Young people need to do something about their social security (1 Viewer)

[americanwoman]

I can't believe how people let themselves get robbed blindly and that is what the current social security program will become. George W. Bush had a great plan that just got shut down immediately. I know the older people are nervous of what the change will do to their current benefits but they need to think of their children and grandchildren and how this will effect them.

Under the current system, today’s 30-year-old worker will face a 27% benefit cut when he or she reaches normal retirement age.

We really need to wake up here!! Bush's plan to create private accounts was really a good idea that most partisans knocked down before giving it a chance.

By 2041, when workers in their mid-20s begin to retire, the system will be bankrupt – unless we act now to save it.

That is just terrible for us and future generations. We need to act on this! unless you want the government taking you money and not be able to replace it you need to speak up. I have a retirement plan from work and an IRA but I don't like the fact I pay every week for something that may not be there when I retire.

President Bush has pledged to work with Congress to find the most effective combination of reforms. He will listen to any good idea that does not include raising payroll taxes.
President Bush understands that reforming Social Security will not be easy. But he believes that if we approach this debate with courage and honesty, we will succeed. Our children’s retirement security is more important than partisan politics

So true. This is really something I agree with on Bush and hopefully he will or someone else will push this forward again. The best part of the private account system would be that congress can't take any money out of it.
Any other thoughts on this?



source-
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/social-security/

 

[::Major_Baker::]

Here are some problems with privatization---I am not sure where I stand on this yet.

Privatization not only exposes workers to additional risks, it also substantially raises the costs of saving for retirement. A number of these costs have been well-documented. Workers would have to pay management fees for their accounts. In addition, they would have to pay insurance premiums to private insurance companies if they want the same level of protection that Social Security offers for themselves and their families. Further, they would have to bear an enormous burden to pay for the transition from one system to the other.

Another cost of individual accounts – so-called labor market risks – has often been ignored in the public debate. Typically, workers’ earnings are below average in a recession, when it would be most opportune to purchase stocks because of a concurrent stock market decline. This risk affects all workers to some degree.

The exposure to labor market risks is greater for women and minorities than for others. In essence, they accumulate fewer savings for each dollar they invest in their individual accounts compared to men and whites. This is especially pronounced for women, who consequently face costs that are comparable to the costs of turning their savings into lifetime monthly benefits – annuities.

The link between the labor market and individual accounts essentially punishes women and minorities twice. For one, they have lower lifetime earnings than men and whites and thus proportionately lower savings. Second, they accumulate fewer savings for each dollar they put away because of greater fluctuations in employment and wages.

Social Security is the only way to reduce the labor market risks. In the current setup, benefits do not depend on the performance of the stock market. Furthermore, Social Security pays proportionately higher benefits to low lifetime earners than to high lifetime ones.

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=253499

full report:
http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/cf/{E9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03}/socialsecurityreport.pdf

 

[americanwoman]

Thanks for that major. I didn't see realize those problems. If they could iron those out it would be great. It's hard to know where to stand because we mistrust the government so much it's hard to put our trust in their hands.

 

[Patrickt]

I worked for the government and did not have to contribute to SS. We had a pension that was being horribly mismanaged, as only the government can get away with, so we bought it out and switched to a 401k. Yes, I had to pay a 1% management fee. Yes, I had to have disability insurance. Still, I put the maximum into my 401k, which was still less than SS and the pension deduction. If I'd died before retirement my children would have gotten the money.

When we converted to the 401k we had classes on basic theory of investments and we did not have the option of putting all of our money into any specific stock.

I retired. I've been living on the interest of my 401k so my kids can still get the money when I die.

If my children had the option I had they'd have a 401k and not SS. They don't have the option. The freedom to pick what you want is anathema to some. You have to be told what to do, for your own good of course.

 

[Red State Sage]

Here are some problems with privatization---I am not sure where I stand on this yet.


full report:
http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/cf/{E9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03}/socialsecurityreport.pdf

I found this part to be perplexing:
The exposure to labor market risks is greater for women and minorities than for others. In essence, they accumulate fewer savings for each dollar they invest in their individual accounts compared to men and whites.

