Social SecurityFollow

Linky


Personally, since I basically haven't payed into social security at all (I'm still a dependent), I'm all for this reform. Why should I pay into a system that is going to absolutely ***** me when I plan to retire?

Not that I wouldn't start a private retirement account anyways under the current system, but this kind of change seems like a great idea to me, and I'm sure that folks in my generation will greatly support this legislation.

However, what do you, the current work force, think about it? Happy to see a change? Mad that you might be shafted out of your SS contribtions?

Twiztid

Agreed. If Bush can start the process of fixing SS, I'd be willing to forget that whole Iraq-War-No WMD-Personal Vendetta thing.

To all you youngsters out there, this is still your cue to fire up that Roth IRA. A few thousand per year and you've got a nice nest egg to lean on.

Unlike the Democrats, I don't think that Social Security is going to last for very much longer. Unlike the Republicans, I don't think it can be salvaged the way it is.

My opinion is that we should return the program to its original non-compulsory form, and possibly completely privatize it.

Of course, none of this would be necessary if congress would just keep its grubby little fingers out of the fund.

Well during the Clinton administration (aka evil ******** administration that was "really" responsible for the ****** economy) they had set aside the money to make SS work.

Now when Bush (and by Bush I mean Rove, Cheney and everyone that isnt bush) was running his 2000 campaign he acknowledged that it would work and he promised repeatedly that he would NOT TOUCH the money set aside no matter what the circumstances.

He then took the money that was set aside that he promised that he would not touch in order to fix the economy that he did not fubar. He used this money in some dubious tax breaks that while managing to give everyone a tax break managed to shift a larger percentage of the tax burden onto the middle class.

Now he is looking to fix social security a problem by having the middle class which is already being taxed more and have them investing there money into stocks bonds 401ks and market shares that will help big business and the rich people who are now paying a smaller share of the taxes and dont need SS.

Good plan.

I don't care too much about this issue, but I think it's a bit of a mistake to privatize SS. Yes, it makes sense for those of us who can put aside money in an IRA, and keep our hands off it. But a lot of people struggle to reach a decent standard of living, and will spend the money on better clothes or stuff for their kids rather than be able to salt it away. Seems like the more money you make, the more things come up to take it away. Now, what are we going to do when they reach retirment age and have nothing saved up? I can picture millions of elderly going on welfare, which may or may not be more expensive than the original government SS. The good thing about SS now is that we have no choice but to contribute, and are guaranteed a stipend at the end of our lives. Without this forcing, we have no guarantee.

While we can say "it's your fault if you don't save", that will mean very little when those who haven't saved come calling to the government for support. What are we going to do--let them starve to death?

But...I'd have to be an economist to fully understand the fiscal ramifications of keeping SS versus privatizing it or whatever. Plus I'm planning on living naked in a tent in the woods when I'm 80 and shouting gibberish at other campers while throwing woodchucks at them and feverishly ************* so it doesn't matter much to me.

Did I say 100% return? No, I said "a stipend". I.E. hopefully enough to live on. Which is a lot better than nothing.

It is a big deal dumbass, you can't keep going in the red and pretend everything okay. You have to produce more than you consume. You put everything in the defecit your problems are only going to get worse.

Um. Just to inject a bit of reality into this fantasy you are weaving here...

Clinton managed to "save" about 300B dollars. That's it. That's not even a drop in the bucket in terms of how much money will flow into and out of SS in the next 40 years. It might have allowed us to keep it from going bankrupt one more year. To be honest, an inflation rate difference of like .1% will make more of a difference as to when the SS funds will run dry then the pitiful amount of cash that Clinton saved and the "evil" Bush spent.



He spent that money (and more) fixing the immediate problem of a massive recession caused by a combination of over-extended business practices during the Clinton years, and the 9/11 attack's effect on the markets. I'm reasonably sure that had he not "fixed" the economy, the long term effect on the SS fund from increased unemployment and reduced wages resulting from a recession of that magnitude would have made that 300B look like chump change.



Um. So you are opposed to a plan that will earn SS payees more return over time then the current one, purely because at the same time that money will help spur industry?

Are you seriously saying we should all starve rather then all make money together? You'd rather we go broke then allow that "evil" corporate America to make anything off the deal. Is that it? I just don't understand the position you are taking. Do you even understand how investments work? Everyone makes out. The guy who invests and the guy who he invests with. It's a win win. Why are you opposed to it?

Edited, Thu Feb 3 21:32:43 2005 by gbaji

So if you put it in an involuntary mutual fund, waht happens if wahtever Company that it's associated with goes under?

