Social Security Reform

[Apotheosis]

Ok, I don't know much about reform, or the "alleged" problems that social security has right now.. so tell me, oh wise people of the PC, WTF is going on with it?

1. I do not like the idea of privatizing it, something about that scares me.

2. what is the idea about raising the 90,000$ cap on SS tax?

etc.

thx

[Tsa`ah]

There really isn't anything wrong with it other than.

1. The alarming number of people drawing from it on disability claims that should be working.

2. Using it as a bank to fund endeavors outside of our borders.

Aside from those two, there wasn't much wrong with it despite the claims made by either political party.

[Theyesman]

With regard to: what is the idea about raising the 90,000$ cap on SS tax

Currently the maximum taxable income for SS is 90,000. So everyone who makes more per year than 90,000 pays the same amount as someone who makes 90k.

[Jazuela]

Part of the concern is also regarding the mortality rate.

When SS was first created, people didn't live as long as they do now. So the money you put in could be given back when you retired, and it didn't put all that much of a dent in the overall fund.

Now though, when you retire, you're going to be drawing that money for longer - which means you'll be getting more than you would have, if you had died sooner. And that means you're taking from the fund money that you didn't put in.

That means also - you're taking money that younger people -have- put in - because it has to come from somewhere.

So all these people living a long time are getting their coinage, plus the coinage of younger people who are contributing..

And the worry is that by the time the younger folks are eligible to collect, there won't be anything left. Theoretically, that's very possible. But I don't think it's nearly as big an issue as some politicians are making it out to be.

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
There really isn't anything wrong with it other than.

1. The alarming number of people drawing from it on disability claims that should be working.

2. Using it as a bank to fund endeavors outside of our borders.

Aside from those two, there wasn't much wrong with it despite the claims made by either political party.


again you have no fucking clue but just post stupid shit

or you dont consider the following a problem:

The projected point at which tax revenues will fall below program costs comes in 2017 – one year earlier than the projection in last year’s report.

The projected point at which the Trust Funds will be exhausted comes in 2041 – also one year earlier than the projection in last year’s report.


feel free to read

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/TR/TR05/index.html

and learn something before you post about this topic again

[Back]

FactCheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org)

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by theotherjohn
again you have no fucking clue but just post stupid shit

or you dont consider the following a problem:

The projected point at which tax revenues will fall below program costs comes in 2017 – one year earlier than the projection in last year’s report.

The projected point at which the Trust Funds will be exhausted comes in 2041 – also one year earlier than the projection in last year’s report.


feel free to read

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/TR/TR05/index.html

and learn something before you post about this topic again

Just what the fuck is your problem? Aside from parroting something you obviously can't comprehend ... other than my post.

See number 1.

When we remove able bodied individual from the disability troph the drain is reduced.

When we stop using the social security pool as a bankroll for endeavors other than social security, the drain is reduced.

Learn to comprehend what is posted dumb fuck.

It would also be beneficial to read the smack down Backlash just laid on you.

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
[Learn to comprehend what is posted dumb fuck.

It would also be beneficial to read the smack down Backlash just laid on you.

look dumb fuck the link Backlash posted actually mirrors what I posted

here is the link
http://www.factcheck.org/article314.html

[Tsa`ah]

Let's play the comprehension game cluster fuck.


Originally posted by Tsa`ah
There really isn't anything wrong with it other than.

1. The alarming number of people drawing from it on disability claims that should be working.

Do you understand this statement, I thought it was rather clear.

There is a significant drain on the system from bogus disability claims. Reduce those, reduce the problem.


2. Using it as a bank to fund endeavors outside of our borders.

I fail to see what is so hard to understand about this. Do you not see a problem with using funds paid by you, me, and everyone else for programs that have nothing to do with social security?

This is another drain on the program. Reduce the drains, eliminate the problem.


Originally posted by theotherjohn
look dumb fuck the link Backlash posted actually mirrors what I posted

here is the link
http://www.factcheck.org/article314.html

Apparently you don't comprehend at all. Not surprising, disheartening yes, surprising no.

The article is debunking the claims of bankruptcy.

While pay out exceeds the pay in, it is not bankruptcy ... it's a reduction in payable benefits. 2017 isn't the year we see reductions, we start seeing them much later ... IF THINGS ARE NOT CORRECTED.

Things such as bankrolling for non-social security programs and bogus disability claims.

Read on, read slowly, read often, read until you understand ... and leave the bullshit out of the posting unless you like it dished back at you.

http://www.factcheck.org/article305.html

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

The article is debunking the claims of bankruptcy.

Read on, read slowly, read often, read until you understand ... and leave the bullshit out of the posting unless you like it dished back at you.

http://www.factcheck.org/article305.html

where did I say that the program would be bankrupt?

I listed the real problems not the bullshit in your mind

[Tsa`ah]

You just don't have anything to add do you? Aside from posting for another chance at being a cock nozzle simply because you want a chance to toss a few insults my way.

The inward flow of funds is reduced, significantly, by an alarming number of disability claims made by those who are able to work, but choose to work the system.

These people are not paying in, have paid in little to nothing, will pay nothing in the future. This number increases annually.

Prove the above wrong, and prove that reducing or eliminating the above will not have significant impact.

Until that happens, you're just posting links you haven't bothered to understand in an attempt to attack my opinion. Yet you haven't offered anything substantial of your own to discredit my opinion. Bored much?

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
You just don't have anything to add do you? Aside from posting for another chance at being a cock nozzle simply because you want a chance to toss a few insults my way.

