Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again economic education is just not there. Period. If you allow nationwide investing you create huge risk of disaster of having the economy and the quality of life we have now plummeting.
One possible option I could see is modify SS into a hybrid long-term adjusting index tracked fund of a combination of the SP500 and Treasuries. Then throw in an annuity caveat to have a guaranteed minimum income (which would cover up to an X amount of the fund, and anything over X is bonus for you).
Your saying that people are too stupid to manage their own retirement, hence the Govt should make the choice for them. I am saying people should have more of a choice. I would like an option at a higher return, realizing the risks I would take.
Keep investing on your own in addition to paying into Social Security. I do it.
ANY argument that social security isn't needed went straight out the window when so many who were ready to retire the end of the last decade suddenly found decades of investments worth diddly squat.
Why is pragmatism and REALITY such a foreign concept to the American people?
I am already doing both, but again, I don't like -
1. Guaranteed SS retirement benefits, but would rather have a defined contribution plan
2. Ability to manage and move around as I see fit (or at least a portion of it)
3. Ability to keep Govt from coming back and changing the rules (means testing, increasing age, etc.)
I am already doing both, but again, I don't like -
1. Guaranteed SS retirement benefits, but would rather have a defined contribution plan
2. Ability to manage and move around as I see fit (or at least a portion of it)
3. Ability to keep Govt from coming back and changing the rules (means testing, increasing age, etc.)
3 is a necessity and is why SS has issues. At the current rate of medical knowledge growth, there is a very good chance that the life span of people who live a healthy life can well exceed 100 and maybe into 120. If some of this current DNA research pans out, theoratically even longer. Combine that with technology providing unparalleled productivity gains, people will be able to work much longer then before.
Even at a retirement age of 70, if people end of living for another 30 to 50 years, it will quickly drain SS if there is not enough people paying in to cover that (ha!)
3 is a necessity and is why SS has issues. At the current rate of medical knowledge growth, there is a very good chance that the life span of people who live a healthy life can well exceed 100 and maybe into 120. If some of this current DNA research pans out, theoratically even longer. Combine that with technology providing unparalleled productivity gains, people will be able to work much longer then before.
Even at a retirement age of 70, if people end of living for another 30 to 50 years, it will quickly drain SS if there is not enough people paying in to cover that (ha!)
Well then, instead of having young generations paying for future generations, allow those of us contributing to maintain control away from Govt....in a seperate acount that the Govt can't touch..
I would hate to contribute and at age 70 realize there are not enough people contributing to pay for my retirement...
Oh, my PhD is in Biology....it will be awhile before anyting related to telomere research allows us to live to be 120 on average, although disease prvention will help in the short term...
Well then, instead of having young generations paying for future generations, allow those of us contributing to maintain control away from Govt....in a seperate acount that the Govt can't touch..
I would hate to contribute and at age 70 realize there are not enough people contributing to pay for my retirement...
Oh, my PhD is in Biology....it will be awhile before anyting related to telomere research allows us to live to be 120 on average, although disease prvention will help in the short term...
I was more referencing my generation (under 35) who will have to "worry" about medical breakthroughs. I would not be shocked at all in 40 years if some of those numbers I put out are valid.
And again, financial education is not there to support individual accounts. Why you may make a lot more money, in the end it may be worth a lot LESS when normalized because the overall economy's health is not good and maybe even terrible. People are too used to SS being there that no other form of educating the populace has been provided (no real demand outside of finance). The only other option in the short term you could do besides SS is provide heavily regulated "choices" like a heavily constrained 401K with "rules" (e.g., no more then 30% in certain fund and you only get 5 funds to look at). I don't see either being viable option for what you want, and why I sympathize as I know I could also do a lot better, looking at the big picture long-term, this country just couldn't handle it; just go look at the current retirement savings outside of SS and it becomes clear pretty fast.
It seems to me (I'm 31) and a lot of people I know, that people under about 35 have no expectation of social security and Medicare being around when they reach retirement age. Because of this, we seem to have much less of an issue with people touching them and aren't really as concerned about Paul Ryan's plan as people a bit older than ourselves. This seems to apply even to those who don't otherwise support the Republicans. Is it me just being weird or does anybody else notice this too?
You write this post as if Ryan's plan only has to do with Medicare and Social Security. Actually, the Ryan Plan also lowers taxes for the wealthy; eliminates taxes on capital gains and interest and dividends -- basically, all the forms of income the very wealthy get. That means the taxes of the very rich will be near zero.
Next, it raises taxes on the middle class and working poor by eliminating deductions that they use.
Then, it cuts trillions in social programs.
After all of that, it still raises the deficit beyond current law.
