U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-13-2017, 09:03 AM
 
Location: Houston
19,125 posts, read 8,644,553 times
Reputation: 7314

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonyafd View Post
Since mortgage backed securities were rated triple A, and collapsed in 2008 perhaps you would be working into your seventies.
The fact is all they have to do is set up a Retirement 2060 account for anyone entering the workforce today. A balanced fund. Yes, there would have to be restrictions on risks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-14-2017, 05:49 AM
 
Location: Proxima Centauri
2,329 posts, read 961,359 times
Reputation: 2417
Quote:
Originally Posted by dothetwist View Post
These premiums rise according to laws passed decades ago. Why not ask your GOP Congress that's in charge now, to do something about it.
Fat chance as these repubs hate SS and hate Medicare. They want them to fail. Read Ryan's plan...privatize SS and put Medicare on a voucher system.
The Koch brothers are leading the charge with Rupert Murdoch's support in the war on Social Security. When you hear something negative about Social Security it originated from someone with a large payroll. The main problem that the very rich have with SS is that every time that their employees pay 6.2% of their pay into SS, they are too. Other problems that the rich may have with SS is that older workers no longer need to compete with younger workers for jobs. The resulting smaller work force drives up wages.

The next time that someone who is still wet behind the ears tells you that SS is a ponzi scheme, those reasons that I gave above are anchored in solid economics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2017, 06:13 AM
 
Location: Proxima Centauri
2,329 posts, read 961,359 times
Reputation: 2417
Some of you swear that private accounts are the way to go.
Remember this:
1. Private retirement accounts cannot be put into a trust. What this means is that the assets are exposed in a lawsuit including a divorce. The account is under your SS number.
2. There are no plans that universally require employers to contribute 6.2 percent of your earnings to a private plan.
3. Privatization has been the dream of employers everywhere because employer matching never seems to be discussed in any privatization plan.

While the strain on Social Security from people living longer is real, it was created for us and remains the best deal around.

Any time that you hear a rich person grousing about Social Security, remind them that SS is trickle down economics at it's best. Why do they object?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2017, 08:27 PM
 
Location: Houston
19,125 posts, read 8,644,553 times
Reputation: 7314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonyafd View Post
Some of you swear that private accounts are the way to go.
Remember this:
1. Private retirement accounts cannot be put into a trust. What this means is that the assets are exposed in a lawsuit including a divorce. The account is under your SS number.
2. There are no plans that universally require employers to contribute 6.2 percent of your earnings to a private plan.
3. Privatization has been the dream of employers everywhere because employer matching never seems to be discussed in any privatization plan.


Please, every single one of those issues can be addressed when SS is privatized.

When privatizing SS you can free any funds generated from lawsuits or bankruptcies. Just like IRA's are protected from bankruptcies.

You can require employers and employees to continue to withhold the percentage they do today.

And, as I stated earlier, you can minimize risk by limiting choices based primarily on age. With workers required to invest in more conservative investments as they age.

https://www.cato.org/publications/co...ity-privatized


From that link:

Quote:
Perhaps that is because the facts are neither Democratic nor Republican. Social Security is facing a serious financial crisis, running a shortfall as soon as 2016. In fact, Clinton warned that there were only three possible ways to reform Social Security: 1) raise taxes, 2) cut benefits, or 3) find a way to receive a higher rate of return through private investment. Payroll taxes are already so high and benefits so low that young workers receive a rate of return on their taxes of barely more than one percent, far below market returns. Raising taxes or cutting benefits will only make that bad deal worse.

At the same time, the other flaws of the current Social Security system are becoming increasingly apparent. The program penalizes African-Americans, women, and low-income workers. Benefits are not inheritable and workers have no legal property right to those benefits, leaving their retirement at the mercy of politicians.

Only the third option — private investment — solves all of those problems. It preserves Social Security’s solvency and increases returns to young workers while allowing workers to accumulate real and inheritable wealth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2017, 08:35 PM
 
41,545 posts, read 20,129,685 times
Reputation: 11859
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post
Anyone with any sense should have recognized years ago that Social Security was never intended to be the primary source of retirement funding.
That's beside the point. It has nothing to do with the problem at hand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2017, 08:36 PM
 
41,545 posts, read 20,129,685 times
Reputation: 11859
BTW ...Social Security will NOT be allowed to fail.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2017, 08:52 PM
 
2,788 posts, read 2,366,766 times
Reputation: 1545
The "trust fund" is just an IOU from the government to itself. Regardless of what happens to it we will continue to pay for social security in the same way we do now: with debt & taxes. Program will be fine and America will not stand for retirees who failed to save for themselves starving in the street. Taxes will rise and/or we'll have an explicit or inflationary default at some point, but the program itself is not at risk.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2017, 09:12 PM
 
20,003 posts, read 8,626,554 times
Reputation: 8723
Social security is a complex topic. Some other changes not mentioned here:
The % of income exempt from social security has changed VASTLY since its creation. With a massive transfer of wealth and income to the top. This means that less money is being earned under the cap (and susceptible to it) for a while now.

company pensions used to be FAR more common. Not so much these days. Part of that is the companies have shifted that burden over to social security.

Basically everybody wants people to retire, no one wants to pay for it.

The expectation that the individual shall now cover it, simply reduces far too many peoples income even further down....and for many down to the point of being unrealistic.

Welcome to the rich getting richer, and the poor being thrown further down.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2017, 09:18 PM
 
Location: Gone
22,514 posts, read 10,953,082 times
Reputation: 5031
The Republicans put the money from SS that the government "borrowed" yet? Maybe before discussing overhauling or reducing SS they should put back the money that was not theirs to begin with.
Oh, go ahead reduce SS by 25% and see your political end in the blink of an eye.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2017, 09:40 PM
 
Location: Houston
3,245 posts, read 1,802,051 times
Reputation: 1941
If Republicans even attempt to touch SS and MediCare in any harmful way they won't be able to get a politician within a hundred miles of any office for generations to come and they know it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top