Social Security Solutions (wage, ethic, health care, politicians)

[Spaten_Drinker]

Originally Posted by Glitch

Then you must earn a poverty level salary if you expect Social Security to replace 80% of it. I have been working for 46 years and have earned a six-digit income for half that time, yet I will be lucky to see 20% of my current income replaced by Social Security. Even then, both you and I will have been paid every penny we have contributed our entire working lives, plus interest, within the first five years of receiving Social Security benefits. After that Social Security ceases to be an "entitlement" and becomes "welfare."

SS was intended to go to your family so they can take care of you in your old age. It was not intended to support anyone on their own.

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by borregokid

Chile doesnt support a massive Department of Defense and VA. I mention VA because its up to 150 billion and along with Defense we are talking about 700 billion dollars per year. Thats more than $2,000 per year for every man, woman and child. I dont think the Republican base has any interest in reducing the spending for those programs. Ask the Repulican base would they rather be like Chile or support the current Defense-VA budget?

Sorry but, defense spending is NOT the problem. You ARE aware that Defense has already had large reductions?

There is enough in waste fraud and abuse across ALL fed departments to more then cover the costs.

Your hatred for anything with an R in it has you blinded.

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by Glitch

The only way out of those Social Security quagmire is to allow people to manage their own Social Security Accounts.

Those who want to remain on the government program, can. Those who want to invest their Social Security contributions in the private sector, can. Those who want to do both, can.

Every individual contributor would know their own Social Security balance and how it was invested.

I would wager, like in Chile's case, within a decade only a very small percentage of people will remain on the government Social Security program. Meanwhile, with the Social Security investments in the private sector by the overwhelming majority will cause the economy to boom like it never has before. A booming economy also produces a significant increase in revenue for local, State, and the federal governments.

As it stands now, Social Security is the single largest federal expenditure, accounting for 34% of the total federal budget, and growing.

"Social Security is the single largest federal expenditure".

Because the gov't TOOK the surplus SS took in and spent it leaving IOU's in place of the money.

Since 2010 SS didn't take in enough to pay out it's obligations and had to "cash in" IOU's.

We are borrowing money to pay back the 'IOUs".

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by Quick Enough

"Social Security is the single largest federal expenditure".

Because the gov't TOOK the surplus SS took in and spent it leaving IOU's in place of the money.

Since 2010 SS didn't take in enough to pay out it's obligations and had to "cash in" IOU's.

We are borrowing money to pay back the 'IOUs".

Exactly right. Since 1968 all Social Security revenues have been part of the General Fund, for Congress to spend as they see fit.

[Volobjectitarian]

Only realistic solution - let inevitable mathematics crush Social Security and Medicare under their own weight.

Nothing other than that will ever happen because a plurality of voters wants everything to stay the same, and politicians only do what keeps them in office.

Even the Tea Party people refuse to go after either of our two biggest federal expenditures, and most everyone falls under the heading of "I worked my whole life, paid into it, therefore I get mine + interest before you touch anything." Since this group is constantly recycling and adding more people, that will always be the case. The aging population is growing faster than the supporting population, and the use of the SS trust in the general fund + the addition of SSDI in the 60s + the retirement of the Baby Boom = bad juju for the US. In 10 years, SS and Medicare alone will be half of every dollar the federal government spends. In 20 years, SS + Medicare + interest on debt will be 75% of the budget.

The math is both exponential and inevitable. Our lack of political will will weaken us economically, and some outside force - be it some global market depression, act of aggression (economic or military), or something outside the US government's ability to coerce/threaten/control - will bring it crashing down, thus forcing either scrap/rebuild, or dramatic reform, or just straight ruin.

This is where giving away free stuff gets you eventually. History is very complete and detailed on the matter.

[Rush99]

give the people the option to control their retirement in the private sector. The younger workers are getting screwed in the current system. They won't get anything close in what they government took out by force.

Democrats will never allow that.

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian

Only realistic solution - let inevitable mathematics crush Social Security and Medicare under their own weight.

Only one problem with that solution - Mathematics does apply as long as government can print all the money they could ever want.

I have been contributing to Social Security and MediCare/MedicAid for 46 years, and I would love to see them both abolished tomorrow. I would lose out, but the nation would win in the long run. However, that will never happen. The only way to ween the public off the government's teat is to provide them with realistic alternatives that far outweigh the benefits they get from government.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by michiganmoon

What about this idea here - a government sponsored annuity program:

Government control is unacceptable.

