Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
Since liberals are admitting that Social Security is a failiure that cannot be sustained, it would be a good time to end it being mandatory.
|
No, there has to be a mandatory plan.
Social Security is an
insurance plan. That is why it is called Old Age Survivor's
Insurance and not Old Age Survivor's Personal Private Savings Account.
If you eliminate Social Security, then you must replace it with a mandatory savings plan that has legal protections and prevents individuals from abusing their own retirement plans.
People are like liquids and gases: they take the path of least resistance. Americans do not save money, nor do they like to save money. That is a proven fact, based on the dismally poor savings rates Americans have. It is also proven by the high percentage of Americans who live paycheck to paycheck, which as of October 2011 (the latest data) appears to be 42%.
Since you cannot prove beyond any reasonable doubt that 100% of your life will be pain-free, strife-free and a bed of roses, it would be prudent to ensure you have a minimal fall-back plan in the event your life turns into a Wes Craven horror film.
If you prove 100% that your spouse will not seize your retirement savings and 401(k) in a divorce, and child support will not take the rest, and then creditors descend and take their share and then the stock market tanks and your investments turn into toilet paper, then the government would not need to be involved.
An intelligent person would protect themselves and family with Life Insurance. They would protect their home with Homeowner's Insurance or their belongings with Renter's Insurance if they lived in an apartment. They protect their automobile with Auto Insurance. They protect themselves and their families from injury through auto accidents with Auto Insurance.
So why would you not protect your retirement with Retirement Insurance? Again, that is what Social Security is.
Does the government need to be involved here? Yes, but only to the extent that the government sets the mandatory minimum savings rate to be deducted from your paycheck, and to adjust such rate to account for Real Inflation and also the cost-of-living (which is not uniform in the US).
Does the government need to "hold" your money? No. You can have your employer deposit the money in a financial institution of your choice.
Does the money need universal legal protections? Yes. The money would have to be protected from divorce, alimony, child support, creditor judgments and other seizures. That also means you would not be able to use the money as collateral to obtain credit, loans or mortgages.
Should they be allowed to manipulate their own insurance plan? Sure, provided they demonstrate proficiency at some level. You have to protect the stupid from themselves, otherwise, they'd fritter away their money in any number of Ponzi and "get-rich-quick" schemes.
Ending Social Security would not solve any problems, rather it would create an host of problems.
In lieu of what I suggest, or in addition to what I suggest, you could have an actual retirement insurance plan in the private sector, operating much like a Life Insurance plan, only the benefits would be paid out at retirement instead of death.
Regardless, you need some form of mandatory retirement plan with government involvement, but that involvement need not be intrusive.
Planning...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn
A company can operate for years without turning a profit. It fails the first time it runs out of cash and misses a payroll or can't pay suppliers.
|
Don't complicate things with reality.
On a sinking ship...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by LookinForMayberry
Thank you for taking the time to post the information. I'd read similar pages, but never took the time to share it, other than to inform people to look at the information for themselves. You went the next step.
Bottom line: WE have to stay informed.
|
But you are not informed, and certainly not through that silly blog which make good use of Bug Logic.
There's $2.5 TRILLION in the OASI/OADI Trust Fund; therefore, Social Security is not going bankrupt.
If you were as informed as you believe you are, then you would know that the Trust Fund is not the issue, rather the issue is that benefit payouts will exceed revenues and that the Trust Fund will be exhausted far sooner than anyone realized, resulting in the system going bankrupt.
Informing...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher
It's an easy lazy term right wingers love because it's easy for ignorant right wing voters to latch on to.
|
Bankrupt is the correct word. When Social Security becomes totally insolvent between 2025 and 2028, it will not be able to pay out 100% of its benefits to retirees; therefore, it is bankrupt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher
They have no clue whatsoever on how to research for themselves how SS is doing and what it would take to fix the minor, long term deficit, but they do know that "bankruptcy" is bad..
Lifting the SS tax cap on high incomes would resolve 90% of the long term deficit. That's just a simple fact.
|
It is not a simple fact.
As I have already proven, and which you have failed or refused to refute, the IRS reports that there were 236,883 tax-payers in 2009 who earned more than $1 Million. They earned a total of $727 Billion.
Calling the cap $110,000 for easier math, those 236,883 people pay 6.2% on $110,000 or:
$110,000 * 6.02% * 236,883 = $1,568,639,226 or $1.5 Billion
If we eliminate the cap then:
$727 Billion * 6.02% = 43,765,400,000 or $42.7 Billion.
That will not solve your Social Security problem, nor will it solve your Medicare problem, nor will it solve your Budget Deficit problem, nor will it solve your National Debt problem.
Let's tax that $727 Billion at 91%, then:
$727 Billion * 0.91 = $661 Billion.
In 2010, Social Security paid out $701 Billion in benefits, so taxing "the rich" at 91% wouldn't even pay for 1 year's worth of Social Security.
You, like so many other *******s, have this drug-induced hallucinogenic fantasy that taxing "the rich" will solve all of your problems.
It will not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher
|
It would basically solve the problem?
From the June 2011 Social Security Report, benefit payouts will be in excess of $1 TRILLION in 8 years, and Social Security will only be collecting $750 Billion in revenues.
Apparently neither you nor the idiot Klein can figure out that is a shortfall of $250 Billion.
Please explain in detail how $42.7 Billion = $250 Billion.
And yes, you can ask the idiot Ezra Klein to help you on this, since I imagine it will be an extremely difficult task. Perhaps you and Klein can have a seance with Herr Josef Göbbels to figure out the best way to spin that (and I'd invite Blow Job Bill and Billary Clinton to the table as well, since they were master spin-artists).
Debunking...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
This assumes, of course, that everyone making over $120K per year would maintain thier current levels of income and pay the tax.
|
Well, see, that's the real challenge, isn't it?
I mean there are any number of schemes to defer compensation to avoid paying the higher FICA taxes.
And then, what is the cost to society-at-large?
States, counties and cities are continuing the "Saturday Night Massacres" laying off government employees left and right, especially school districts.
Here's a good site to watch:
http://www.dailyjobcuts.com/
I would just caution everyone that the layoffs and closing shown are neither exhaustive nor are they all inclusive. It just gives some idea of what's happening. Note the latest rounds of casualties.
What will happen when the current FICA tax holiday ends? That's even less sales tax revenues for the States. And then what happens when the FICA tax rate is raised, and/or the cap is eliminated? That's still less in sales tax revenues.
They just don't understand that if this isn't handled properly, it could spiral out of control in a way most negative (for them).
Tax dodging...
Mircea
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.