How can a mutual fund discern whether a person is white, black, male, female, or otherwise (for you transgender types)?? This statement sounds as if it were coined by either Je$$ie or Al in order to never let anyone have a moments rest from their persistent race pimping; and I'm sure NOW was allowed to proof-read it before release.

Whatever happened to free will and self determination in this nation? Must the nanny state always be there to make sure no one falls and skins their knee? I don't recall asking the federal government to be my retirement planner, and I can't remember reading in the U.S. Constitution where the right is enumerated to the government to take money from the citizenry to save for their retirement. Someone please cite for me which Article states that right of government.

Some quick facts:

In 1940 when social security was starting life expectancy was 61.4 years for men and 65.7 for women…social security's promise to pay full benefits at age 65 was a promise that was only going to have to pay out to less than 1/2 the eligible population…but today life expectancy is 74.4 years for men and 79.5 for women.

The long-term rate of return for stocks is approx 7.5%, the long-term return on corporate bonds has been approx 3.5%...for most middle-age and younger workers the real rate of return they can expect from social security will be approx 1.25% or less.

In less than 12 years (approximately 2018), Social Security’s retirement program will begin to spend more per year in benefits than it receives in taxes.

To continue to pay all promised benefits the payroll tax will have to be raised from today's 12.4% to 18.0% - roughly a 50% increase.

 

[Jerry]

Young people need to do something about their social security

I, for one, am doing something.

I'm forgetting all about ever getting any.

I can't believe how people let themselves get robbed blindly....

Your right, I'll stop paying those manditory-automatic-tax-deductions-from-my-check-taken-out-before-I-ever-see-it right now!

George W. Bush had a great plan that just got shut down immediately. I know the older people are nervous of what the change will do to their current benefits but they need to think of their children and grandchildren and how this will effect them.

I have a better Private Account Plan than GW's. I put money into my Private Account, you put money into yours. Without a search warrant, no one takes money out of my Private Account but me, and no one takes money out of your Private Account but you.

This PA Plan is so flexible that you can even choose what bank you want you Private Account to be in. Wells-Fargo, Bank of America, etc. You can have a "savings" Private Account, a "checking" Private Account, a "business management" Private Account, or similar.

The best part of my plan is that the government is not involved. You simply walk over to a bank, open an Account, and put money in it. It’s that easy!

 

[Goobieman]

Everyone should have the option to put any portion of their SocSec deduction (and employer match) into a 401k (or somesuch). No one should ever be forced to pay into SocSec; everyone should have the choice to do so or not.

 

[SFLRN]

Hmm I'd agree there is a good argument for economic freedom with personal accounts. I wish there was data though because it seems, on the con side getting rid of the social safety net could have negative effects since our economy show signs of being more instant than savings based, as of now. I completely agree that the system will be bankrupt and needs reworked. One way is to lower immigration controls since that gives us a population influx and puts more in the younger tax bases (besides the other economic benefits). I'd need the numbers on the change but it seems that people should be given more leeway with their money if they're going to get it back anyways.

 

[Iriemon]

Social Security has long term funding issues primarily because the $2 trillion in extra social security tax payments made over the past 20 years have been, and are currently being, stolen to finance the debt created by Republican deficits.

As a result, either taxes will have to be raised in the future to pay for SS benefits, or the benefits will be cut.

Bush's plan for privatization completely fails to address the shortfull of funding current SS plan participants. In fact, it makes the problem worse because it diverts revenues from SS into private accounts, making the SS shortfall even worse.

We don't need a huge bureacratic Govt program of controlled "private" accounts. We already have private accounts. IRAs, 401ks, or however else you want to invest your money.

 

[Patrickt]

Iriemon: Are you seriously saying that until the last four years, all that Social Security money was sitting somewhere in Washington?

 

[Goobieman]

Iriemon: Are you seriously saying that until the last four years, all that Social Security money was sitting somewhere in Washington?

Iriemon's argument, on any given topic, can be summed up rather easily:
The GOP is the root of all evil.