Or am I being a fool and the money really is held by the Governemt in their own form of a Mutual Investment firm?

Thanks for the explanation gbaji, and I agree that makes a lot more sense than what I initially thought the plan was. But how can the market possibly absorb such a gigantic investment? If today there are 40 million people with Janus-type funds that vary between companies and government bonds and such, and all of a sudden there are 200 million people who want to invest in the same Janus funds, where does that money go? Aren't there only so many stocks available for purchase? Doesn't the government offer only so many bonds? Even if the market could accept that much cash, I just don't see how infusing private business with enormous amounts of capital (?) will magically grow that business to such an extent that the return is just as enormous.

For example, if one of the stocks is Nintendo, what does Nintendo do when it has 20 million shares, but suddenly demand rises to 180 million. Do they print out more shares at the original price and somehow find 9X the market they already have in order to justify it and spend that money while making the same return? Do they "split stock" (don't know how that works)? Do they increase executive salaries by a few thousand percent and do nothing else?

No idea about economic things but something seems weird about more people investing being easily accomodated by a private market that may already be close to capacity.

You're talking about short term. Look at where the markets are right now. Look at where they were just before 9/11. Sure. If you bought some stock right before 9/11 and then looked at their value 6 months or a year later, you've lost tons of money. If you sell that stock at that point, you take a loss.

But this is long term. 40ish years long in fact (from when you first start putting in until you retire). Assume you held whatever stock you bought in early 2001. How much will it be worth in 2041? Will the "crash" of 2001 have significantly affected the long term value of that stock? Not much at all.

That's the same basic principle that 401ks use. Over the short term, the market is risky. It could go up, or it could go down. It's an art form to make "fast money" in the stock market, and as many people go broke as make it rich. However, on the long term it's a totally different ballgame. A diversified portfolio will *always* show an increased return over the long term.

Take a gander at the DJI (Dow Jones Industrial Average). All this is is an average stock value of 100 (I think 100) selected stocks (based on being representative of the market as a whole). They use this average as a general market indicator. Take a look at this historical chart.

Find me a 40 year time period when the overall value of the market did not increase. Even if you started at the worst historical point (high point just before the great depression at around 1930) and compare that value to 40 years later (1970), you'll find a significant increase in overall value.

The only way for there *not* to be an increase over that long term of an investment is if the total economic viability of the US as a nation fails (for a very long time). Um. If that happens, the least of your concerns will be whether or not your Social Security investment portfolio is doing well. Assuming the US continues to exist as a nation when you retire, your SS fund payments will be noticably higher if they are invested then if they aren't. That's just a pretty non-debatable economic fact. The reasons we haven't done this are purely political, not economic.

Edited, Fri Feb 4 23:28:33 2005 by gbaji

Personally, since I basically haven't payed into social security at all (I'm still a dependent), I'm all for this reform. Why should I pay into a system that is going to absolutely ***** me when I plan to retire?

Not that I wouldn't start a private retirement account anyways under the current system, but this kind of change seems like a great idea to me, and I'm sure that folks in my generation will greatly support this legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------

it is just your kind of ignorance that has made Bush so sucessfull.

1, SS was NEVER ment to be a retirment account. EVER. YOU are responsible for YOUR retirment. SS is a safety net, much like medicare, to make sure if you end up WITHOUT a retirment, you will atleast be able to afford food and shelter.

again, SS WAS NEVER MENT to be a retirement account. if you end up dependant on it YOU ALREADY FAILED at planning YOUR retirment.

2. if you do away with SS, the people who do end up dependant on it will be wards of what ever state they live in any way and will end up living on your tax dollar ANYWAY. is it not better to have a system already in place to deal with this enevietable situation? that is what SS does. it saves thousands and thousands of people WHO FAILED in their retirment to already have a system in place that wil feed them and shelter them?

3. Bush,s SS plan DOES NOTHING to save SS. and Bush is SPINNING the SS system to you IGNORANT SHEEP as a government subsidized retirement plan so you IGNORANT REPUBLICANS will say.

..."hey, be responsible, save your money yourself, dont depend on uncle sam to do it for you"......

and it worked. your post is proof. again, SS IS NOT A RETIRMENT PLAN. it is a safety net for people who already failed in their retirment, and keep them self suffecient at a minimum level so the govenrment doesnt end up with thousands and thousands of indigent AMERICANS starving to death as they wait in line for governemnt housing on YOUR TAX DOLLAR.

reality check for you...........

