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.
What about folks with Roth IRAs as duster says, or people whose principle business/means of saving has been using after tax income to acquire real estate both to generate supplimental retirement income, and for sale in case cash reserves are needed?
Perhaps a one time deduction on taxes the first year the new system rolls out could be worked out.
What about folks with Roth IRAs as duster says, or people whose principle business/means of saving has been using after tax income to acquire real estate both to generate supplimental retirement income, and for sale in case cash reserves are needed?
The other types of investors you mention will realize their savings when they don't have to pay income tax on revenue from their investments or capital gains tax if/when they sell.
The other types of investors you mention will realize their savings when they don't have to pay income tax on revenue from their investments or capital gains tax if/when they sell.
On the gains they don't have to pay taxes, but they did have to pay taxes on the initial income used to purchase the properties and acquire a basis.
Simple solution - Mandate that the funds be directly invested in the same guaranteed securities that Social Security is currently invested in.
You won't have the upside you would get from investing on the open market, but you would still get a better return than with Social Security. And it should still only be considered a supplemental retirement plan anyway.
Plus the money would be yours to bequeath to someone else at your passing.
If the money is invested in the same securities as the SS, why would it return more? Do you think private sector brokers would take smaller commissions than the SS administrators? Do you want people in their 90's at the mercy of the private sector traders manipulating them out of their retirement funds? Personally, I like my SS being administered by people who do not have the motive of making a commission off my funds.
Bequeathing it to heirs would defeat the whole purpose of investing for one's daily living expenses during his own retirement. Middle aged workers making six figures would get some of the money, instead of retirees who need it. Unless you think there would, for the same set-aside, magically be so much more money in the retirement kitties for all the kiddies to inherit it, too? Under no circumstances should anyone except retired seniors and disabled be getting a penny (much less a fortune) off a mandatory SS pool.
If the money is invested in the same securities as the SS, why would it return more?
The investments wouldn't return more. The difference would be that the investor would be guaranteed a return on his or her individual investment rather than having the returns go into a fund that the investor may never receive a part of.
Quote:
Do you think private sector brokers would take smaller commissions than the SS administrators? Do you want people in their 90's at the mercy of the private sector traders manipulating them out of their retirement funds? Personally, I like my SS being administered by people who do not have the motive of making a commission off my funds.
Irrelevant. Treasury securities can be purchased direct with no commission. And besides, there's no reason the government couldn't continue to administer the program anyway.
Quote:
Bequeathing it to heirs would defeat the whole purpose of investing for one's daily living expenses during his own retirement.
Some people pay into the system for 40+ years and drop dead before they receive a dime in benefits. This also defeats the purpose of investing for one's daily living expenses during his own retirement. Do you think it's fair that some put in much and receive little or nothing, while others put in very little and receive much?
Quote:
Middle aged workers making six figures would get some of the money, instead of retirees who need it. Unless you think there would, for the same set-aside, magically be so much more money in the retirement kitties for all the kiddies to inherit it, too?
If the owner of the fund passed away, his or her heirs would get the money, yes, regardless of their financial position. It would have no impact on current retirees getting their share as they would have invested in their own accounts.
Quote:
Under no circumstances should anyone except retired seniors and disabled be getting a penny (much less a fortune) off a mandatory SS pool.
In my scenario, the pool would be eliminated, so this is a moot point.
I want to point out that I'm not proposing shutting down Social Security as it is and kicking all the current retirees and those nearing retirement to the curb, only stating that it could be done in such a way to make it more fair to all who contribute. Whether there is any way the program could be transitioned is beyond me.
Last edited by duster1979; 01-10-2013 at 08:28 AM..
On the gains they don't have to pay taxes, but they did have to pay taxes on the initial income used to purchase the properties and acquire a basis.
They paid taxes on that income anyway, whether they put the money in long term investments or spent it all on pizza and beer really doesn't matter. The point is they would save money going forward.
1. A tax on the people who own most of the property that once belonged to all Amercans and are exploiting the nation's human and natural resources to amass huge fortunes for themselves, and who are manipulating the economy in their own self interests? or
2. A tax on the people who are already contributing all the labor and who are already buying all the products and services, to make the propertied class wealthy?
See there........institute the flat/fair and all this bitchin' should go away if we can all start being adults, providers and givers; instead of the general hoard of takers that the current system breeds-in!
Got it now?
In some way, we all HATE the system as it stands. Hit the reset button, or just keep paying escallated taxes that eventually will confiscate your entire paycheck. We're headed that way and you know it!
1. A tax on the people who own most of the property that once belonged to all Amercans and are exploiting the nation's human and natural resources to amass huge fortunes for themselves, and who are manipulating the economy in their own self interests? or
2. A tax on the people who are already contributing all the labor and who are already buying all the products and services, to make the propertied class wealthy?
Hmm, I don't see NONE OF THE ABOVE.
Too much emotion and attitude in all that to provide a reasonable answer LOL; you sound as disappointed with the current taxation system as I and probably gozzillions of others. Incidently, do you consider yourself a taker or giver please?
Everyone who makes income should pay into the system this flat and fair way, simply put. Therefore everyone has a dog in the fight, so to speak. Let's pull the system back to fundamentals of economic's that started this country out, before itstartedgettingbastardizedandmakingusallpartofaco rrupgovernmentandnolongerarepublicof sissy's nowand foreverunlesswechangethesytem............yesterday !!! SIGH.
Is that simplicity making any GD sense? : think:
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.
Incidently, do you consider yourself a taker or giver please?