An annuity based program is something I originated here on C-D about 7 years ago. You won't find any mention of it anywhere except here on C-D, so I guess it's comforting to know that people's brains are finally growing.

As I have said repeatedly, there is no possible way to justify "federal" government involvement.

The "federal" government does nothing but create and perpetuate poverty and hardship upon people, and that is best seen here...

Two people, each receiving $1,100/month in Social Security Disability or Retirement....

equals $2092.95 per month in Cincinnati
equals $761.07. per month in San Fransisco

....due to the differences in Cost-of Living and Purchasing Power.

How can anyone possibly justify that? That is insane, immoral, unethical, disgusting, perverted.

Two families of four each receiving $400/month in Food Stamps except that $400 buys....

$578.13 worth of food in Cincinnati.
$210.23 worth of food in San Fransisco

....due to the differences in Cost-of Living and Purchasing Power.

Again, that is perverted.

This is the same government that has no problem using your taxes to subsidize the rent for a single person with no dependents who has an annual income of $53,490 or $26.75/hour in one part of the US....

...but then tells a single person with no dependents living in another part of the US that $9,101 or $4.55/hour is too much income, and they don't qualify to have the tax-payer subsidize their rent.

Those grotesque injustices can be eliminated only by the States. The purpose of the State is to exercise oversight, auditing and review of the program, to protect the People, which is the whole point of government in the first place.

Originally Posted by michiganmoon

-Your payroll taxes go into an individual fund attached to your name. Your contributions are specifically recorded and will help determine your benefit.

That is how the system is set up now. Well, actually, you have Social Security Lite with 1/3 less bureaucrats. If you want individual funds, you'll have to expand the bureaucracy to manage those accounts.

Originally Posted by michiganmoon

-You can choose to put in more money into the system - for more benefits later on.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe you can do the same with Social Security.

Originally Posted by michiganmoon

-You would have "some choice" as to how the money is invested.

That defeats the entire purpose of Social Security.

The whole point of Social Security, is that you get an a pension plan or employer-based plan, uh, maybe depending your choice of career and employer; and you save and invest for yourself.

Both of those schemes --- your employer-plan and your own investments -- are insured through Social Security.

If your pension plan collapses, if your 401(k) tanks, if your personal savings are seized by creditors and your personal investments taken for alimony by your ex-spouse, then at least you have Social Security....insurance.

And like insurance, if your Ford Pinto burns up, you get another Ford Pinto, not a Bentley or a Cadillac.

Originally Posted by michiganmoon

-At least 50% (but up to 100%) of your money must be invested in a Government Backed Fund that buys US Treasuries,

The Social Security Trust Fund is US Treasuries.

One of the main reasons to privatize the Social Security Insurance scheme is to avoid double taxation.

You paid taxes once through FICA, and now you're going to be taxed yet again to convert the Treasury Notes back into cash.

So, what you're going to buy Treasury Notes at 0% interest and then have your taxes raised to convert the Treasury Notes back into cash?

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

Originally Posted by michiganmoon

-If a worker dies before receiving a certain amount of benefits based on the worker's individual fund, then that worker's heirs will receive a lump sum. This will allow the lower and middle classes to have more opportunity to pass wealth to other generations.

The purpose of insurance is not to pass wealth onto other generations.

If you want to fix Social Security, then get the "federal" government out, turn it over to the States, and allow the States to exercise oversight, audit and review for a privatized insurance system.

A person making minimum wage all of their life will get $763/month in Social Security benefits. That person is currently paying $96/month in FICA payroll taxes.

If we privatize Social Security....opting to implement what effectively amounts to an "end-of-life-insurance" policy then a minimum wage worker would now be paying $21/month for $500,000 worth of retirement benefits, and would have a monthly retirement income of $1,660.

I've been waiting for years for any Liberal to explain how it is in the best interest of a minimum wage worker to pay $96/month to the "federal" government to get $763 in monthly benefits, instead of paying $21/month to a private insurance company under State-control to get a benefit of 1,660/month.

Again, the role of the State is to set a minimum threshold, allow people to choose their own private "retirement insurance" and then be protected by the State who would, for example, prevent idiots from buying C-rated bonds and below.

