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.
There are many possible ways to fix social security as discussed in this article here. The fact of the matter, to keep our current system we would most likely have to do a combination of their 12 ideas.
The vast majority of people want to keep some form of social security, however it is a touchy subject as people rely on social security in their elderly ages or other vulnerable times.
It is so highly politicized that we have refused to fix it. As fixing it will open yourself up to political attacks as you either raise taxes, reduce benefits, or a little of both. Bill Clinton mentioned privatizing social security and quickly dropped it, as did Bush. Paul Ryan was portrayed as shoving Granny off a cliff for a proposal that wouldn't effect anyone currently 55 or older.
We need to move past these petty attacks in order to find a solution. The longer we wait to fix social security, the more painful it will be.
What about this idea here - a government sponsored annuity program:
-Your payroll taxes go into an individual fund attached to your name. Your contributions are specifically recorded and will help determine your benefit.
-You can choose to put in more money into the system - for more benefits later on.
-You would have "some choice" as to how the money is invested.
-At least 50% (but up to 100%) of your money must be invested in a Government Backed Fund that buys US Treasuries, FDIC ensured CDs, State bonds, etc... This would be a conservative and reliable investment, although it wouldn't be expected to have a massive return.
-Other Investment Options would make up anywhere from 0 to 50% of your money based on your own desire. These could include things like an S&P 500 index fund, Physical US Gold and Silver Eagle coins (like they do in the IRAs now), US Company Bond Fund, and a Total US Stock Index Fund. This is open for debate, but prefer to keep it in US investments.
-Workers could see their funds grow over time and may learn about saving and investing -- this may lead to better choices through the education that the program would inherently provide. At least a few people would be more likely to open an IRA, brokerage account or other savings after learning more about it from this system.
-Workers could retire at any time. There is no magical age requirement. However, retiring very young would mean that you have less of a benefit.
-The government has an open and transparent formula where you enter in your age as X years AND your fund's dollar amount of Y and then if you choose to retire you essentially purchase an annuity and get a guaranteed benefit of Z dollars for the rest of your life. You can monitor this and better plan for retirement on your terms.
-Once you choose to retire your investment options no longer matter and your individual fund's dollar amount isn't subject to your investments anymore -- the government takes your money and buys you a government backed annuity. You get a set monthly benefit for life.
-If a worker dies before receiving a certain amount of benefits based on the worker's individual fund, then that worker's heirs will receive a lump sum. This will allow the lower and middle classes to have more opportunity to pass wealth to other generations.
You cant even get the Tea Party types behind something like this once you break it down. Ryan was of course talking about Medicare and not SS. Face it right now the Republican party is the party of SS and Medicare and especially Medicare. The plan you are proposing would leave a lot of seniors in poverty and Republicans depend on the senior vote.
You cant even get the Tea Party types behind something like this once you break it down. Ryan was of course talking about Medicare and not SS. Face it right now the Republican party is the party of SS and Medicare and especially Medicare. The plan you are proposing would leave a lot of seniors in poverty and Republicans depend on the senior vote.
You seem to be happy with seniors in poverty no matter wich party they belong to based on this and your other posts.
You cant even get the Tea Party types behind something like this once you break it down. Ryan was of course talking about Medicare and not SS. Face it right now the Republican party is the party of SS and Medicare and especially Medicare. The plan you are proposing would leave a lot of seniors in poverty and Republicans depend on the senior vote.
How would this plan leave seniors in poverty? You transition the program over for the younger generation and protect the current seniors with everything as is - like Chile did.
A person making $20K a year, NO extra contributions, 3% raises from age 18 to 63 and only a conservative 5% return - would still have $675,000 to buy an annuity with. According to CNN that could get an annuity worth $3,764 a month for life...hardly poverty money...
Remember, most money would be invested in safer funds (SS technically is also invested in US Treasuries - no?).
