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.
And that is why the FedGov has held meetings over the past several years about this.
Congress, the DOL and the new Consumer Protection Agency.
The gist of their meetings is that the government will take ownership and invest in Treasuries and in return guarantee you an annuity.
All you have to do is hand it over to them.
The DOL meeting was 3 days long.
And how is this substantially different from the system we have now?
And how is this substantially different from the system we have now?
Well they took your money for SS and look at that fund today.
And now they have myira if you want to hand over more money to them.
And the meetings were about taking over your 401K for you.
Do you think they'll do any better a job of it than the did with SS ?
I'm a younger person, and I would love to see SS move to some form a 401K matching system (the government would match up to x amount each year to what you put in; can be part of the employer provided 401 or Roth IRA plans to maximize the amount and power of compound interest). Leave the payroll tax on my generation for a few more years (along with changes to the benefits for the older generation) if you want to help build up the reserves for the older generation, but allow those under age x to switch to the new system and redirected their previously taxed income into these types of vehicles.
But that isn't a replacement for Social Security. In addition to providing retirement benefits, Social Security does other things too. It provides benefits to those who become disabled whether they have worked or not. It also pays survivor benefits to minor children of deceased people who paid into the system. Do you have a 401K plan that will replace those benefits too?
No one wants to talk about the obvious fixes to Social Security. I suggest following the outlines of the Simpson/Bowles Commission. We should:
1. Move to chained CPI as a the method of determining future increases (would lower them a bit).
2. Raise the ages at which benefits can be collected.
3. Gradually raise payroll taxes. Even a 1/4% increase a year over four years would make a big difference.
The ideas about ending or totally eliminating the program are silly and would be a disaster for this country. Unless, you don't mind seeing hordes of older people living on the street. The problem with turning Social Security into a big 401K account is that you have than shifted the risk of retirement onto retirees. Some will make a decent return on their money and some won't. The rate of return will vary depending on temporary economic conditions. That's not acceptable.
But that isn't a replacement for Social Security. In addition to providing retirement benefits, Social Security does other things too. It provides benefits to those who become disabled whether they have worked or not. It also pays survivor benefits to minor children of deceased people who paid into the system. Do you have a 401K plan that will replace those benefits too?
No one wants to talk about the obvious fixes to Social Security. I suggest following the outlines of the Simpson/Bowles Commission. We should:
1. Move to chained CPI as a the method of determining future increases (would lower them a bit).
2. Raise the ages at which benefits can be collected.
3. Gradually raise payroll taxes. Even a 1/4% increase a year over four years would make a big difference.
The ideas about ending or totally eliminating the program are silly and would be a disaster for this country. Unless, you don't mind seeing hordes of older people living on the street. The problem with turning Social Security into a big 401K account is that you have than shifted the risk of retirement onto retirees. Some will make a decent return on their money and some won't. The rate of return will vary depending on temporary economic conditions. That's not acceptable.
I didn't say we have to eliminate disability and survivor benefits. We can fund that--why does it have to chained to Social Security? My focus with Social Security is on the SSI. Disability is a separate issue (I do think disability requirements need to be tighten up).
We need to reduce payroll taxes, no increase them-especially on the employer's side. If you were to suggest removing the cap, I would consider that.
My proposal wouldn't call for privatizing social security benefits for those who are in their mid-40's and older...the existing system would remain.
Well they took your money for SS and look at that fund today.
And now they have myira if you want to hand over more money to them.
And the meetings were about taking over your 401K for you.
Do you think they'll do any better a job of it than the did with SS ?
No, I don't. But my question was "how is this substantially different from what we have now?". I don't see how investing long-term in treasuries and then annuitizing that savings at some point is going to give better results than the system we have right now. If you see something I do not, please enlighten me.
I would like to see the US consider adopting a system similar to that recently introduced in Britain. A single flat rate benefit based on x number of employment months/years, regardless of individual "contributions". The maximum benefit appears high enough to keep the old folks "off the streets" but is certainly not lavish ($1061 USD/mth?).
No, I don't. But my question was "how is this substantially different from what we have now?". I don't see how investing long-term in treasuries and then annuitizing that savings at some point is going to give better results than the system we have right now. If you see something I do not, please enlighten me.
This isn't an effort at Social Security Reform it is an attempt at 401K/403B reform and is on top of SS. It is taking YOUR currently private tax sheltered portfolio and making it government administered to protect you from yourself. Not meant for MathJak and many others. As long as it is optional the biggest beneficiary would be government assuring them a broad market of mandatory bond buyers.
i agree as well. i see no difference that is worthy of a change
OH it is a MAJOR difference my friend it is you turning your tax sheltered portfolio over to them to be managed by them and invested in Treasuries. No more need for the Newsletter.
OH it is a MAJOR difference my friend it is you turning your tax sheltered portfolio over to them to be managed by them and invested in Treasuries. No more need for the Newsletter.
Not only a problem investing in Treasuries but how much interest you will lose in the result. That on top of the fact that they will rob your money to pay for other government programs and bankrupt that fund too.
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.