As an example, the current minimum threshold in Ohio would be $180,000.

Why?

Because the poverty level is only $6,000 for one person. You can rent, buy food, pay your electric, natural gas, phone, and other basic needs on only that.

For California, the minimum threshold currently would be ~$700,000. Why? The poverty level in California is $22,000 per year.

Again, one reason you need "retirement insurance" under the aegis of government, is asset protection.

Your Social Security benefits cannot be attached or seized by private creditors.

Originally Posted by michiganmoon

What do you guys think?

I think someone has come up with a clever way to force Americans to buy US Treasury Notes, since foreigners will not be buying them in the future.

The US Treasury Corps: We're looking for a few good suckers....

Mircea

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian

most everyone falls under the heading of "I worked my whole life, paid into it, therefore I get mine + interest before you touch anything."

They're idiots, then, because most people LOSE money on SS. They won't even get what they paid into it, let alone additional interest.

As recently as 1985, workers at every income level could retire and expect to get more in benefits than they paid in Social Security taxes, though they didn't do quite as well as their parents and grandparents.

Not anymore.

A married couple retiring last year after both spouses earned average lifetime wages paid about $598,000 in Social Security taxes during their careers. They can expect to collect about $556,000 in benefits, if the man lives to 82 and the woman lives to 85, according to a 2011 study by the Urban Institute, a Washington think tank.

Social Security benefits are progressive, so most low-income workers retiring today still will get slightly more in benefits than they paid in taxes. Most high-income workers started getting less in benefits than they paid in taxes in the 1990s, according to data from the Social Security Administration.

Social Security is a bad deal for most workers - AP

[T-310]

Originally Posted by michiganmoon

There are many possible ways to fix social security as discussed in this article here. The fact of the matter, to keep our current system we would most likely have to do a combination of their 12 ideas.

The vast majority of people want to keep some form of social security, however it is a touchy subject as people rely on social security in their elderly ages or other vulnerable times.

It is so highly politicized that we have refused to fix it. As fixing it will open yourself up to political attacks as you either raise taxes, reduce benefits, or a little of both. Bill Clinton mentioned privatizing social security and quickly dropped it, as did Bush. Paul Ryan was portrayed as shoving Granny off a cliff for a proposal that wouldn't effect anyone currently 55 or older.

We need to move past these petty attacks in order to find a solution. The longer we wait to fix social security, the more painful it will be.


What about this idea here - a government sponsored annuity program:

-Your payroll taxes go into an individual fund attached to your name. Your contributions are specifically recorded and will help determine your benefit.

-You can choose to put in more money into the system - for more benefits later on.

-You would have "some choice" as to how the money is invested.

-At least 50% (but up to 100%) of your money must be invested in a Government Backed Fund that buys US Treasuries, FDIC ensured CDs, State bonds, etc... This would be a conservative and reliable investment, although it wouldn't be expected to have a massive return.

-Other Investment Options would make up anywhere from 0 to 50% of your money based on your own desire. These could include things like an S&P 500 index fund, Physical US Gold and Silver Eagle coins (like they do in the IRAs now), US Company Bond Fund, and a Total US Stock Index Fund. This is open for debate, but prefer to keep it in US investments.

-Workers could see their funds grow over time and may learn about saving and investing -- this may lead to better choices through the education that the program would inherently provide. At least a few people would be more likely to open an IRA, brokerage account or other savings after learning more about it from this system.

-Workers could retire at any time. There is no magical age requirement. However, retiring very young would mean that you have less of a benefit.

-The government has an open and transparent formula where you enter in your age as X years AND your fund's dollar amount of Y and then if you choose to retire you essentially purchase an annuity and get a guaranteed benefit of Z dollars for the rest of your life. You can monitor this and better plan for retirement on your terms.

-Once you choose to retire your investment options no longer matter and your individual fund's dollar amount isn't subject to your investments anymore -- the government takes your money and buys you a government backed annuity. You get a set monthly benefit for life.

-If a worker dies before receiving a certain amount of benefits based on the worker's individual fund, then that worker's heirs will receive a lump sum. This will allow the lower and middle classes to have more opportunity to pass wealth to other generations.

What do you guys think?

Bush wanted to do something similar but got shouted down by LSD's who like using SS funds as their private slush fund.