Experts agree, when all of the baby boomers retire, social security is in big trouble. What should be done?
Saving Social Security
- Thread starter Makalakumu
- Start date
OP
- Thread Starter
- #2
In my opinion, in order to save social security, everyone is going to have to sacrifice. I would do the following in order to accomplish this...
1. Remove the income cap for taxation.
2. Audit retirees retirement funds and cap those who do not need social security because they have saved enough money.
3. Raise the retirement age.
4. Allow workers to place a portion of their withholdings into private accounts.
I think this is right because...
1. Social Responsibility. Successful people in this country owe their success to more people then just themselves. We are tied in intricate ways to many people we wouldn't expect. It is time we call into account those connections.
2. Making good decisons only goes so far. Most people who rely on social security never had the opportunity to "make good decisions" because they couldn't afford it.
3. People who "make good decisions" will also be able to make good decisions regarding a portion of their withholdings. I think the balance is fair.
4. We have a moral responsibility to take care of our elders. I believe that as a nation we need to show our respect and love collectively by making this sacrifice.
5. We need to transmutate Social Security into a true safety net. People like our President, Bill Gates, and John Kerry do not need to be "caught". If your investments succeed, great! You took advantage of the American Dream. If they fail, at least you aren't going to starve.
In this country, you can work your tail off in this country and never get out poverty. You can have health problems and never pay your medical bills. You can make a few mistakes and attempt to live right, but never get over that hump. I believe that if you are successful in this country, you are fortuneate. This fortune comes from living in this great country. We ALL, rich or poor, contribute to making this country great. If you happen to be more fortuneate then someone else, you owe America for that fortune.
upnorthkyosa
1. Remove the income cap for taxation.
2. Audit retirees retirement funds and cap those who do not need social security because they have saved enough money.
3. Raise the retirement age.
4. Allow workers to place a portion of their withholdings into private accounts.
I think this is right because...
1. Social Responsibility. Successful people in this country owe their success to more people then just themselves. We are tied in intricate ways to many people we wouldn't expect. It is time we call into account those connections.
2. Making good decisons only goes so far. Most people who rely on social security never had the opportunity to "make good decisions" because they couldn't afford it.
3. People who "make good decisions" will also be able to make good decisions regarding a portion of their withholdings. I think the balance is fair.
4. We have a moral responsibility to take care of our elders. I believe that as a nation we need to show our respect and love collectively by making this sacrifice.
5. We need to transmutate Social Security into a true safety net. People like our President, Bill Gates, and John Kerry do not need to be "caught". If your investments succeed, great! You took advantage of the American Dream. If they fail, at least you aren't going to starve.
In this country, you can work your tail off in this country and never get out poverty. You can have health problems and never pay your medical bills. You can make a few mistakes and attempt to live right, but never get over that hump. I believe that if you are successful in this country, you are fortuneate. This fortune comes from living in this great country. We ALL, rich or poor, contribute to making this country great. If you happen to be more fortuneate then someone else, you owe America for that fortune.
upnorthkyosa
Make government officials pay into the system?
I believe that certain groups do not pay into it, yet do benefit from it. I may be wrong.
I believe that certain groups do not pay into it, yet do benefit from it. I may be wrong.
R
Ronald R. Harbers
Guest
Just give me what I have paid, and let me be free! I can invest better than the Kerry boys! I am smarter than the Bush boys!
P
PeachMonkey
Guest
The comments on this thread reveal a number of common misconceptions about Social Security, most of which have been fostered by politicans looking to foster their own agendas.
First, the concept of Social Security's impending fiscal doom is strictly overrated. People who further this story tend to ignore any projections of growth in worker productivity; in addition, the problem would not exist if the government were able to pay back bonds purchased against the SS Trust Fund. This is possible when you have budget surpluses; when you run massive budget deficits, under the supply-side economic lunacies of Reaganomics and Dubyanomics, this becomes considerably more difficult.
Additionally, the comments about savvy investors beating Social Security's performance are a red herring... Social Security is not, nor was it ever intended to be, a retirement fund. Social Security is a safety net for retirees and people who become disabled. Workers pay into it to provide for those who are not working... and then when they are not working, they receive moneys paid into the fund by workers.
If you remove your monetary input from this system, and invest it (assuming that you really *are* an intelligent investor, and that market corrections and economic blips don't actually wipe out your gains), you may receive more money in the long run than Social Security would have paid you, but other people will get nothing.
Which is, after all, the real point of the Social Security privitization movement... a further dismantling of the social support structure that civilizations have built over time. Those with the means to invest will have a chance to retire, or to survive if they're disabled... everyone else gets screwed.
I refer interested readers to this 2001 article by Max Sawicky:
http://maxspeak.org/Research/federalbudget/upfromdebt.htm
First, the concept of Social Security's impending fiscal doom is strictly overrated. People who further this story tend to ignore any projections of growth in worker productivity; in addition, the problem would not exist if the government were able to pay back bonds purchased against the SS Trust Fund. This is possible when you have budget surpluses; when you run massive budget deficits, under the supply-side economic lunacies of Reaganomics and Dubyanomics, this becomes considerably more difficult.
Additionally, the comments about savvy investors beating Social Security's performance are a red herring... Social Security is not, nor was it ever intended to be, a retirement fund. Social Security is a safety net for retirees and people who become disabled. Workers pay into it to provide for those who are not working... and then when they are not working, they receive moneys paid into the fund by workers.
If you remove your monetary input from this system, and invest it (assuming that you really *are* an intelligent investor, and that market corrections and economic blips don't actually wipe out your gains), you may receive more money in the long run than Social Security would have paid you, but other people will get nothing.
