SS Reform?

[blaxshep]

Fiscal Cliff Deal Should Have Included Social Security | TIME.com

 

[Fisher]

I am pretty sure my estimate from SS has me having to work to 70 but that may be for a bonus pay of some sort.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Fiscal Cliff Deal Should Have Included Social Security | TIME.com

I like all of these proposed SS savings, but would take federal entitlement reform one more giant step forward. I would make all federal gov't retirement plans use the SS benefit age/disability formula as well, until you reach SS eligibility you get NO federal retirement without a 10% tax penalty, much like IRA, Keogh or 401K plans for the private sector are treated. To allow John Q Public, a federal employee, to get "full" retirement at age 55 (or younger) yet to deny it to Harry A. Private, a private employee, until they reach age 59 1/2 or even 67 is rediculous. We seem to allow ever earlier and ever more generous retirement plans for congress critters and federal workers, yet squeal that the costs of SS benefits are the root of all of our fiscal problems.

 

[YoungConserv]

Social security should be voluntary it should not be forced by the point of a gun.

 

[head of joaquin]

Now that the SS tax is back to normal (the SS tax deduction was an appropriate short term response to the Bush Meltdown), SS will have about 30 years of total and complete solvency -- if we do nothing.

Sorry another psuedoproblem jimmied up by the rightwing noise machine.

Raise the income ceiling on contributions to say $150K and the fund remains solvent basically forever.

The tea party occcupation forces are becoming more and more irrelevant.

 

[obvious Child]

Social security should be voluntary it should not be forced by the point of a gun.

Okay. So when millions of people retire with virtually no savings and eventually are forced out on to the street....what is your proposal? Let them die homeless?

One thing age tends to teach is that of unintended consequences. The young (both in age and philosophical views) fail to deal with this problem.

 

[cpwill]

I like all of these proposed SS savings, but would take federal entitlement reform one more giant step forward. I would make all federal gov't retirement plans use the SS benefit age/disability formula as well, until you reach SS eligibility you get NO federal retirement without a 10% tax penalty, much like IRA, Keogh or 401K plans for the private sector are treated. To allow John Q Public, a federal employee, to get "full" retirement at age 55 (or younger) yet to deny it to Harry A. Private, a private employee, until they reach age 59 1/2 or even 67 is rediculous. We seem to allow ever earlier and ever more generous retirement plans for congress critters and federal workers, yet squeal that the costs of SS benefits are the root of all of our fiscal problems.

Hey. Just because you may have to work until 70 to support me retiring at age 43 doesn't mean I'm don't deserve it by choosing to take from society rather than add to it

 

[cpwill]

Now that the SS tax is back to normal (the SS tax deduction was an appropriate short term response to the Bush Meltdown), SS will have about 30 years of total and complete solvency -- if we do nothing.

So long as the General Fund runs enough of a surplus to cover it, certainly!

Unfortunately, Medicare is screwed, and when it goes, it takes SS with it. And, according to the President, there is no way we will be able to fund it with taxes.

 

[obvious Child]

So long as the General Fund runs enough of a surplus to cover it, certainly!

Unfortunately, Medicare is screwed, and when it goes, it takes SS with it. And, according to the President, there is no way we will be able to fund it with taxes.

SS's trust fund is a scam. Anyone want to bet on the damage that liquidating the debt holdings the trust fund holds would cause? The only way that we can monetize the trust fund without taking on new debt or raising taxes is to print money.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Hey. Just because you may have to work until 70 to support me retiring at age 43 doesn't mean I'm don't deserve it by choosing to take from society rather than add to it

Of course not! The irony, as I see it, is that we are always told that civil servants work for us, not the other way around. With the sanctions of our congress critters, it seems, that a sort of "equality" run on the treasury is underway now with more of "the folks" taking advantage of SS disability benefits than ever before. I am feeling a bit "entitled" today, and just may do some "doctor/lawyer" shopping to get in on that deal myself.

 

[cpwill]

Of course not! The irony, as I see it, is that we are always told that civil servants work for us, not the other way around. With the sanctions of our congress critters, it seems, that a sort of "equality" run on the treasury is underway now with more of "the folks" taking advantage of SS disability benefits than ever before. I am feeling a bit "entitled" today, and just may do some "doctor/lawyer" shopping to get in on that deal myself.

You know, it's funny. I was just reading a book by a guy who works for the World Bank; he makes the point that in corrupt, low-growth societies, high performers tend to focus on means of wealth redistribution, while in open, productive, high-growth societies, high performers tend to focus on means of wealth creation. Economies who have more engineers than lawyers, for example, grow at faster rates than economies where those two fields are reversed.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You know, it's funny. I was just reading a book by a guy who works for the World Bank; he makes the point that in corrupt, low-growth societies, high performers tend to focus on means of wealth redistribution, while in open, productive, high-growth societies, high performers tend to focus on means of wealth creation. Economies who have more engineers than lawyers, for example, grow at faster rates than economies where those two fields are reversed.

That must explain the vast number of engineers in the US congress.

 

[blaxshep]

You know, it's funny. I was just reading a book by a guy who works for the World Bank; he makes the point that in corrupt, low-growth societies, high performers tend to focus on means of wealth redistribution, while in open, productive, high-growth societies, high performers tend to focus on means of wealth creation. Economies who have more engineers than lawyers, for example, grow at faster rates than economies where those two fields are reversed.

Lawyers are a blight.