Do you think that's a good policy?
If you assume Ryan’s tax plan would not be paid for, then it only raises 15.5 percent of GDP in revenue, and Ryan’s plan is the single most fiscally irresponsible plan on the graph.
...
At the very least, people should know that when they hear about the Ryan plan’s deficit reduction, those numbers are assuming that Ryan, who has thus far refused to name even one tax break that he would get rid of, has either eliminated almost every expenditure in the tax code, including the capital gains tax break and the home mortgage interest deduction, or he’s sacrificed his tax cuts.
Let me also note that the problem with Medicare has nothing to do with anything unique to Medicare. The problem is rising medical costs, which effect private insurance companies exactly the same way they effect Medicare. So, if one concedes that Medicare is "unsustainable," as Ryan asserts, then private health insurance is unsustainable also.
I'm under 35. Frankly, Ryan's plans are not good for anyone unless you're wealthy: Be it social security, taxes, deduction removals, medicare/medicaid.... anything that benefit the middle class the most. His plan to "fix" social security will invariably include gutting the program that is single handedly responsible for lifting and keeping millions and millions of seniors out of poverty.
How do we know this? Because Ryan is quite literally a reverse Robin Hood.
PAY ATTENTION AMERICANS, because these neo-feudalists are trying to fleece you:
The House Republican budget for the 2013 fiscal year, passed by the House in June, would raise taxes by $1,358 for jointly-filing households earning between $50,000 and $100,000, assuming the additional income is taxed at a 10 percent rate, according to a report published earlier this summer by the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, authored by its chairman, Casey.
Households with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000 would see their taxes increase by $2,681, the Joint Economic Committee said.
The committee reported Ryan's budget plan would give the richest Americans -- those who make over $1 million -- a tax break of about $300,000.
Oh, yeah, and proposals are to further REDUCE capital gains income tax rate to ZERO!!!
A hero for America!!!!! [throw up]
I agree with this. I'm 33 and would rather keep SS and hope that it is around when I do retire. I think a lot about retirement (it is a dream of mine!) and even though half of me believes SS won't be around, the other half believes it will so I would rather just salvage SS versus taking the money and putting it into the market and take a risk on losing it right when I'm ready to retire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
Keep investing on your own in addition to paying into Social Security. I do it.
ANY argument that social security isn't needed went straight out the window when so many who were ready to retire the end of the last decade suddenly found decades of investments worth diddly squat.
Why is pragmatism and REALITY such a foreign concept to the American people?
I agree with this as well. I like some things about Ryan's plan, but honestly, I have paid into SS for a long time (I've worked since I was a teenager so nearly 20 years of payments made and I already have enough to get a pretty substantial amount based on the mailings I get yearly from SS). I don't want to lose all that money and the amount I've paid will probably already cover a significant piece of my retirement finances. I know a lot of people who, unlike me, don't save much as they don't have much income for anything other than regular day to day expenses and they would rather keep SS to and they are also under 35. I think more younger people, especially those 25 and up would rather have SS than take a chance on losing everything in the markets.
SS is unsustainable as it currently exists. That is a FACT. You can ignore it, but the fact remains the same. Privatization may not be the answer, but it's a better one than sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen to the facts.
All you seniors already drawing SS or close to doing so have worked for your benefits and deserve to get them. But some of you don't seem to care that your kids and grandkids will one day be at the same place and they won't get what they worked for and contributed to. That's not OK.
Is anyone willing to help right the ship or are we all just going to insist on getting our share while watching it sink?
Be interesting to take a generational poll about SS. In some relation, there has been some studies lately that higher number of Boomer's compared to other generations (Greatest, X, and Y) don't believe in leaving anything for their children, either in spending it all on themselves or giving it away.
So I wonder what the %s of keeping SS long term solvent would look like if we listed it by Greatest, Boomer, X, and Y.
SS is unsustainable as it currently exists. That is a FACT. You can ignore it, but the fact remains the same. Privatization may not be the answer, but it's a better one than sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen to the facts.
All you seniors already drawing SS or close to doing so have worked for your benefits and deserve to get them. But some of you don't seem to care that your kids and grandkids will one day be at the same place and they won't get what they worked for and contributed to. That's not OK.
Is anyone willing to help right the ship or are we all just going to insist on getting our share while watching it sink?
Just follow my three "I" plan I posted earlier and thats a good start.
Question is if you do cancel SS, who gets screwed the most? Where is the cutoff? Do you say everyone over 55 gets full, 45 gets 75%, 35 gets 50%, everyone else 25%. Any future payments dont go into the system? It isn't an easy question politcally to answer with a "sweeping overhaul."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
