Welcome to PatsFans.com

Idea to replace Social Security

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by DaBruinz, Feb 7, 2009.

  1. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,060
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +207 / 16 / -38

    #50 Jersey

    Ok, I consider myself morally liberal and finacially conservative. I know that some people here are going to laugh at this post or call it ignorant or other some such just because tht is their party line :rolleyes:. However, this is an idea that I have been knocking around in my head for awhile and I finally "put it to paper" as they say. And I feel its a better long term solution to the Social Security problem and the economic spending package that they are talking about. I feel that it addresses the current issues with the financial aid system as we know it. And, it would also have some economic benefits as well.

    First, eliminate the federal student financial aid system as we know it


    Now, I'm putting this up for constructive critiquing. Hopefully that is what will come of it.
  2. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    This is a fair system because it puts everyone on a more equal playing field from birth and gives them resources to better themselves, IF they want to work at it.

    I also like the idea of a certain portion of wealth after death going back into a program like this, because I hate seeing useless idiots who are worthless people and yet insanely wealthy just because of their ancestors
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2009
  3. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    37,692
    Likes Received:
    257
    Ratings:
    +476 / 2 / -10

    #87 Jersey

    The country will eventually get to the point where the solution to social security will be retirement after age 70 and/or mandatory government rest homes for those over say 75. The state will close all loopholes on wealth transfers after the age of 65 IMO.
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2009
  4. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,060
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +207 / 16 / -38

    #50 Jersey

    First off, mandatory retirement after age 70 will hurt this country and the economy more than help. Mandatory government rest homes won't do anything but suck more money off the government.

    Now, would you care to explain how anything you mentioned actually has to do with the idea that I floated? Or do you normally throw out things that really aren't on topic?
  5. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,316
    Likes Received:
    118
    Ratings:
    +245 / 7 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    The solution to social security is to make it an old age welfare and not a retirement system, in other words means testing and if you have money you don't get social security.

    (sorry DaBruinz, I was just replying to Icy, I don't have a comment on the thread).
  6. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    37,692
    Likes Received:
    257
    Ratings:
    +476 / 2 / -10

    #87 Jersey


    A different version of welfare and wealth distribution but I agree ... why everyone gets a check from Uncle Sam when they retire is baffling at best. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" ... Spock was right IMO.
  7. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,833
    Likes Received:
    89
    Ratings:
    +150 / 3 / -19

    I thought you had to pay into social security in order to be eligible???

    OTOH DaBruinz is an interesting concept, but as in anything this simple concept would turn into a 778 page pork filled federal bill. The feds do not like simplicity.

    The potential pitfall is that there would be a burgeoning business of schools to meet everyone's needs, it is bad enough with all the quasi colleges.. but can you imagine if everyone had enough potential money for post secondary education.. there would be no self selection.. can you envision an Associates in Backhoe digging.. etc.
  8. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,726
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +248 / 3 / -2

    Cuz SS is supposed to be your money.

    For people who don't know, understand that every dollar you pay in SS taxes on your check, your employer pays too. So when you pay $50 into SS, your boss has to send another $50 on top of that. Nice.
  9. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,060
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +207 / 16 / -38

    #50 Jersey

    Darryl - I understand what you mean. Like anything, there is the potential for abuse. That being said, I think you misunderstood about the types of school. There are currently Tech Schools where you can get certifications to be a school bus mechanic or a welder or other things of that nature. That was what I was referring to. They are already out there. And yes, I can envision someone getting a certification to run a back-hoe or other heavy equipment.
  10. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,833
    Likes Received:
    89
    Ratings:
    +150 / 3 / -19

    My point and maybe I did not articulate well, is that it is an interesting concept... my cynicism may or may not be well founded, and has to do with being around kids who are sold a bill of goods that will not help them. There is potential for abuse in every system..
  11. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,060
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +207 / 16 / -38

    #50 Jersey

    bumpity bump bump
  12. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,643
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +141 / 1 / -4

    It's a nice idea, but if my calculation is correct, it would cost around $75 billion per year to pay the $25k per baby + the enormous cost of kicking in 7% each year and the various ramp-up costs. It would be much more expensive than today's Social Security, which has its increases tied to inflation, which is generally less than 7% and is at least partly taxable.

    Add to that that it does not address the main purpose of Social Security, which is a safety net (and, by the way, this recession underscores the importance of a safety net as opposed to a retirement plan) not a retirement plan. For instance, it doesn't address the needs of those who make bad decisions (use up the money to go to college), who have bad luck (accumulate massive debt because of, e.g., medical expenses or a failed business), or who spend all their money after getting 10 or 15 years of payments. What would we do with these people, let them live on the street or starve?

    That said, I think the idea of the government depositing money into an interest bearing account at birth is an intriguing one.
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2009
  13. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,316
    Likes Received:
    118
    Ratings:
    +245 / 7 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    On the "what if people have no money left" issue, IMO then, yes, it's too bad. Under this plan everyone would have $80K when they turn 18. In the 18-22 years they'd be making around $6K in interest alone. I realize inflation would hit this but $6K for one year of college is a good start before you have to hit principal. If you accrue $20K of interest over the 4 college years and start with $80K you could spend $30K on college and still have $50K sitting there when you're done. Or you could spend $55K and still have your $25K. Although you're back to where you've started, you've paid for college, trade school, whatever you do and can presumably start adding even small increments now that you have a job. This wouldn't be enough for law/medical school or most advanced degrees but that's not wholly different from now in terms of the expense of going to those. The bottom line is this gives everyone, even the poorest kids, the chance to go to college. But, no, we can't be everything to everbody. Sorry. If left alone that $25K would be $1.6M when you turn 60 and that's if you never add a dime. Of course you use your typical liberal buzzwords like starve but this doesn't prohibit the same kind of bread/soup lines we have now and at least this gives people a chance - social security is no more secure than this for people who don't work.