Bush,s SS plan is just ANOTHER TAX CUT. a 4 percent tax cut across the board at a time of record deficit spending.

and......and.......

if you do away with SS instead of saving it, all those people who fall between the cracks of retirment planning will FUTHER DRAIN government resources 10 to 20years down the road.......the time Bush says SS wont be there........

the alternative is letting our elderly and disabeled DIE of STARVATION and EXPOSIER because some company fired them a year before they wer suposed to retire....a favorite trend amoung big corperations BTW.

you PAY NOW, or you PAY LATER. you take this tax cut, and that is exactly what it is, and PAY BIG later, or you make some adjustments NOW so you dont gace a CRISES later.

people get old. alot of them get screwed out of their retirment, or plan poorly. that is not going to change.

chopping up our safety net for a 4 percent tax break NOW, will put GREATER strain on our safety net, NOT FIX IT.

you can put away as much money as you like RIGHT NOW, without this bill. so ask yourself, what does this bill really do?

a 4 percent tax cut.....AGAIN....at a time of record deficit spending. ss is a SAFETY NET, not a RETIRMENT PLAN. dont let the bush spinn machine distort that for you so they can lead you down the tax cut path by saying people should be more responsible on their own. think about it you sheep. what possible help could letting you keep 4 percent of your contributions POSSIBLY do to save this SAFETY NET?

nothing.

it is a tax break, not a plan to save SS.

"Now then, I do think it sucks that we're paying in and may never get out. However, you do not have to pay social security, I don't think, if money goes straight to escrow. Can anyone verify that?"
-------------------------------------------------------------

some government jobs are exempt from paying SS because of the govenment retirment plan. getting two checks from the government didnt make any since.

some government controlled professions, like the railroad for example, and local government agencies can be exempt also.

other than that, EVERYONE pays. your employer pays 6 percent, and you pay 6 percent. you cannot get out of paying. it is not your money. the money you pay in while you are working pays for people getting benifits from teh system today.

and your benifits will be payed by future workers.

you do not have a personel savings account with SS as much as you get credit for what you contribute, and your benifits will be proportonate to your contributions. the result is the same, but it is not like your money is in a savings account for you. the more you put in, the higher your benifits when you turn 65.

i put in the max every year. thats 6 percent of 87,000 this year, plus 6 percent from my employer...which is the government BTW. they scraped our retirment plan, and replaced it with a 401 plan we contribute to. so since our actual government retirment benifits are minimal now, we are entitled to SS benifits when we retire. my benifits will be about 1,400 a month if i work for another 15 years at this level of contribution.

this is what concerns me. what you DONT SEE, and what the president will not point out to you, is thousands and thousands of people who had crap jobs, got injured, moms whose husbands died who were stay at home moms, and many other people who fall between the cracks will get benifits anyway even though their contributions were minimal at best.

the concept is, EVERYONE will atleast get a minimal amount necessary to feed and shelter them, even if they fall between the cracks of a perfect life. SS is not a RETIRMENT PLAN. it is a means to guarentee a minimal standard of life for EVERYONE. you dont live large on SS, you just barley exist. how well you do in retirement is totally dependant on YOUR actions towards your retirement, not SS. SS is there ot make sure if something bad happens, and it does, you will be able to eat and not be homeless.

this is a growing trend in teh private sector. the days of getting a pension are gone. companies are moving to 401k plans YOU have to pay in to. they give you little to nothing now in teh way of pensions. the govenrment is following suit.

it is not there to guarentee YOU a retirement. no more than medicare is there to guarentee YOU medical insurence. it is just a saftey net for ALL AMERICANS. just like the roads you drive on. it is not YOUR road you pay taxes for. you pay taxes so EVERYONE can drive on it.

you drop the safety net, thousands and thousands of people in teh future WILL be homeless and hungry.....so you can have your 4 percent tax break.

also what Bush is not telling you is, his own researchers say SS can be totally funded with no reduction in benifits for ANYONE just by raising the cap for contributions to 150,000 and increasing contributions by 1 percent for employers, and 1 percent for workers.

1 percent more, and make people who earn 90,000 to 150,000 keep contributing, and it is fully funded even with the massive baby boomer dilluge comming to retirment age.

imagine of there was no cap on contributions so EVERYONE paid their fair percentage into the system........probably wouldnt even need the 1 percenr more from you.

rasing the cap to 150,000 by itself will cover about 43 percent of the projected shortfall with our economy only growing 1.5 percent a year. it ahs averaged over 4 percent since SS was started. 4 percent economic growth alone would fully fund the short fall.

there is no crises.

so why "fix" it?

it is a republican addministraition. it is a 4 percent tax cut they want, not a SS fix. SS is just the wrapping they put on this red herring to sell it to YOU SHEEP.