 

[Iriemon]

Iriemon: Are you seriously saying that until the last four years, all that Social Security money was sitting somewhere in Washington?

No, it wasn't sitting around, it was used by our Govt to finance the deficits.

The SS "crisis" is caused by the fact that a large demographic bulge (the baby boomers) will be retiring en masse over the next couple decades. It is not a new "crisis," the problem has been known about for decades.

In 1983, with amazing foresight, Congress passed, and President Reagan signed, an amendment to the SS program that increased SS taxes far above what was necessary to pay for SS beneficiaries. The idea was that by the time the boomers retired, these extra tax receipts would have built up in a fund that would be worth around 3 trillion dollars.

Because of these extra SS taxes, we the people have been paying extra-high SS taxes over the last 20 years. Through FY2005, the cumulative surplus of these extra high taxes is almost $2 trillion. Last year, the surplus was $175 billion. Since 2000, $800 billion in extra social security taxes have been paid. You can seen these surplus figures at http://cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf Table 1, under the "Social Security" column.

However, despite all this extra money we have paid, the SS trust fund has no real assets in it. The Govt had passed a law (before Reagan) that allows it to take the SS money, and replace it with its own debt. These are special "IOUs" which are promises of the Govt to pay itself, which are worthless because the Govt has no assets to back up the debt. To pay the debt, the Govt will have to raise taxes, or cut other spending, or both.

These surplus tax receipts are not going to last forever; starting next decade, the demand for SS benefits by the boomers will outpace SS tax revenues, and there will be a deficit, not a surplus. The Govt will have to pay back its SS IOUs to pay for the benefits, but where it is going to get the money to pay back its SS debt? It currently is spending about $1/2 trillion more every year than tax revenue brings in.

In essense, the Govt has been stealing the money from our SS trust fund and using it as general revenues. It is really outrageous, people would be put in jail for a long time if they did it in private corporations. The Govt has been doing it because, starting in the early 80s, it has been spendings lots more money than it has received in taxes, running huge deficits (with the exception of the late 90s). To finance these deficits, the govt has to borrow money. It borrows money from issuing debt to private lenders as well as foreign Govts (the largest including China and Japan), but also has helped itself to its own little piggy bank, $2 trillion of *our* SS trust fund.

But for the Republican deficits, the Govt would not be borrowing money, and the SS trust fund would have real assets in it to pay for future SS benefits, instead of worthless Govt IOUs to itself.

 

[Iriemon]

Iriemon's argument, on any given topic, can be summed up rather easily:
The GOP is the root of all evil.

On the issue of the deficits and debt, I think that is a pretty accurate statement.

 

[SFLRN]

Social Security has long term funding issues primarily because the $2 trillion in extra social security tax payments made over the past 20 years have been, and are currently being, stolen to finance the debt created by Republican deficits.

As a result, either taxes will have to be raised in the future to pay for SS benefits, or the benefits will be cut.

Bush's plan for privatization completely fails to address the shortfull of funding current SS plan participants. In fact, it makes the problem worse because it diverts revenues from SS into private accounts, making the SS shortfall even worse.

We don't need a huge bureacratic Govt program of controlled "private" accounts. We already have private accounts. IRAs, 401ks, or however else you want to invest your money.

What we talk about is taking the money the government takes from social security and transfer into your own hands for private investment. (something along the lines of not even being taxed). I agree that that could be problematic if people don't spend it correctly. But the fact is we already have too much bureacrcy in the system and the way to put out the middle man is through the people. We need to reform social security so we don't have these shortfalls. Sure , it may mean raising the retirement age to receive benefits, but the simple fact is that the current retirement age was set way back. Medical technology and treatment has changed. The changes may be hard, but it is not the governments reposnsibility to provide a retirement plan for America, not to mention that they have been able to mismanage that fund quite well.

 

[Billo_Really]

Are we talking about the money were not going to have by the time were elligable to collect?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Goobieman
Iriemon's argument, on any given topic, can be summed up rather easily:
The GOP is the root of all evil.

And what does that "stem" from?