    Regarding the cost, I haven't done the math to see if this is more or less expensive than social security and whether payroll taxes would have to go up or be able to go down.

    As for your diatribe on social security being a safety net rather than a retirement plan . . . BULL. If it were a safety net you would only get it if you need it. And if it were a safety net you would get it even if you hadn't earned it over your working career. Social security is not a safety net, it is a retirement plan run like an insurance policy.
  14. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,643
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +141 / 1 / -4

    It's a safety net. The main reason that everyone who pays into it gets it, is to prevent it from being seen as a welfare program or from losing broad public support. At any rate, it's a safety net in that you can't screw it up. If you pay into it, you get it, even if mistakes or bad luck along your life's journey screwed you up. I bet there are a lot of new retirees who are depending on this safety net right now now that their retirement funds have fallen by 50%.

    But, again, the other problem with DaBruinz plan, I think, is the prohibitive cost. There are at least 90 million American born prior to 1963, so I'll help you with the math:

    90,000,000 * 1,000,000 = 90,000,000,000,000

    So, unless you can find a way to come up with $90 trillion, the plan doesn't work.
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2009
  15. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,316
    Likes Received:
    118
    Ratings:
    +245 / 7 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    It's still not a safety net. It's guaranteed, fixed income based on what you put in during your working life, yes. But it's not a safety net, it's not even discussable as one.

    That's the problem with any SS change is that SS now is a Madoff Scheme and there's no way to transition out of it short of means testing which would go over VERY badly as people have put so much in over the years. It's just a bad system, it helps some who need it but it also helps many who don't need it, doesn't help many who do need it and it's almost impossible to find a clean exit strategy.

    As I have said before, I don't want 70 year olds starving and I'm OK with a fund to help them. But SS is not it.
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2009
  16. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,060
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +207 / 16 / -38

    #50 Jersey

    The government spends over $600 billion a year on social security already.

    First of all, it would act as a safety net because you know that, provided you take personal responsibility and don't empty the account out by going to an over-priced school, you'll have quite a sum of money in there?

    Second, why should it address the needs of those who make bad decisions, who have bad luck, or spend all of their money? That's why its called personal responsibility. This is what people like yourself don't get. Now, as for the payments, you can even say spread it out over 20 years or 25 years. The average age of males in the US is 77 and of females is 80. If you look at the amounts we're talking about, people born before 1992 would have over 1 million dollars in their accounts to take on a 10, 15, or even 20 year basis. And, remember the interest doesn't stop accruing.

    The 7% interest, btw, is what the government pays out on EE savings bonds. You know, the ones where you pay have the amount and after 10 years, they are worth the face value. Yet they still collect interest until you actually cash them.
  17. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,060
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +207 / 16 / -38

    #50 Jersey

    1) Social Security, as it is now, IS welfare. And its seen that way by MANY people.

    2) Where did you get your number regarding the number of Americans born prior to 1963? I took the numbers for 65 and older from the US Census Bureau.

    3) Also, you don't need 90 trillion dollars initially. The most you'll need is 3.7 trillion. Hell, you could take it down to 500K for people born prior to 1963 and then you'd need only 1.85 Billion. That's about what the government has spent on Social Security, the bank bailout package and this "stimulus" bill. You need enough to account for the people who are just 65 and older who decide to start taking a payout. And you can limit it to those who have officially retired.

    4) You don't take into consideration the mortality rate of people over the age of 65. I also don't think you take into consideration that the average male in America lives to 72 and the average female in America either 77 or 80 depending on where you look.

    5) You also don't take into consideration that with the option of 10 or 15 payments, that the some people will choose the 15 and will only receive 66.7K a year. You could even add a 20 year option and have it at 50K.
  18. Synovia

    Synovia Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3,922
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Um, because we've been putting money into uncle sam for the last 50 years for expressly that purpose?
  19. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,643
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +141 / 1 / -4

    Social Security was designed to address a very real social problem. Do you want homeless senior citizens begging on your street? Do you want these people, who may have been victims of a severe economic downturn, to turn to crime or to live in squalor? What do you propose doing with those people who don't take personal responsibility? And besides, what do you mean by personal responsibility? My guess is you're defining it according to middle class values, and ignoring the fact that many people grow up in vastly differenct situations with vastly different values. Would you support personal responsibility if it was defined by the wealthy, who might say it's not their fault that your parents weren't responsible enough to leave you with an estate when you were born?
  20. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,316
    Likes Received:
    118
    Ratings:
    +245 / 7 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    That is not what it's designed for. If it is, it's an over reaching failure. The tax should be way lower and the payments far fewer to solve the problem you describe. And if they didn't work most of their life they'll still be begging on the street as seniors. Your picture of social security doesn't seem to match the reality that everyone gets it but only if they contributed by working.
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2009

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>