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.
I read today that in order for SS/Medicare to be funded adequately, the current rate of 15.6% would have to be increased to 27% immediately.
American labor is already over-priced. Is it realistic to think that any company would hire Americans when the cost of labor is going to be facing such an extraordinary jump in price?
Why is a state-sponsored retirement program that's proving itself to be so destructive to business still demanded by the electorate?
On Charlie Rose the other night, one of the big wigs of Cerebrus stated dead when discussion of raising taxes came up,"America isn't the only place to make money."
If you have the choice between losing your job to China vs. losing your government-sponsored retirement, which would you choose? Which do you choose? Why?
I think the government fails to realize, the more they tax us, the less likely we are going to go out and spend. And, if we do go out - We are going to the use plastic. Which just puts us in a bigger rut.
Also, Do we -really- need to support veterans? I mean, lol. free education for serving your country? What an incentive. You should want to join the army because you want to. Or, we can just throw the prisoners on the front line. I mean, hello. It's better than us paying for their living in some state prison.
(I just went from veterans, to joining the army to prisoners. I'm all over tonight. XD.)
Why is a state-sponsored retirement program that's proving itself to be so destructive to business still demanded by the electorate?
You may call it "state-sponsored" and it is...however, it is not "state-paid". I just need to look at my pay stub to figure that out. I have worked 42 years, have another 1-2 to go, and have paid into that "state-sponsored" program for all 42 of those years. Doubt if I will live long enough to get all that money back, let alone the purchasing power that has been lost in 42 years!
I think a better question is: why do we tolerate Congress getting its sticky fingers into the SocSec fund??? Have you forgotten what George Bush said just a few years ago, when he wanted to privatize SocSec? He came right out and said , "There is no trust fund...there is just IOU's".
hopefully, when social security fails, enough people will be fed up with the slave driving federal bureaucracy and join the second American revolution.
You may call it "state-sponsored" and it is...however, it is not "state-paid". I just need to look at my pay stub to figure that out. I have worked 42 years, have another 1-2 to go, and have paid into that "state-sponsored" program for all 42 of those years. Doubt if I will live long enough to get all that money back, let alone the purchasing power that has been lost in 42 years!
I think a better question is: why do we tolerate Congress getting its sticky fingers into the SocSec fund??? Have you forgotten what George Bush said just a few years ago, when he wanted to privatize SocSec? He came right out and said , "There is no trust fund...there is just IOU's".
Wonderful. Freakin' wonderful.
LOL. No, you're never going to get the money back.
Be real conservative with it. Start with no savings; add $3,000/yr (approximately what a low income earner would be putting in per year including employers cut or self-employed); for 42 years; at 6%; and drawing on it for 25yrs... that's over $40K per year you'd be getting back... $35K/yr if you live another 40yrs... or you could just walk away on your first day of retirement with half a million dollars... or leave it to your family when you die.
The thing that is frustrating to me about SS is that it is such a politicized issue that no one is willing to do anything about it, even if there is a very clear solution. I am an economist. When I was in graduate school, we had [SIZE=2]a workshop from a woman who was on the commission on social security. When Bush was elected, he started a committee to make a suggestion about what to do about social security. By 2018, the payroll social security tax won't cover the payments made. In, I think, 75 years or so, the deficit will be 10 trillion. For reference, that is what GDP is now.
This problem could be solved if the benefits were indexed for inflation. Now they use a wage index based on the distribution of workers in 1973-1977. Of course, we have much better data to use, but thats government efficiency for you!! This weird system means that if we have real wage growth because of productivity, someone who makes the same real wage (wage after accounting for inflation) as someone who retired 10 years earlier, will get more social security benefits. Clearly, that makes no sense. So they proposed a way to not cut benefits or push back the retirement age, or raise taxes, and bring the system into balance by indexing for inflation. Of course, it probably will not make it through Congress, because no politicians prefer to keep it messed up so they can blame the opposing party. [/SIZE]
Operating deficit? It's not possible for the deficit to be that large, right? The country would wholly crash-- riots in the street, property rights unenforced, starvation in the streets type doom and gloom?
The debt, currently, doesn't include SS, is that correct? They use some smoke and mirrors to cover that debt?
Why is a state-sponsored retirement program that's proving itself to be so destructive to business still demanded by the electorate?
Because most of us have had elderly family members who have depended on SS. My grandfather served in Korea and worked 22 years in a paper mill, and then he had a severe stroke and was disabled. The early retirement wasn't enough so he depended on social security.
Because most of us have had elderly family members who have depended on SS. My grandfather served in Korea and worked 22 years in a paper mill, and then he had a severe stroke and was disabled. The early retirement wasn't enough so he depended on social security.
But if the system means that we're going to have another great depression-- whether the result of a collapsed dollar, a work force demoralized by taxation or the flight of business investment from the U.S.-- don't you think something else needs to be done?
Is it right that your grandfather had children since it meant he couldn't afford to save, invest or insure himself for such a catastrophe? Is it right that his children didn't take care of him when he was in those dire straits rather than burden the whole nation on account of his, or his families, choices?
Operating deficit? It's not possible for the deficit to be that large, right? The country would wholly crash-- riots in the street, property rights unenforced, starvation in the streets type doom and gloom?
The debt, currently, doesn't include SS, is that correct? They use some smoke and mirrors to cover that debt?
It is possible for the deficit to be that large, GDP would just have to grow proportionately and people would have to continue to be willing to invest in the government (bonds, etc). Since we owe the money mostly to ourselves, the deficit is really only bound by what the government can borrow.
My understanding is that SS is currently running a surplus. But as Nor'Eastah said, the money isn't being saved for when SS will be at a shortage, it is going into the general fund and being spent. That is where the argument for privatization of SS comes from.
I personally think the system of forced savings is a little paternalistic, but I don't think it is going anywhere.
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.
Just What Is The State "Sponsoring"?