 

[TaraAnne]

Republicans want to have this discussion for one reason. They want SS in the the hands of private market period always have. SS has not put one penny on the debt. What do you think Romney was going to do with it hand it over to companies like Bain to trash it and walk away with billions of dollars

REPORT: 104 Republicans In Congress Want To Privatize Social Security | ThinkProgress

GOP Candidates Revive Idea Of Privatizing Social Security

Dems slam Ryan over Social Security privatization - Yahoo! Finance

 

[blaxshep]

Republicans want to have this discussion for one reason. They want SS in the the hands of private market period always have. SS has not put one penny on the debt. What do you think Romney was going to do with it hand it over to companies like Bain to trash it and walk away with billions of dollars

REPORT: 104 Republicans In Congress Want To Privatize Social Security | ThinkProgress

GOP Candidates Revive Idea Of Privatizing Social Security

Dems slam Ryan over Social Security privatization - Yahoo! Finance

It is not necessarily Republicans that want SS privatized so they can pilfer the riches via the stock market it is greed rich pricks on both sides.

As for SS not adding to the debt, there is nothing in the SS fund, it does not exist, it is nothing but IOUs and THAT is Debt!

 

[cpwill]

Republicans want to have this discussion for one reason. They want SS in the the hands of private market period always have.

And since "the private market" is "the people" rather than "the politicians", you are correct. The potential benefit for low income earners of switching to privately owned funds is incredible.

SS has not put one penny on the debt.

Factcheck.org: SS adds to the deficit

 

[American]

Fiscal Cliff Deal Should Have Included Social Security | TIME.com

It included everything the President said it wouldn't, tax deals for Hollywood, and spending increases.

Tim Carney: How corporate tax credits got in the 'cliff' deal | WashingtonExaminer.com

And guess what else?

 

[YoungConserv]

Okay. So when millions of people retire with virtually no savings and eventually are forced out on to the street....what is your proposal? Let them die homeless?

One thing age tends to teach is that of unintended consequences. The young (both in age and philosophical views) fail to deal with this problem.

I belive that in this modern age we have easy access to unprecedented investing technologies that you really have to try to not make a bigger ROI than social security. If you don't I'm sorry with the exception of a small minority that qualify for other programs
that prevent them starving to death. Other than that I'm sorry it's not my problem to subsidize people's poor decision making.

 

[PirateMk1]

Of course not! The irony, as I see it, is that we are always told that civil servants work for us, not the other way around. With the sanctions of our congress critters, it seems, that a sort of "equality" run on the treasury is underway now with more of "the folks" taking advantage of SS disability benefits than ever before. I am feeling a bit "entitled" today, and just may do some "doctor/lawyer" shopping to get in on that deal myself.

It reminds me of the book, the Animal Farm. Some are just more equal than others. Ya might as well get on the band wagon evrybody else is. Ride it till it breaks.

 

[obvious Child]

I belive that in this modern age we have easy access to unprecedented investing technologies that you really have to try to not make a bigger ROI than social security.

You clearly weren't paying attention to 2008 and 2009 where people would kill to lose just 50% of their investments.

Want to tell me how people nearing retirement who lose that kind of money or people IN retirement who can't go back to work who lose that kind of money are simply expected to pray the market will recover quickly?

How the naivete of youth is so similar to stupidity.

if you don't I'm sorry with the exception of a small minority that qualify for other programs
that prevent them starving to death. Other than that I'm sorry it's not my problem to subsidize people's poor decision making.

Then how about reform SS into an annuity system?

 

[Lutherf]

Now that the SS tax is back to normal (the SS tax deduction was an appropriate short term response to the Bush Meltdown), SS will have about 30 years of total and complete solvency -- if we do nothing.

Sorry another psuedoproblem jimmied up by the rightwing noise machine.

Raise the income ceiling on contributions to say $150K and the fund remains solvent basically forever.

The tea party occcupation forces are becoming more and more irrelevant.

Social Security disbursements exceed revenues by roughly $250 Billion. Aggregate wage income (the source of SS revenue) is roughly $5.7 Trillion so the additional 2% will amount to about another $114 Billion leaving us $136 Billion to still make up. There are roughly 16 million taxpayers who report wages in excess of $100k so raising the cap on SS withholding to $150k will generate will generate another $16 Billion leaving us $120 Billion short. In fact, if we simply removed the cap on wages subject to SS that would gain us about $49.5 Billion but would still leave us nearly $90 Billion short.

 

[a351]

Social Security disbursements exceed revenues by roughly $250 Billion.

According to what time table? The deficits for the past three fiscal years combined amount to roughly half that figure.

 

[Lutherf]

According to what time table? The deficits for the past three fiscal years combined amount to roughly half that figure.

The numbers I get from here(which come from the GPO) are as follows:

year	SS Rev	SS Disb
2006	520.00	548.50
2007	542.90	586.20
2008	562.50	617.00
2009	559.00	683.00
2010	540.00	707.00
2011	483.70	730.80
2012	489.10	778.60
2013	579.10	825.90

 

[a351]

The numbers I get from here(which come from the GPO) are as follows:

year	SS Rev	SS Disb
2006	520.00	548.50
2007	542.90	586.20
2008	562.50	617.00
2009	559.00	683.00
2010	540.00	707.00
2011	483.70	730.80
2012	489.10	778.60
2013	579.10	825.90

Yeah, those numbers aren't quite up to speed. Last years deficit was roughly 48 billion, in addition to nearly identical shortfalls the previous two years.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/spec.pdf (Page 465)

 

[iguanaman]

SS's trust fund is a scam. Anyone want to bet on the damage that liquidating the debt holdings the trust fund holds would cause? The only way that we can monetize the trust fund without taking on new debt or raising taxes is to print money.

But we can put two wars in the credit card with no problem. The benefits of paying out that trust fund far outweigh any negatives. That money spent in OUR economy is far more valuable than building schools in Iraq.