Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by NEPatriot, Jun 13, 2009.
Economy Cuts Into Social Security Cost Of Living Increases
It's bad news for all retirees.
Retirees don't need a "raise" if there's little inflation. It's good if true, it would help the solvency of that crappy program.
SS is going to be gone by the time you retire.
It won't be gone because it can't be. Too many people will need it. It may be different and means tested but it won't be gone.
I don't see how people like you are going to pay SS when they loose their job. It means that SS is paying out more than it's getting in.
It's impossible to pay SS, country debt, and Obama universal health care at the same. Medicare is also going to be gone when his health care plan is in place.
2037 is the year for SS to be disappeared as it sates here.
Social Security and Medicare finances worsen - Yahoo! News
The only thing you are going to have FOR SURE is Obama health care.
As a recent recipient of social security is the easiest and most courteous program that have ever dealt with on the municipal, state or federal level.. they are very nice people..
No-one said they aren't nice. Just that it's a crappy program. It should have been means tested and considered "old age welfare" - with much lower taxes - all along.
The difference being these "old age" people actually worked and payed their taxes. Hardly welfare.
I said :
What I meant was when the program started the tax should have been far lower and only those who need it should get it. It SHOULD be old age welfare. It isn't and that's the problem.
The problem is once upon a time in America retirement was setup like 3 legged table. 1 leg being a pension, 1 leg being 401K etc., and 1 leg being SS. 2 of those legs have already been kicked out. I think we might need to bring back a Logan's Run (just up it to 65) appraoch. It's all we can afford.
The problem with 401Ks is the perception that it has to be in stocks. By law there has to be a cash (money market) option. No-one has to invest any 401K money especially once they're approaching retirement. I'm tired of people talking about their 401Ks becoming 201Ks - everyone should know the stock market goes down as well as up; does no-one remember the early 2000s ???
- Psychology is what it is, re: 401K plans. People do not enroll in voluntary enrollment programs; market psychology dictates that the amateur always feels in his gut exactly the opposite of what he should do, trying to chase what *just* happened. They're also extremely sensitive to market timing, as most people use them; so instead of being cashed in as part of a big pot, which has no "end date", like with a DB plan, they have to have good balances when the INDIVIDUAL retires. Oh no! I haven't met my goals! Must gamble!
- NEP, your understanding such as it is, of Soc. Sec. is inaccurate. It will not be "gone" by the time any of us retire. Checks will not be nonexistent. Nor will they be 1/2 of the promised amount. Current projections say the Soc. Sec. trust fund will be exhausted by 2037. That means that Soc. Sec. will only have the money to pay out what it takes in in continuing payroll taxes. That will fund 74% of the promised amount Soc. Sec. says you will get in your statement in the mail.
- It is correct to say Soc. Sec. can be fixed through means testing or a higher payroll tax. It can also be fixed through a higher retirement age, or accepting the 74% payout.
Nope. Until fairly recently, most recipients received far in excess of what they put in plus interest.
By definition it's welfare. Quit being an apologist without looking at the evidence.
For example, Ida May Fuller put $24.75 into the system over her career but was able to receive $22,888.92. How is that not welfare?
The early SS beneficiaries received compensation way out of whack of what they put into it. The Social Security Ponzi scheme
It's the ultimate Ponzi scheme. But now recipients aren't receiving nearly as good a deal and will be lucky to break even.
Guys like me, who have just turned forty, will be screwed over big time. That's why support for the system is now in free fall. Source: Rasmussen Poll Shows Plurality Support Escape From Social Security
Here's the root cause: "In 1950, there were 16 workers paying taxes into the system for every retiree who was taking benefits out of it. Today, there are a little more than three. By the time the baby boomers retire, there will be just two workers who will have to pay all the taxes to support every one retiree." Social Security: Follow the Math
Michael, you may know football but are woefully ignorant about entitlement spending.
Anecdotal evidence is not a very good barometer...
I agree that anecdotal evidence is not a good barometer. I also disagree w/you that that's all that the righties are bringing to the table; there is a legitimate challenge to Soc. Sec. based on the size of the age cohort now starting to plow through the system.
I also also disagree w/the simplistic Dickensian worldview that insists "what's mine is mine" is the meaning of our society. The latest argument is among those on the right, trying to decide whether to brand Soc. Sec. "Welfare."
Who gives a damn. Are we prepared -- should we be prepared -- to establish an underclass of formerly middle-class people who are homeless by dint of retirement?
Most people say "no," for a very good reason: Although Social Security has an element of "welfare" to it at the low end, it has features of a traditional pension at the high end. That will still be true as it is means-tested in the future, a likely outcome of our current dilemma.
Now then: Means testing, from a rightist perspective, means the rich won't "get theirs". That means if you put $ away from retirement, through a 401K, and if you give up on present earnings to receive a DB pension, and if you are responsible and put a lot of $ toward retirement, means testing will penalize you on the Soc. Sec. end.
If, however, you increase the payroll tax, and/or continue it past its current ceiling (the first 100-oddK per year of income for a single filer, or something like that,) you are simply extending taxes that apply to everyone relatively fairly. Of course, because part of the outcome is to keep the poorest elderly from utter destitution, you will still come out on the "losing end" if you are rich. No new top hat and monacle every year, it's every other year. Or whatever more humble stand-in you like. It's redistribution of the wealth, and you don't like it. I get it.
Do you, however, like the notion of middle class individuals who are too old to work being homeless or desperately poor?
Anyhoo: you're totally boned, from a rightist perspective, if you means-test your own Soc.Sec. when you retire... you're only partially boned if you raise the tax for Soc. Sec. society-wide.
The options indeed remain of only paying 74% when the trust fund is exhausted, or increasing the retirement age.
As to the OP's inherent suggestion that we give COLA increases to people whose costs of living have not increased, I disagree too, and I'm nobody's conservative.
I'm really going to get slapped aeound for this one,
I've been collecting SC for twenty one years and after watching what those slimey politicians do with our tax money and after watching Bush turn the other way while America was being invaded by 12 million illegal aliens and then our tax dollars have to "take care' of the invaders, then I watch this Dictator Rat in the White House spend trillions of my grandchildrens dollars on all of his socialist communist sh!t my concience doesn't bother me one bit, I'll milk them for every penny I can get.
To summarive PFnV :
SS is another government program that can't meet the obligations it promised. So we can either raise taxes, get less than we were promised or both.
Now . . . let's do the same with healthcare.
So we're 69 years into Social Security payments, and 97 years into it, we project the trust fund will be exhausted (based on a demographic change that had not yet happened), and the payout will be 74% of the promised amount, unless changes are made to the system, of course.
Yeah okay, a health care system that works as intended for 97 years before the math doesn't work, despite an enormous unforeseen demographic change? I can live with worrying about health care again in 2106.
Oh c'mon now Harry. Everyone knows that even if the government was perfect in every way right up to giving you a goat that ate garbage and shat solid gold bars you'd still milk them for every cent.
Good luck with that now that a much larger group of the population thinks they are owed pretty much everything just for breathing. Most of the 69 years of social security things weren't like that.
Separate names with a comma.