandated by the federales on the state level. We are watching the slow collapse of medicaid while its demands are increasing exponentially.
Prescription drugs has to be perhaps the most stupid, unnecessary sell out to corporate America I've seen in my life. There was no popular demand the the "problem" be fixed. The fix is precisely the wrong thing to do. It was a simple attempt to buy votes by the majority party. The problem with Prescription drugs is the costs. Historically social problems generate a factor of 9:1 between initial concept and final stabilization. So when the program starts at $550 Billion we are looking at a stabilized cost of $5 trillion.
Medicaid is grandly expensive and will only get obscenely more expensive. Don't know what the annual costs will grow to, so let's just assume it will assume a $1 trillion figure at some point in the future. Prescription drugs will cost $5 trillion if history is a guide. Now Bush wants to transition to an Ownership society (excuse me while I snicker). He says the transition cost now will be $2 trillion moving $11 trillion if we delay any appreciable time.
So lemme do some math:
$1 trillion Medicaid--a SWAG is there ever was one
$5 trillion Prescription drugs--
$2 trillion to $11 trillion for SS conversion
-----------
Total $8 trillion to $17 trillion--and this is just 3 programs.
We can't afford any of this nonsense. Looking at SS without looking at associated train wrecks is idiocy.
And we haven't even begun to look at the implications of an income based tax system funding forcing exportable jobs overseas. The US is in deep yogurt and Bush's SS will do nothing to fix the real problem we face---70 years of socialism's bills are now coming due on the backs of my children. A real leader would deal with the problem instead of playing games wth the symptoms.
Post by: bountyhunter on March 10, 2005, 07:58:44 AM
Quote
Wow, I am amazed. :shock:
All of the previous posts deal with fixing Social Security to make it last longer. Have none of you realized that Social Security is a Socialist System retirement plan?
Yes, but some of us think it is OK to use tax money to subsidize the living baseline of old people rather than force them to eat dog food. All of the previous posts deal with fixing Social Security to make it last longer. Have none of you realized that Social Security is a Socialist System retirement plan?
It is welfare for old people, so it's not perfect. But the bottom line is: in a society with the wealth that ours has, should we not take some steps to assure that they can have at least a decent existence? Although, living off SS would hardly be what I would call a decent living....
Post by: bountyhunter on March 10, 2005, 08:00:48 AM
Quote
Medicaid and Prescription Drugs for Medicare. Medicaid costs are exploding due to deliberate social policy mandated by the federales on the state level. .
Actually, they are exploding for two main reasons:1) The drug companies own our government and are raping our citizens.
2) Law suits are driving medical costs through the roof.
Post by: bountyhunter on March 10, 2005, 08:02:49 AM
Quote
Quote
SS is just welfare for old people paid for by younger people. And welfare comes from tax money, period. Taking it out of different pockets doesn't change the fact that it comes out of some tax revenue somewhere.
If it is a welfare program, why does it give taxpayer cash to old people who have plenty of money? Why does the richest demographic in the country deserve to suck the government teat simply for sucking oxygen a long time? .
Post by: bountyhunter on March 10, 2005, 08:19:21 AM
Quote
Quote
Bottom line, that folks is what is called a:
social program
social program
If you don't save enough for retirement, you don't retire. There's no reason .gov has to be a nanny to anyone over the age of 18.
"Just say no to poor people."
Yours is the same. In a perfect world. people would plan, save, and retire with their own money. In the real world even upper middle class are living check to check carrying masive credit debt. Expecting them to save on their own is not reasonable or even consistent with reality.
It falls to a simple question: do we just say: "They didn't plan, so screw 'em!" or do we implement a baseline program that allows them not to starve?
It is socialistic welfare, but it may also be necessary in a society with a conscience filled with people who are fiscally irrational.
Post by: Unisaw on March 10, 2005, 08:32:14 AM
Quote
It is socialistic welfare, but it may also be necessary in a society with a conscience filled with people who are fiscally irrational.
This is a problem. You are advocating using the force of government to take from those who did plan ahead and give to those who didn't. I don't have any problem doing that voluntarily, but a government taking is another matter.
Quote
This is a problem. You are advocating using the force of government to take from those who did plan ahead and give to those who didn't. I don't have any problem doing that voluntarily, but a government taking is another matter.
Post by: bountyhunter on March 10, 2005, 09:13:01 AM
So, there would be nothing new in taking taxes "without consent" and using it to keep dummies from starving.. I think that is basically what SS was conceived to be in overall principle, and I think it's OK to do that.
Post by: Fly320s on March 10, 2005, 09:40:28 AM
I understand your point about taxes being taken for causes that people find unfair; the government has plenty of those out there. I just can't agree that one person's money should be taken to be given directly to another.
Taxes for military and infrastrucure and even space exploration have some benefit to us all. Taxes for welfare don't. You could make the argument that keeping people fed and housed will keep them off of the streets and less likely to commit crimes to support themselves, but people should be doing that for themselves. At least the taxes going to the "general good" of infrastructure, et al., are paying for items that can be used by everyone. I can't get any money from the welfare or SS program.
Quote
In the real world even upper middle class are living check to check carrying masive credit debt.
That is 100% their fault. No excuses can deflect the blame. I am in the upper middle class (I think; where's the cutoff?) and have only my house payment as credit debt. If I can do it; you can do it.
At the time Social Security was introduced, what percentage of the US population was poor/homeless/qualified for SS or Welfare.
Today, after all these years of social programs, what are the percentages? Really, I'm just curious; not trying to prove a point.
Post by: bountyhunter on March 10, 2005, 11:44:21 AM
Quote
Bounty, you and I will just have to agree to disagree.
OK Quote
I just can't agree that one person's money should be taken to be given directly to another.
The government does it all the time. We even pay taxes to give schooling and medical care to illegal aliens in our state. If you live on a border, you do too.Quote
Taxes for military and infrastrucure and even space exploration have some benefit to us all. Taxes for welfare don't.
Quote
Quote
In the real world even upper middle class are living check to check carrying masive credit debt.
That is 100% their fault. No excuses can deflect the blame.
Quote
If I can do it; you can do it.
I can do it, my point is not everybody starts at the same point and should not all be measured with a single yardstick.Quote
Today, after all these years of social programs, what are the percentages? Really, I'm just curious; not trying to prove a point.
As a matter of fact: we qualified for AFDC when we moved to Kali, because my father had just retired at full colonel after 30 in the Air Force. I think his retirement pay was maybe $650/month (?) back in 1966. For a family of six in kali, that qualified for AFDC back then. My parents would never take it because for them, being "on the dole" was the ultimate disgrace. So, he went straight out and got another job... that's how he spent his retirement: working until a heart attack dropped him and made him 100% disabled at age 57.
Summary: not everybody on "welfare" is a deadbeat.
Post by: Sean Smith on March 10, 2005, 11:58:53 AM
Quote
The government does it all the time.
I don't think anybody is arguing that the government doesn't do it all the time, they are arguing that it is WRONG to do so. Not the same thing.
Quote
Summary: not everybody on "welfare" is a deadbeat.
True, but it doesn't follow that therefore welfare should exist. Just because some of the people who benefit from a program aren't scum doesn't mean that it is a good program, or that any program like it should exist at all.
Post by: bountyhunter on March 10, 2005, 12:10:40 PM
Quote
Quote
The government does it all the time.
I don't think anybody is arguing that the government doesn't do it all the time, they are arguing that it is WRONG to do so. Not the same thing.
Quote
Quote
Summary: not everybody on "welfare" is a deadbeat.
True, but it doesn't follow that therefore welfare should exist. Just because some of the people who benefit from a program aren't scum doesn't mean that it is a good program, or that any program like it should exist at all.
You are correct in that we will not agree on that fundamental point.