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 had a recent conversation with a one percenter. He said that the recession of 2008 weakened the SS trust fund sufficiently to create a danger during the mid twenties. This danger would reduce payouts by 25%.
I've started emailing my Senators and Congressman holding them responsible for Social Securities future.
We spend more on defense than the next seven countries combined. There should be money found for Social Security.
I don't think you know much about how the SC system works.
As far as privatization, there is nothing inherently wrong with that BUT depending on how it is accomplished. The devil is always in the details. In any case there can be no flag cutting ceremony like they have when a new bridge is inaugurated and then the old bridge is blown up. Any meaningful change in our retirement system must take place over the span of a normal working career: about 50 years. In that respect I suggest that if any new system is put in place that the transition should be made at the rate of 2% per year, where for the next 50 years new recipients will receive benefits in part from both systems, depending on how long they worked under each. After 50 years it could be arbitrated and any remaining recipients under the old system could be grandfathered in to the new system. This would likely be a small percentage of the full number of recipients.
You've written thoughtful responses so I will answer you respectfully. I must say that the Republicans cannot be trusted with rewriting Social Security. We only need to look at the way that they are handling the replacement to Obamacare. It is shameful. What are we retrieving from the original health plan? Your kid gets to stay on your insurance until he is 26. That's nothing.
Social Security benefits only become endangered when a person is close to collecting and the spouse has nothing. Retirement savings cannot be put into trusts. That is the law. Under the law, they are exposed assets in a successful lawsuit.
I don't consider spreading the pain to be an optimal solution. I'd rather think of spreading the gain.
I believe the concept of the original Social Security system was based upon the fact that if left to voluntary participation, invariably there those who did not participate, and ended up being a burden on the government, the taxpayers and the public.
There is certainly no way out unless and until somebody (government?) starts working on a plan. Doing nothing but hoping is not a plan. Waiting for the present plan to collapse is merely inviting disaster, misery and dislocation of society—and mostly on the backs of those too old to carry the weight.
I do have some reservations against a private system (private as in businesses?) although I consider myself a fiscal conservative. Just exactly which businesses will benefit from privatization? And who picks them?
Perhaps an ideal plan would resemble the insurance model where companies can freely compete (unlike now) and offer competitive plans to guarantee their insureds will not run out of money in old age. It would be even better if you could purchase a mixed bag of various plans.
However I still do not see how a voluntary plan would work. I mean I want voluntary plans, but it is just human nature to avoid problems until they become critical, and while old age is inevitable if you live long enough it seems that too many people just want to avoid thinking about it and planning for it.
I'm damned glad I'm not one of them! However I did miss out on a lot of life because I was busy burying acorns like some sort of demented chipmunk!
I was talking about voluntary foregoing of benefits. People like trump and many more much less wealthy could afford to not receive earned benefits. Next would be means testing during the transition. This would attempt to minimize the pain for others. But still, there is no painless solution to reconcile the current pilfered system.
The point is to get to mandated private accounts(qualified insurance investments, with term life and disability, combined with mutual funds) that do not allow government pilfering and passing debt to future Americans.
Btw, these private accounts allow the owners to pass wealth to their heirs. It is an abomination that a person pay into a system for 45+ years, then die at 65 with nothing to leave heirs. SS is pathetic.
Privatization is the solution and it is a beneficial one. We could all have money in stocks and bonds and could be getting safely 4% on our SS investments instead of about 1%.
Conservatives have already harmed SS in the past by increasing the age that you can start collecting full benefits. SS will continue to be "harmed" if SS return does not increase through privatization.
At one time (circa 1983), the employees of Brazoria and Galveston Counties, TX, were offered the choice of managing their own private retirement accounts, or relying on a defined benefit plan offered by the county.
Many opted to manage their own retirement accounts (the private option, in this example). Those that did retired as multi-millionaires, even though their salaries during their working lives were anything but exorbitant.
Those who chose to go the pension route (analagous to Social Security, in this example) are now reduced to waiting until the 1st of each month so that they may buy that month's allotment of Alpo so as to keep body and soul together.
So stark was the contrast between these two choices (privately managed retirement accounts resulting in very handsome returns and extremely comfortable retirements for those wise enough to choose them) and the defined benefit pension (a public stipend along the lines of Social Security, resulting in penury, poverty and abject despair) that it is no longer legal to offer this choice between private retirement accounts and the standard county retirement.