 

[Iriemon]

What we talk about is taking the money the government takes from social security and transfer into your own hands for private investment. (something along the lines of not even being taxed).

I'm not sure what you mean here. Govt takes money from SS tax revenues and pays current beneficiaries. But it also takes extra tax payments, $175 billion last year alone, and treats it as general revenues which it uses for everything else the Govt spends money on. And I'm not sure what else you could call it but a tax.

I agree that that could be problematic if people don't spend it correctly. But the fact is we already have too much bureacrcy in the system and the way to put out the middle man is through the people. We need to reform social security so we don't have these shortfalls. Sure , it may mean raising the retirement age to receive benefits, but the simple fact is that the current retirement age was set way back. Medical technology and treatment has changed. The changes may be hard, but it is not the governments reposnsibility to provide a retirement plan for America, not to mention that they have been able to mismanage that fund quite well.

Actually, SS is very efficiently run, in terms of administrative costs associated with the collection and distribution of funds. The SS fund hasn't been mismanaged so much in the sense that the funds were not invested wisely more than outright stolen by the Govt because of the deficits.

I agree that because the SS trust funds has been stolen, benefit changes will be required, or else taxes will have to be jacked up significantly. I agree with your point about the age benefits are received; making the benefits means tested would also go a long way to making the system more solvent.

 

[Goobieman]

We need to reform social security so we don't have these shortfalls. Sure , it may mean raising the retirement age to receive benefits, but the simple fact is that the current retirement age was set way back.

There are three ways to "deal" with the SocSec problem:
1- Raise Taxes
2- Cut Benefits
3- Accept that there will be deficits.

Liberals will always argue for #1.
Liberals will never allow #2
Liberals used to not care about #3, until recently - now they think they can use it to their poliical advantage in affecting #1

 

[Iriemon]

There are three ways to "deal" with the SocSec problem:
1- Raise Taxes
2- Cut Benefits
3- Accept that there will be deficits.

Liberals will always argue for #1.
Liberals will never allow #2
Liberals used to not care about #3, until recently - now they think they can use it to their poliical advantage in affecting #1

Overbroad sterotypical statements! What fun!

Conservatives will always argue for #2, but never do it.
Conservatives will never allow #1.
Conservatives could care less about #3 and always do it rather than having the political courage to do #1 or #2.

Borrow tons of $ and fob trillions of the costs of our government to our kids. Great "family values" conservatives have.

 

[Ivan The Terrible]

americanwoman ,

SS should be destoryed.

 

[americanwoman]

americanwoman ,

SS should be destoryed.

Ivan,


yes it should. We should all find ourselves a sugar daddy/momma and just mooch of them and live the good life so we don't have to worry about money when we retire. maybe Anna Nicole Smith had an idea there.......:doh

 

[Iriemon]

americanwoman ,

SS should be destoryed.

I agree with that. Replace it with a social welfare programs that provides disability, survivor benefits and old age support for those in need, and pay for it out of general revenues.

It's is ridiculous that our Govt pays the dole to the likes of Warren Buffet.

 

[SFLRN]

Actually, SS is very efficiently run, in terms of administrative costs associated with the collection and distribution of funds. The SS fund hasn't been mismanaged so much in the sense that the funds were not invested wisely more than outright stolen by the Govt because of the deficits.

I agree that because the SS trust funds has been stolen, benefit changes will be required, or else taxes will have to be jacked up significantly. I agree with your point about the age benefits are received; making the benefits means tested would also go a long way to making the system more solvent.

I agree that the government hasn't handled them well, thats why I think we need to look into giving it to the people since they have less incentive to spend it recklessly, like our Congress has.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Social Security was doomed to fail from the start. You know whos my social security, me.

 

[Muddy Creek]

I think it's more a question of young people needing to do something to keep their constitution in place and not allow a president to borrow from taxpayer savings without putting it back.

Investing your money in the stock market makes you the minnows the big fish feed on to get cash. The only sure retirement is one which is guaranteed to grow and Social Security has proven to do just that.

Scare tactics from this administration, while successful, are complete and utter lies.:twocents: