Benjamin Franklin Posted March 7, 2005 Posted March 7, 2005 We haven't been talking about it, but there's a lot on the table right now about Social Security. The ME-generation, i.e., the baby boomers, are tackling the problem late, because as usual, it won't affect them, just their children. So this selfish group, which is now considering the problem, will likely make changes that involve: (1) raising the SS tax; (2) raising the retirement age; (3) raising the SS ceiling so that people making more than 90K pay more; (4) etc. Oh yeah, and the privatization thing, which the Democrats say they won't even discuss, and won't even join in a discussion about social security until privatization is off the table. So petty. Anyway, what should we do? I'll step off my pie in the sky dream that I get to take responsibility for myself, which I know is too much to ask in my United Socialist States. Here's what I hope for: (1) raise the retirement age to about 75, maybe 77; (2) make the private investment option more accessible; (3) let people "opt out" of some of their SS tax- which at the same time forfeits future benefits. Even a 20% exchange would be a step in the right direction. Or, make that money go into mandatory IRA accounts that people can manage how they see fit. The big thing would be number 1. If you aren't saving, guess what? You can't retire and expect the government bail you out. If you are saving, you can retire whenever you can afford to do it. #2 won't happen because the baby boomers refuse to let younger people take care of themselves. #3 really won't happen.
KRC Posted March 7, 2005 Posted March 7, 2005 I support privatization of SS. The government has proven that they cannot effectively manage my money. I want it out of their hands and into mine. In the mean time, you need to do something. As usual, people feel that since bankruptcy won't happen tomorrow, that they do not need to act now. WRONG. With how slow government works and with the sweeping changes necessary, it will take until then for meaningful results to occur. You need to take action now, while you still have a chance. 1) You need to raise the retirement age. People will cry foul, but oh well. People are living longer now and you need to adjust for the increase in life expectancy. That is one of the reasons that it is in financial crisis (that and our elected representatives stealing money to pay for their pet projects). Raising the retirement age will reduce the need to cut benefits. 2) As mentioned previously, you need to privatize SS. You can use a graduated scale to account for the amount already paid into the system. People close to retirement will not have the accounts, but the people just entering the workforce start the accounts immediately with no SS. By the time this younger generation retires, SS will be a thing of the past. The Dems do not want changes to happen because they want to take credit for them. Right now, any meaningful changes will be credited to the Republicans since they control both houses and the Executive branch. They seem to be purposely stonewalling any change. I have noticed in recent interviews with Dems that they really have no solution. They just know that they do not like the President’s solution even though he has not presented it to them yet. I see the Dems filibustering any legislation that is brought to the floor for a vote and I see the Reps doing everything they can to push something through before Bush leaves office.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 7, 2005 Posted March 7, 2005 Don't get me wrong, I love my In-Laws. My father-in-law is a great person, but you know what? He's an idiot. He said to me the other day: "You'll be lucky to see Social Security with what Bush is trying to do to it." My response: "I'll never see Social Security UNLESS something is done to it." What followed was a heated 45 minute "discussion" about how Social Security works. He INSISTS that what HE put in pays for HIM. I tried and tried to explain to the poor misguided fellow that what *I* put in pays for *HIM*, but he just couldn't (or didn't want to) understand. You see, he (as well as most of my in-laws) are Democrats. They think the government knows what it's doing. Well, unless it's the war in Iraq, then they think that it doesn't. So I basically, after beating my head against a wall of stupidity for the better part of an hour, told him: "Well, if you're my age and you're counting on Social Security, you're an idiot." He still doesn't get it. Thankfully my wife didn't inherit (and pass on) the knucklehead gene that's so prevalent in her family.
erynthered Posted March 7, 2005 Posted March 7, 2005 Answering the Top 10 Myths About Social Security Reform http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/BG1613.cfm
aussiew Posted March 7, 2005 Posted March 7, 2005 Thankfully my wife didn't inherit (and pass on) the knucklehead gene that's so prevalent in her family. Careful - sometimes it skips a generation.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 7, 2005 Posted March 7, 2005 Careful - sometimes it skips a generation. 265694[/snapback] DOH!
John Adams Posted March 7, 2005 Posted March 7, 2005 DOH! 265739[/snapback] Or leaks to the son-in-law.
nobody Posted March 7, 2005 Posted March 7, 2005 The easiest way to help keep SS strong is to raise the ceiling. Bump it up to 150k to start and over a set number of years raise the ceiling until it reaches to say 1 mil. People who make 90k are already "paying more" then say someone who makes 30k - but that is because they make more. It's not like they are also paying a higher percentage though like with income tax- it's the same percentage for 30k as it is for 90k. Of course when they retire the 90k person will "receive more" in SS payments than the 30k worker. This simple step may be too liberal for some. But I haven't even started to bring up the idea of a fixed upper limit yet! At some point in the future a top payout back to the person might have to be added. So say someone will only receive benefits back as if they paid at the 750k level even if they really did pay at the 1 mil level.
KD in CA Posted March 7, 2005 Posted March 7, 2005 The easiest way to help keep SS strong is to raise the ceiling. Bump it up to 150k to start and over a set number of years raise the ceiling until it reaches to say 1 mil. People who make 90k are already "paying more" then say someone who makes 30k - but that is because they make more. It's not like they are also paying a higher percentage though like with income tax- it's the same percentage for 30k as it is for 90k. Of course when they retire the 90k person will "receive more" in SS payments than the 30k worker. This simple step may be too liberal for some. But I haven't even started to bring up the idea of a fixed upper limit yet! At some point in the future a top payout back to the person might have to be added. So say someone will only receive benefits back as if they paid at the 750k level even if they really did pay at the 1 mil level. 265858[/snapback] Yeah, cause people who earn a decent living aren't getting hammered enough with discriminatory tax rates to begin with. The people making $90k are already being screwed by this system, so let's make them pay double and then cut their benefits too. So much for that guarantee about the pursuit of happiness.
Alaska Darin Posted March 7, 2005 Posted March 7, 2005 Yeah, cause people who earn a decent living aren't getting hammered enough with discriminatory tax rates to begin with. The people making $90k are already being screwed by this system, so let's make them pay double and then cut their benefits too. So much for that guarantee about the pursuit of happiness. 265935[/snapback] Yeah! Let's put it to faceless "rich" people because the "poor" can't budget $25 a week to their retirement.
KD in CA Posted March 7, 2005 Posted March 7, 2005 Yeah! Let's put it to faceless "rich" people because the "poor" can't budget $25 a week to their retirement. 265955[/snapback] Hey, as long as it's someone else footing the bill, it sounds like the "easiest way to help keep SS strong". Unreal.
John Adams Posted March 7, 2005 Posted March 7, 2005 The easiest way to help keep SS strong is to raise the ceiling. Bump it up to 150k to start and over a set number of years raise the ceiling until it reaches to say 1 mil. People who make 90k are already "paying more" then say someone who makes 30k - but that is because they make more. It's not like they are also paying a higher percentage though like with income tax- it's the same percentage for 30k as it is for 90k. Of course when they retire the 90k person will "receive more" in SS payments than the 30k worker. This simple step may be too liberal for some. But I haven't even started to bring up the idea of a fixed upper limit yet! At some point in the future a top payout back to the person might have to be added. So say someone will only receive benefits back as if they paid at the 750k level even if they really did pay at the 1 mil level. 265858[/snapback] That's beautiful. The >90K crowd would instantly be paying more... a LOT more. That seems fair. So a person who makes 150K would be paying almost double in SS taxes as they pay now. Good or bad for the economy? If you picked bad, you picked right. That 150K bump would be the largest tax increase ever, and the United Socialist States would probably not be too upset, because hey, who cares if the people who actually earned their way to the top get screwed. Eventually, those people- the engines of the economy- will either move or be taxed to the point where they refuse to participate in the system, ala Atlas Shrugged (a bizzarre, but also amusing premise for a book). This makes me ill. If they lower this social security boom only on the people who make more than 90K, I will be sick, but not suprised. [EDIT] I just stumbled on this proposal from another of the class-warfare based Republicans. It may be the most likely scenario yet. It creates a "donut hole" in social security where the people from 90K-300K get a break from SS taxes, but at 300K, people start paying on top of the 300K. According to "Conservative" Graham, this creates a break for the middle class. (Since when does the middle class make 90-300K, I have no idea). Graham's Plan
Alaska Darin Posted March 7, 2005 Posted March 7, 2005 (Since when does the middle class make 90-300K, I have no idea). Graham's Plan 265988[/snapback] It depends on where you live. $300K is alot of money in Wyoming but in Palo Alto, California, you're one bad year from losing everything you own. It's relative.
JimBob2232 Posted March 7, 2005 Posted March 7, 2005 This is a fairly easy problem to fix...if anyone wants to do it right. Here is my plan Note: (Numbers given are for example only, someone with a better understanding of the finances involved would need to come up with the appropriate numbers): 1) Completely phase in FULL social security privitization. Right now 15% of your salary goes into the social security fund. Start immediatly diverting 5% of that into a private account for workers still working. 5% of your money will go into a private account regardless of how much money you make each year (i.e. no 90k cap). This money is yours. 2) The remaining 10% not going into private accounts is put aside to pay the benefits of workers currently recieving social security, and those who will be partially phased out due to the new private accounts once they retire. 3) To cover the shortfall in the social secuirty system due to money being diverted into private accounts, the current 90k cap will be increased to 150k. 4) Once people matriculate out of the social security system, the % going to privitazation rises upward from 5% until it is fully phased in at 15%, and all workers are fully vested in their own privatized social security account. Once all workers are fully privatized (will take many years...), the 15% rate can be dropped, to 13%. Participants would be able to draw from their privatized social security account at a younger age (say 55). The average lifespan would be determined. If men are expected to live until age 75, he has 20 years to pull all of that money out of his account. This is your retirement money, you can bank on it, because you will know exactly how much you will have every year for the rest of your life. What if you live longer than 75? Well, remember lowering that 15% to 13%? Simply divert that 2% back to those who have lived longer than their expected lifespan. It is an insurance policy on living a long life. Its pretty simple really. Like I said, I dont have all the answers, but I do think i have a better plan than whatever the republocrats and democans are coming up with in washington. GIVE US OUR MONEY BACK
KRC Posted March 7, 2005 Posted March 7, 2005 (Since when does the middle class make 90-300K, I have no idea). 265988[/snapback] Funny. I thought 100K was "rich." At least that is what I heard this last election. These people need to figure out this class warfare thingy. They seem confused.
Alaska Darin Posted March 8, 2005 Posted March 8, 2005 Funny. I thought 100K was "rich." At least that is what I heard this last election. These people need to figure out this class warfare thingy. They seem confused. 266061[/snapback] It all depends on your paradigm. When they're trying to spend YOUR money, the government classifies a cop married to a teacher as "rich."
CookieG Posted March 8, 2005 Posted March 8, 2005 A partial solution could be this: Currently, generally, traditional IRA contributions are limited to $4,000 or ($4,500 if older. ) People who are covered through an employer retirement plan aren't provided the tax deduction for a traditional IRA. Rather than diverting money from the trust fund to create private accounts, create a new form of IRA that is tied into the receipt of SSA benefits. In other words, the contributions to the new IRA would be a present tax deduction, but in exchange, the person receives a reduction in their eventual SSA benefits. For most workers, the chances are that they won't end up receiving any SSA benefits, but an IRA funded at 4k per year should dispense with the need for an SSA benefit. The more people that enroll, the less burden there is on the SSA trust fund. People obtain the benefits of their private accounts and no one soaks the rich by increasing their contributions.
erynthered Posted March 8, 2005 Posted March 8, 2005 It all depends on your paradigm. When they're trying to spend YOUR money, the government classifies a cop married to a teacher as "rich." 266083[/snapback] The only thing I'd change about your post is this " When they're trying to spend YOUR money, YOUR government classifies a cop married to a teacher as "rich." To the rest, jump in anywhere you want. $$$$$$$$$$$$$Disgusting
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 8, 2005 Posted March 8, 2005 Or leaks to the son-in-law. 265848[/snapback] Right. You're a witty one, aren't you? Still steaming that I called out your friends in the gay community for their stellar efforts in spreading the AIDS virus? You DO know I'm on your side of THIS issue, don't you?
John Adams Posted March 8, 2005 Posted March 8, 2005 Right. You're a witty one, aren't you? Still steaming that I called out your friends in the gay community for their stellar efforts in spreading the AIDS virus? You DO know I'm on your side of THIS issue, don't you? 266284[/snapback] How's the sense of humor, Gallagher? You made your stance on AIDS clear: AIDS is a "blessing," and to babies born with AIDS, "life's a B word."
Recommended Posts