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.
eliminating defined benefit is a good thing. if a person worth $$$$$$ let s/he have it while s/he working , not promises with the future money to burden the future workers.
same true for government workers pay them for they worth while working, don't promises to pay them in the future.
i seen on TV city worker will get $$$,$$$ at retirement for life, who will pay for that, many families have to move out because of high tax and government service fees, new families can not afford to move in. eventual it will turn to ghost town.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
So, you want to get rid of social security at a time when virtually every corporation in the country is eliminating defined benefit retirement plans?
What you suggest is almost certain to leave a large segment of people without even a minimal retirement when they get old. What do you suggest when this happens? Shall we let them just starve in the streets? What happens when they refuse to do this quietly? Do we send the police out there with guns to shoot them? My point is this is not just a humanitarian question. Its a question of avoiding social unrest and future violent conflict.
Its easy to say to young people "just save your money". This begs a critical reality that social security was set up to address in the first place. That reality is that young people are notoriously short-sighted when it comes to savng for a retirement. They will always have more pressing expenses and needs in their 20's and 30's than saving for retirement. The car is breaking down and needs to be replaced. The back porch on the house is about to fall apart and must be repaired. The oldest child needs braces. Social security was created for the reason that we just can't count on young people to save adequately for a retirement.
I bet you tout those 401K plans as alternative. I've concluded they are a bunch of crap. Sorry. Let me give you an illustration ok? If 10 years ago I bought the average DOW stock for my 401K portfolio, I'd have lost money. In fact, I'd be down about 10% from where the DOW was in the year 2000. If I bought the average NASDAQ stock for my porfolio it would be even worse. My 401K account would be down about 60%. My wife and I have feeding a 401K account for the last twelve years. She has a management position in a government organization. We have followed all the standard advice and are actually contributing way more than the county will match at 4%. The result? We still have under $100,000 in the account. I feel sometimes like we ought to stop feeding this beast.
Social security guarantees people a minimum level of retirement benefts. The need for this has never been greater in a country where the few companies that used to offer real pensions are now choosing to end these. It is simply irresponsible to call for an end to social security. We need to talk instead about adjusting retirement ages upwards (70 is not unreasonable) and at least minimal increases to employment taxes.
the full intent of the country is to tighten the saddle on the baby boomer and ride that pony til he is dead dead dead.
where the baby boomer goes the light goes, when he is gone it guna get very dark.
eliminating defined benefit is a good thing. if a person worth $$$$$$ let s/he have it while s/he working , not promises with the future money to burden the future workers.
same true for government workers pay them for they worth while working, don't promises to pay them in the future.
i seen on TV city worker will get $$$,$$$ at retirement for life, who will pay for that, many families have to move out because of high tax and government service fees, new families can not afford to move in. eventual it will turn to ghost town.
Oh hell no. I've worked hard and paid into SS all my life. I want my benefits. Too late for the older folks to get paid "what they are worth"..
I was not referred to SS benefits, i talking about the additional pension plan above and beyond SS benefits that may use the most favorable investment return rate may not achieved by future market condition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nan5623
Oh hell no. I've worked hard and paid into SS all my life. I want my benefits. Too late for the older folks to get paid "what they are worth"..
I was not referred to SS benefits, i talking about the additional pension plan above and beyond SS benefits that may use the most favorable investment return rate may not achieved by future market condition.
I doubt if SS will go away. People have been talking about that for years. Baby boomers will vote people out that want to do that. Most of my friends in their fifties and sixties don't work any more at jobs they had when younger because they either got downsized or they have health problems and can't work. If they find a job its part time at best with no benefits. The only people that seemingly have their jobs at an older age are government workers and some teachers with seniority.
the full intent of the country is to tighten the saddle on the baby boomer and ride that pony til he is dead dead dead.
where the baby boomer goes the light goes, when he is gone it guna get very dark.
There seem to be two basic points in the above post. The first sentence is saying that the baby boomers are somehow getting a raw deal. I've heard that before but never understood it. Please post again, Huckleberry, and tell us exactly in what ways this is so.
The second sentence seems to be saying that the baby boomers are somehow superior to other generations, which is quite perposterous on its face. If that is not the meaning, please clarify. If it is the meaning, then again, please tell us exactly in what ways this is so.
Location: Finally escaped The People's Republic of California
11,329 posts, read 8,671,909 times
Reputation: 6392
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
So, you want to get rid of social security at a time when virtually every corporation in the country is eliminating defined benefit retirement plans?
What you suggest is almost certain to leave a large segment of people without even a minimal retirement when they get old.
Its easy to say to young people "just save your money". This begs a critical reality that social security was set up to address in the first place. That reality is that young people are notoriously short-sighted when it comes to savng for a retirement.
Social security guarantees people a minimum level of retirement benefts. The need for this has never been greater in a country where the few companies that used to offer real pensions are now choosing to end these. It is simply irresponsible to call for an end to social security. .
Exactly, what he said........
Want to fix S.S.?? Raise the wage cap...Why is it that after you make 100k a year you don't have to pay anymore S.S.tax ????
Just tax all the money a middle class family makes, but give the rich a break...Screw that...Raise the cap to 500k or a mill
Exactly, what he said........
Want to fix S.S.?? Raise the wage cap...Why is it that after you make 100k a year you don't have to pay anymore S.S.tax ????
Just tax all the money a middle class family makes, but give the rich a break...Screw that...Raise the cap to 500k or a mill
The reason there is a wage cap on Social Security payroll taxes is because there is a benefit cap too. Therefore, the rich are not getting any break. In fact, the rich are already subsidizing the poor in terms of Soc. Sec. retirement benefits because the formula which computes the benefits favors low wage earners over high wage earners. That is, low wage earners receive a significantly higher percentage of their wages back as benefits compared to high wage earners.
Now one can still make a case for increasing or eliminating the wage cap (which is currently $106,800, not $100,000 as you wrote) by arguing that the solvency of the system is more important than the fairness of it. (If you eliminate the benefits cap too there would be a relatively small overall gain to the system). However, if fairness is disregarded by raising the wage cap without also raising the benefits cap, then you hand the enemies of Soc. Sec. a beautiful argument on a platter: Soc. Sec. is welfare. That argument is already made, mostly unfairly, but if you make it real you just advance the destruction of the whole program.
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.
Sorry.
Lightness and dark? I beg your pardon?