Paul Ryan was demonized for Social Security ideas too though - although you are correct the granny commercial was about medicare.
There are many possible ways to fix social security as discussed in this article here. The fact of the matter, to keep our current system we would most likely have to do a combination of their 12 ideas.
The vast majority of people want to keep some form of social security, however it is a touchy subject as people rely on social security in their elderly ages or other vulnerable times.
It is so highly politicized that we have refused to fix it. As fixing it will open yourself up to political attacks as you either raise taxes, reduce benefits, or a little of both. Bill Clinton mentioned privatizing social security and quickly dropped it, as did Bush. Paul Ryan was portrayed as shoving Granny off a cliff for a proposal that wouldn't effect anyone currently 55 or older.
We need to move past these petty attacks in order to find a solution. The longer we wait to fix social security, the more painful it will be.
What about this idea here - a government sponsored annuity program:
-Your payroll taxes go into an individual fund attached to your name. Your contributions are specifically recorded and will help determine your benefit.
We already did that, until the Democrats decided to raid the Social Security Trust Fund in 1968 and put the entire thing under the General Fund to pay for LBJ's "Great Society." Since 1968 every Democrat and Republican in Congress has been spending Social Security tax revenues on everything BUT senior citizens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
-You can choose to put in more money into the system - for more benefits later on.
Give people the opportunity to pull their money out of the government system and allow them to put their money into the private sector, and you may be on to something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
-You would have "some choice" as to how the money is invested.
Why do you have a problem giving people a choice? Give them total control. It is their money after all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
What do you guys think?
I think the federal government has absolutely no business imposing itself into my retirement. Social Security is nothing more than a ponzi scheme. A method to rob Peter to pay Paul. Nothing more. The sooner it is either abolished or completely bankrupt, the better.
I honestly wish something similar had been in place when I was a young man. As it stands now, if I had to only depend on SS I would be eating Purina dog chow
Individual Social Security accounts opened at BIRTH, controlled only by the account holder....
...and repeatedly raided by Congress.
Two thirds of the public portion of the National Debt is the result of Congress spending Social Security revenues, then printing up more money to make up the difference.
I honestly wish something similar had been in place when I was a young man. As it stands now, if I had to only depend on SS I would be eating Purina dog chow
The Chile model is the most successful retirement system I have seen.
In 1960 Chile adopted the same Social Security program the US had. By 1990 they realized that it was not sustainable (something we have yet to acknowledge). So they made the government program optional. Everyone still had to contribute the same amount to their Social Security Account, but everyone had a choice of either leaving it in government's hands, or investing it in the private market.
By 1996 only 10% remained on the government Social Security program, and the other 90% were investing in the private sector. Almost instantly Chile's economy began to boom, and to this day they one of the biggest energy producers and distributors in South America.
It only took Chile 30 years to realize Social Security was a serious mistake. We have had Social Security for 80 years and still refuse to admit that it cannot work.
The Chile model is the most successful retirement system I have seen.
In 1960 Chile adopted the same Social Security program the US had. By 1990 they realized that it was not sustainable (something we have yet to acknowledge). So they made the government program optional. Everyone still had to contribute the same amount to their Social Security Account, but everyone had a choice of either leaving it in government's hands, or investing it in the private market.
By 1996 only 10% remained on the government Social Security program, and the other 90% were investing in the private sector. Almost instantly Chile's economy began to boom, and to this day they one of the biggest energy producers and distributors in South America.
It only took Chile 30 years to realize Social Security was a serious mistake. We have had Social Security for 80 years and still refuse to admit that it cannot work.
Chile doesnt support a massive Department of Defense and VA. I mention VA because its up to 150 billion and along with Defense we are talking about 700 billion dollars per year. Thats more than $2,000 per year for every man, woman and child. I dont think the Republican base has any interest in reducing the spending for those programs. Ask the Repulican base would they rather be like Chile or support the current Defense-VA budget?
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.