Which is, after all, the real point of the Social Security privitization movement... a further dismantling of the social support structure that civilizations have built over time. Those with the means to invest will have a chance to retire, or to survive if they're disabled... everyone else gets screwed.
I refer interested readers to this 2001 article by Max Sawicky:
http://maxspeak.org/Research/federalbudget/upfromdebt.htm
R
Ronald R. Harbers
Guest
Peachmonkey, I say that the only folks that get that monthly Socialist payment are folks that never paid a dime!
P
PeachMonkey
Guest
Ronald R. Harbers said:
I can't tell from your syntax whether this is a statement of belief or a proposal.
If it's the former, it's patently false, and the latter, simply ridiculous.
R
Ronald R. Harbers
Guest
I'm always getting stiffed by second rates. I simply stand!
P
PeachMonkey
Guest
Ronald R. Harbers said:
More syntactical wizardry. I literally cannot discern what this means... is this an insult, a description of past problems, or something else entirely?
R
Ronald R. Harbers
Guest
Theft is Theft! I hate thieves!
P
PeachMonkey
Guest
Ronald R. Harbers said:
Is it your implication, then, that people who receive Social Security are thieves?
Since there's nothing criminal about it (see http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theft), and since you're just as entitled to it as every other American citizen, I'll do you the service of just assuming you're playing the troll rather than thinking you actually buy into that flawed line of reasoning.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #12
Peter G. Peterson states that our social security money is already spent. I think this may be the origin of the "thieves" statement.
Darksoul
Black Belt
-Which is one of many reasons I put money into an IRA account every month. Something real to use when the time comes, if life doesn't work me to death.
-"Well Doctor, his body is no longer of any use to the company. What should we do with him?"
-"Send the body to research and experimentation, I have no futher use for it. However, the brain is all mine. I can still make it 'work' for a few more years..."
-Bad science fiction aside, to anyone that can avoid counting on social security, do so. It wasn't meant to support people, simply to be a supplement to retirement funds, help those in need for the greater good of all. I wonder if the high ideas this nation is found on will be the end of it?
A---)
-"Well Doctor, his body is no longer of any use to the company. What should we do with him?"
-"Send the body to research and experimentation, I have no futher use for it. However, the brain is all mine. I can still make it 'work' for a few more years..."
-Bad science fiction aside, to anyone that can avoid counting on social security, do so. It wasn't meant to support people, simply to be a supplement to retirement funds, help those in need for the greater good of all. I wonder if the high ideas this nation is found on will be the end of it?
A---)
P
PeachMonkey
Guest
upnorthkyosa said:
"Our" social security money doesn't even exist. Again, future workers will (assuming the program survives) contribute to provide our social security benefits.
The threat to the system that you are alluding to is that the government frequently borrows from the social security trust fund, and given our nation's short-sighted taste for deficits and tax cuts, it's becoming increasingly unlikely that those bonds will be repaid.
This is not an issue of "government waste" vs "intelligent investing", as the privitization advocates like to paint it... it's a continuation of the fiscal conservative policy of stripping the social safety net for the benefit of the wealthy, at the cost of everyone else.
Phoenix44
Master of Arts
Peach Monkey gave a very good simple explanation of how Social Security works. It's not like an IRA. It's actually more like an insurance plan. It is also not like a "welfare" plan. People pay in, and their eventual benefit is, to a certain degree, proportional to what they pay in.
The implication that people who get Social Security are those that never put in a dime is either ignorant or just ludicrous. My parents worked their whole lives, and now they get SS. And they also had pension plans. No, they probably did not pay in as much as they will eventually take out, and that's why Kerry talked about an immediate multi-trillion dollar gaping hole if SS is privatized.
The Bush plan to "privatize" SS is very similar to his healthcare "plan." You work, you save (tax free), and you withdraw. It's a GREAT idea if you're wealthy. You get to save tons of tax free money. Then, when you fall and break your hip, you withdraw maybe $100K, and you pay your medical bills. No biggie. Plenty more where that came from.
I make a very decent living, but there's no way I could save enough--tax free or not--to pay for a hip fracture! Matter of fact, I don't know how I would have paid for my biopsies and lumpectomy last summer if I didn't have insurance--which incidentally I also paid dearly for. And I'm not sure, with rising expenses, I will be able to save enough for a retirement either, though I try.
What are you supposed to save if you earn $20,000/year and have a family? You can't possibly benefit from privatization and health care savings accounts.
We're Americans. Are we really THAT selfish? We're supposed to take care of each other. That's what Social Security does.
The implication that people who get Social Security are those that never put in a dime is either ignorant or just ludicrous. My parents worked their whole lives, and now they get SS. And they also had pension plans. No, they probably did not pay in as much as they will eventually take out, and that's why Kerry talked about an immediate multi-trillion dollar gaping hole if SS is privatized.
The Bush plan to "privatize" SS is very similar to his healthcare "plan." You work, you save (tax free), and you withdraw. It's a GREAT idea if you're wealthy. You get to save tons of tax free money. Then, when you fall and break your hip, you withdraw maybe $100K, and you pay your medical bills. No biggie. Plenty more where that came from.
I make a very decent living, but there's no way I could save enough--tax free or not--to pay for a hip fracture! Matter of fact, I don't know how I would have paid for my biopsies and lumpectomy last summer if I didn't have insurance--which incidentally I also paid dearly for. And I'm not sure, with rising expenses, I will be able to save enough for a retirement either, though I try.
What are you supposed to save if you earn $20,000/year and have a family? You can't possibly benefit from privatization and health care savings accounts.
We're Americans. Are we really THAT selfish? We're supposed to take care of each other. That's what Social Security does.
