No social security check anymore (Al Gore, Congress, generation, Baby Boomers)

[saganista]

Originally Posted by amichel

I think you know that that is not what I said. It's not as if I don't invest. What I meant, to explain it further, is that I would gladly forfeit my rights to collect social security and continue to pay two-thirds of what I am paying now, so long as I could invest just one-third of my current payment privately. Skipping over parts of what I wrote and choosing just certain things to comment on makes for misleading posts.

I copied in the entirety of your post. Nothing was skipped over. Nothing was specially selected. As to your revised proposal, it would be a terrible deal for you. Additionally, it would require that the funds for you be taken away from someone else -- an old person, an orphan, a disabled person. Or if that seemed unfair, then those funds would have to be borrowed from the public. Indeed, even though Bush never put forward a plan for SS reform in 2005, the transition costs of the sort of carve-out privatization plans he was talking about were in the neighborhood of $2.6 trillion of such borrowing. What is the point of that? The entire shortfall in SS calculated to infinity is only $3.7 trillion. Meanwhile, the cost of making the Bushie tax cuts permanent is $11.6 trillion. Does it seem like we ought to be able to work out a deal in there somewhere?

[ArizonaBear]

Something that has been forgotten was when Social Security came about ca. 1936; it was basically a gamble that a person would live long enough to claim it.

Life expectancy at birth back then was ca. age 60 and that was when the benefits kicked in.

Well; with life expectancy at about age 75 and climbing and SS still doling out $$$ @ age 65........what is wrong with this picture?

Yes; the older folks and some of the younger once will have this 'you-owe-me' mentality if SS was adjusted to match the altered demographics.

Oh well. Life ain't always fair-------I know from personal experience.

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by saganista

Additionally, it would require that the funds for you be taken away from someone else --

On the other hand, NO ONE will have their funds used for me - not in any way so - the savings would only be multiplied if more people withdrew from SS

[grew-up-3rd-culture]

Originally Posted by saganista

I copied in the entirety of your post. Nothing was skipped over. Nothing was specially selected. As to your revised proposal, it would be a terrible deal for you. Additionally, it would require that the funds for you be taken away from someone else -- an old person, an orphan, a disabled person. Or if that seemed unfair, then those funds would have to be borrowed from the public. Indeed, even though Bush never put forward a plan for SS reform in 2005, the transition costs of the sort of carve-out privatization plans he was talking about were in the neighborhood of $2.6 trillion of such borrowing. What is the point of that? The entire shortfall in SS calculated to infinity is only $3.7 trillion. Meanwhile, the cost of making the Bushie tax cuts permanent is $11.6 trillion. Does it seem like we ought to be able to work out a deal in there somewhere?

You totally lost me...

[amichel]

Originally Posted by saganista

I copied in the entirety of your post. Nothing was skipped over. Nothing was specially selected. As to your revised proposal, it would be a terrible deal for you. Additionally, it would require that the funds for you be taken away from someone else -- an old person, an orphan, a disabled person. Or if that seemed unfair, then those funds would have to be borrowed from the public. Indeed, even though Bush never put forward a plan for SS reform in 2005, the transition costs of the sort of carve-out privatization plans he was talking about were in the neighborhood of $2.6 trillion of such borrowing. What is the point of that? The entire shortfall in SS calculated to infinity is only $3.7 trillion. Meanwhile, the cost of making the Bushie tax cuts permanent is $11.6 trillion. Does it seem like we ought to be able to work out a deal in there somewhere?

Here we go again. Again, I think you misunderstood what I said. The funds "for me" don't belong to someone else, therefore, they are not being taken from them. This is money that I am paying!

Terrible deal? What is going on right now is what I call a terrible deal.

[grew-up-3rd-culture]

Originally Posted by ArizonaBear

it was basically a gamble that a person would live long enough to claim it. Life expectancy at birth back then was ca. age 60 and that was when the benefits kicked in. Well; with life expectancy at about age 75 and climbing and SS still doling out $$$ @ age 65........what is wrong with this picture?

Let's vote that benefits can't be claimed until 70 years of age, and let's extend the retirement age beyond 62. Your thoughts.

[grew-up-3rd-culture]

Originally Posted by amichel

Terrible deal? What is going on right now is what I call a terrible deal.

Amen, baby! †

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by amichel

Here we go again. Again, I think you misunderstood what I said. The funds "for me" don't belong to someone else, therefore, they are not being taken from them. This is money that I am paying!

Terrible deal? What is going on right now is what I call a terrible deal.

I think the disconnect here is that your funds are used to pay the benefits of others receiving SS today, while folks not yet born will have their SS withholds paying your SS benefit (if you are fortunate enough to reach the age to collect).

[amichel]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

I think the disconnect here is that your funds are used to pay the benefits of others receiving SS today, while folks not yet born will have their SS withholds paying your SS benefit (if you are fortunate enough to reach the age to collect).

Yes. I don't believe social security will be around that long.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by ArizonaBear

Something that has been forgotten was when Social Security came about ca. 1936; it was basically a gamble that a person would live long enough to claim it. Life expectancy at birth back then was ca. age 60 and that was when the benefits kicked in. Well; with life expectancy at about age 75 and climbing and SS still doling out $$$ @ age 65........what is wrong with this picture?

Well, maybe the fact that you left out the part about payroll taxes in 1936 being 1% of the first $450 of covered wages? And come to think of it, you didn't note that to retire on full SS at 65, you'd have to have been born before 1938. If you were born after 1959, the age is currently 67.