Whereas, before, Galveston or Brazoria County employees had at least the option to retire as multi-millionaires, now, all such new employees can only look forward to eating dog food in their retirement.
You've written thoughtful responses so I will answer you respectfully. I must say that the Republicans cannot be trusted with rewriting Social Security. We only need to look at the way that they are handling the replacement to Obamacare. It is shameful. What are we retrieving from the original health plan? Your kid gets to stay on your insurance until he is 26. That's nothing.
Social Security benefits only become endangered when a person is close to collecting and the spouse has nothing. Retirement savings cannot be put into trusts. That is the law. Under the law, they are exposed assets in a successful lawsuit.
I respect respect and very much appreciate it. It is when that goes out the window that discussions become travesties.
I'm not aware of any Republicans rewriting Social Security, or even any plan of doing that. Far as I know all plans are flat line dead on all sides.
As far as Obamacare vs. Trumpcare, unless something has happened I'm not aware of anything passing. I think all Americans must admit that Obamacare in its present form has failed, and now that Aetna has pulled out it appears that Obamacare is in its final death spiral. I am totally unimpressed by the Republican work on a replacement healthcare plan.
My God! They had several years to work on a plan! For all I know they spent the time masturbating. Now they have a majority in Congress, the Presidency, and arguably an edge in SCOTUS—and they can't some up with a plan? Well they have a plan now, or maybe half a plan. But AFAIK they have passed nothing. NOTHING! I'll have to agree with you in the sense that I think it's pathetic.
Not sure what you are referring to in SS and spouse has nothing. Upon death the surviving spouse may take over the SS benefits of the deceased spouse. My mother did exactly that. Also there is no death tax. When my father died all their property simply became my mother's property. When my mother died my sister and I split the assets left, neither of us needed to pay any inheritance taxes.
Not sure what you are referring to about trusts. And what lawsuit. You have me confused.
I was talking about voluntary foregoing of benefits. People like trump and many more much less wealthy could afford to not receive earned benefits. Next would be means testing during the transition. This would attempt to minimize the pain for others. But still, there is no painless solution to reconcile the current pilfered system.
Well I'm not voluntarily giving up anything. My business earns barely enough to mess up my SS benefits with taxes. In two years my business will be dissolved and SS will be my only income. And of course I have significant other assets, just no income.
I don't know if there is even any solution at all, let alone a painless one. If taking away my SS benefits is part of the solution, or even reducing them, then it will destroy me. Hello 1BR subsidized senior citizen housing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maat55
The point is to get to mandated private accounts(qualified insurance investments, with term life and disability, combined with mutual funds) that do not allow government pilfering and passing debt to future Americans.
I certainly can't argue with you about government handling of Social Security. There isn't even any fund, no lock box, no nothing. SS is nothing more than an unfunded US obligation, plain and simple. It's a contract between the US government and workers who paid into the system. The payout formula has been set for decades. I knew 25 years before I retired exactly what my benefit would be, assuming any retirement age I picked. As it turned out I applied for early benefits because the economy tanked and my job prospects were zero. BTW I calculated the cross-over age was/is 78 years old, when 62, 65 and 68 have received exactly identical payouts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maat55
Btw, these private accounts allow the owners to pass wealth to their heirs. It is an abomination that a person pay into a system for 45+ years, then die at 65 with nothing to leave heirs. SS is pathetic.
I don't mean to be insensitive but I have no heirs, I have no dog in this fight. I'm thinking of leaving my estate to ASPCA or something. You can be damned sure I won't be leaving it for the US Treasury.
I'm wonder if those of us who were responsible and saved and invested for our retirement years are once again going to be punished for being responsible.
Btw, these private accounts allow the owners to pass wealth to their heirs. It is an abomination that a person pay into a system for 45+ years, then die at 65 with nothing to leave heirs. SS is pathetic.
Or your private account was looted by your ex wife in a divorce judgement two years earlier. Private IRA accounts can't be put into a trust. At your death the gov't gets a windfall of about a third because of the sudden rise your income. Then your credit card company and mortgage company will want their pound of flesh.
Or your private account was looted by your ex wife in a divorce judgement two years earlier. Private IRA accounts can't be put into a trust. At your death the gov't gets a windfall of about a third because of the sudden rise your income. Then your credit card company and mortgage company will want their pound of flesh.
As with any asset it would be distributed during divorce. I'm sure fair rules would apply.
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.
