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.
Nice try but I anticipate that the 62 year early benefit will be changed to 63 or 64 (or eliminated altogether), and the 65-66-67 brackets will be extended to 67-68-69, or something like that for people 50 and younger.
After having been against privatizing SS I am beginning to wonder if many of us wouldn't be better off it was privatized and the money ours as individuals and not ours collectively. There are to many radical ideas out there about changing SS. If it was privatized with individual accounts there SHOULD be no means testings. No future limitations based on employment pensions, no discussion about how to provide SS to those who didn't work (house wives etc). No issues about fair payouts not based on fair pay ins. Hopefully the amount not used would be transferable to heirs for their future SS accounts. I still like the idea of wealth at death being transferred to retirement accounts for your designated heirs. I guess the word Social that comes before Security is really short for Socialized Security.
I oppose suggestions that lean towards privatization of all or part of social security for these reasons:
1. Private investments are unpredictable. Some will win. Some will lose. Are we really willing to tell the "losers" they have to live the results even if those results are losing their home and living out on the street? I know that I am not.
2. The country needs a defined benefits retirement plan more than ever. Defined benefits plans have vanished in the private sector and are now largely only the privilege of government employees. Let's not dismantle SS--the last defined benefits plan out there.
3. I can see an argument that we should ask people to set some money aside in addition to their social security taxes. But, if we do that let's make that something on top or in addition to social security. The benefits are not that great anyway for a large number of recipients. You might sell me on a proposal to make it mandatory that everyone set up some kind of IRA, but this should be done with new money. Not money being currently paid for SS taxes.
4. There are some people who can't get past the notion that everyone ought to have their own account and its their own property, etc. Many of us have never viewed social security that way. Its simply a concept that if you pay your taxes if and when you reach a certain age you get a benefit. The whole thing is predicated on a certain percentage of potential recipients dying before they reach the eligibility age. Dead people don't need retirement benefits. It shouldn't be passed onto to a younger generation because these people are still working. The money in the fund should be used to pay retirement benefits, not to act as a windfall for younger generations.
I'd prefer not to "means test" social security benefits either. It converts the program from a retirement program to a welfare program. It would be among the last reform I'd seriously consider.
I oppose suggestions that lean towards privatization of all or part of social security for these reasons:
1. Private investments are unpredictable. Some will win. Some will lose. Are we really willing to tell the "losers" they have to live the results even if those results are losing their home and living out on the street? I know that I am not.
2. The country needs a defined benefits retirement plan more than ever. Defined benefits plans have vanished in the private sector and are now largely only the privilege of government employees. Let's not dismantle SS--the last defined benefits plan out there.
3. I can see an argument that we should ask people to set some money aside in addition to their social security taxes. But, if we do that let's make that something on top or in addition to social security. The benefits are not that great anyway for a large number of recipients. You might sell me on a proposal to make it mandatory that everyone set up some kind of IRA, but this should be done with new money. Not money being currently paid for SS taxes.
4. There are some people who can't get past the notion that everyone ought to have their own account and its their own property, etc. Many of us have never viewed social security that way. Its simply a concept that if you pay your taxes if and when you reach a certain age you get a benefit. The whole thing is predicated on a certain percentage of potential recipients dying before they reach the eligibility age. Dead people don't need retirement benefits. It shouldn't be passed onto to a younger generation because these people are still working. The money in the fund should be used to pay retirement benefits, not to act as a windfall for younger generations.
I'd prefer not to "means test" social security benefits either. It converts the program from a retirement program to a welfare program. It would be among the last reform I'd seriously consider.
With out commenting on your points I will say that part of what got me thinking that way was all of the campaign ads with seniors saying don't touch MY Social Security as if it was really theirs. Hmmm maybe we should make it OUR Social Security.
The following quotes from this thought provoking article Pensions: Angry populists' next target - Sep. 30, 2010 by Nina Easton in Fortune puts into some perspective defined benefit pension or government managed retirement programs.
"In these dog days of our Great Recession, no one is feeling especially lenient toward taxpayer-funded fat cats. But what if that "fat cat" isn't some Wall Street banker (most of whom have paid back government loans with interest) but rather the retired small-town city manager in Northern California living on $261,000 or the 40-year-old former New York City cop who gets to collect $100,000 a year for the rest of his life"
"In August the Los Angeles City Council learned that pensions and health benefits for retirees will gobble up a third of the city's general fund -- up from 8% -- in just five years. In Orange County the chief executive predicted that pension requirements in 2014 will consume about 84% of the county's law-enforcement payroll. The underlying threat? Lay off current cops to pay for the vacations of retired officers."
"The story will only get worse because pensions nationwide are underfunded."
Bottom line they are a disaster! Why should you ever get out more than the value of the contribution you put in?
Last edited by PatMil; 11-03-2010 at 01:43 PM..
Reason: Correction
There are lots of rumors and even bils by the thousands that are introduced and never see the light in congresses hallways. What shoud worry people is really if social security is not changed and allowed to bascailly go bankraupt really.If you realise that three programs SS;medicare and medicaid makeup 2/3rds of spending and is increasing every year not doing somethnig will result in a crisis.
Fro what I am seeing they really aren't hiring the young in any numbers. With healthcare increased cost I don't see the fututre of employment beig that good for younger workers because they are 70% of cost. What company actuarties are now figuring is the cost of a employeee from hire to death in such things as healthcare cost because it effects their future liabilties under the new heathcare law, That effects their abvilty to rise money as it goes aginst liabilties.I know many compoanies that have put in ploace hiring freezes of new empolo9yees until they can wrap their hands around this issue if they are adotping the new mandates in the bill because of the grandfather clause it contains.Other will not and start figuring towards 2014 in employment numbers and liabilty.
With most of the long-term unemployed being over 50, I think that the early retirement age, should be lowered to 52. Why wait until you're 62, to start collecting Social Security. If you're a taxpayer, and have paid Social Security taxes for decades, then shouldn't you have the option to start collect Social Security benefits, at 52?
Since age discrimination in the workplace is so widespread, and with older workers, having such a hard time finding employment now, then lowering the retirement age to 52, might be a viable solution. Feel free to give me your thoughts and opinions, on this issue.
Your questions regarding entitlement programs amaze me. Where do you think the government gets it's money? The government doesn't have money, the money comes from from the tax payers. If people retire early, you will have less tax payers and less money to put into a program that is already collapsing on itself. Next question.
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.
Pensions: Angry populists' next target