The inward flow of funds is reduced, significantly, by an alarming number of disability claims made by those who are able to work, but choose to work the system.

These people are not paying in, have paid in little to nothing, will pay nothing in the future. This number increases annually.

Prove the above wrong, and prove that reducing or eliminating the above will not have significant impact.

Until that happens, you're just posting links you haven't bothered to understand in an attempt to attack my opinion. Yet you haven't offered anything substantial of your own to discredit my opinion. Bored much?

prove your posts.

I have provided one link and backlash another for my support

[Drew]

I'm all for private accounts. I'm in my twenties and by the time I'm eligible for social security there will be nothing left, a private account gives me some assurance that there will be money for left.

Also, even with the limited choices the government is sure to offer I'm likely to make 10x as much or more over my lifetime investing the money in a private account than the government would get investing in tresuary bonds.

[Apotheosis]

Thanks guys, you pretty much confirmed how I think about this situation, I may or may not be better off for that.

Raising the 90,000$ cap might not be too bad to put more cash into the system, but, you know, I believe there is a 'crisis' based only on their for a need to be one. Like, I get the impression that there's nothing wrong, but both parties need to make it look like there's one to create an issue.

[Warriorbird]

I'm not for private accounts in the way advertised. I'm for manning up and recognizing the program needs a damn end date.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Drew
I'm all for private accounts. I'm in my twenties and by the time I'm eligible for social security there will be nothing left, a private account gives me some assurance that there will be money for left.

Also, even with the limited choices the government is sure to offer I'm likely to make 10x as much or more over my lifetime investing the money in a private account than the government would get investing in tresuary bonds.

I'm 40 and I feel the same way. I like the idea that I can put some of MY money aside into an investment of my choosing and that is my money that I can live off and leave for my kids when I am gone.

[Warriorbird]

Wouldn't doing it on your own be superior?

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Drew
I'm all for private accounts. I'm in my twenties and by the time I'm eligible for social security there will be nothing left, a private account gives me some assurance that there will be money for left.

Also, even with the limited choices the government is sure to offer I'm likely to make 10x as much or more over my lifetime investing the money in a private account than the government would get investing in tresuary bonds.

I'm 40 and I feel the same way. I like the idea that I can put some of MY money aside into an investment of my choosing and that is my money that I can live off and leave for my kids when I am gone.

I agree with the both of you. I'm only in my 30's and would gladly put away in my own account for me to be able to dip into when I retire. Never did like the idea of relying on the government anyway and have been saving and earning 401K since I moved here.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Wouldn't doing it on your own be superior?

You assume that I am not? Come now.

I simply believe that I could take a portion of my money and put it in a 401K type account that will be MY money and not the government's. This money will be used to suppliment my other income when I retire and will be part of my estate when I die.

I don't get the whole outcry against this program.

[Warriorbird]

Because a lot of people are easily lead... and it channels them towards investments that might not be the best for them. It also focuses them on investment channels that are doing less well in the age of being your own broker. Just axing the whole thing would force them to educate themselves.

[Edited on 3-25-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Because a lot of people are easily lead... and it channels them towards investments that might not be the best for them. It also focuses them on investment channels that are doing less well in the age of being your own broker. Just axing the whole thing would force them to educate themselves.

[Edited on 3-25-2005 by Warriorbird]

I have to believe that the government will not allow us to invest our money as we want.. like I can't invest my money in a new business formed by my cousin Charlie. I believe it will be much like a 401K where you have different funds you can select.. but you have to select from one of those funds.

I find it extremely unlikely that one of those funds will give you a 0% growth in 20-40 years.

[Warriorbird]

Part of the problem. This will resurrect a lot of brokerage houses that're doing less well than they were. And you never can tell. I know a lot of people who thought Worldcom was a great investment. My grandfather's lucky he diversified as much as he did, as he was heavily into some S&L's that went way bad.

[Jazuela]

As I understand it, the "option" of investing in alternate funds will come with limitations.

You'd have a choice ONLY of what the government decides you are allowed to choose from.

ALL funds are subject to rise and fall with market trends, and no one can accurately predict the future of these funds 100% of the time.

If the fund you invest in fails, you will have no recourse. These funds are not insured like bank accounts are, or other assorted investment funds.

I'd rather do like Tsa'ah says - cut the wide path through the people who are taking SSI and aren't genuinely disabled, and stop using Social Security money for things that have nothing to do with Social Security.

This won't "solve the problem" but it will surely delay any possible crisis for several decades, which should be long enough to come up with a solid solution.

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
I don't get the whole outcry against this program.

IMHO.

The outcry is from historicaly rich people do better in stocks because they have more free time and the inclination to study stocks and invest correctly

The poor would rather and have to use their free time doing something else.

So the people against choices for "my" money, feel I am too stupid to get better than a 70 to 80 percent return on my investment

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by theotherjohn

Originally posted by Parkbandit
I don't get the whole outcry against this program.

IMHO.

The outcry is from historicaly rich people do better in stocks because they have more free time and the inclination to study stocks and invest correctly

The poor would rather and have to use their free time doing something else.

So the people against choices for "my" money, feel I am too stupid to get better than a 70 to 80 percent return on my investment

Better than a 70% ROI?

70% > 0%

Hell, even if you got 0% ROI, you are better off. You will still get a SS check, plus this money is yours. If you die before you retire, your family gets nothing from SS. At least you could leave your family a sizable nest egg.

[Warriorbird]

Over the period of time I could KILL the expected rate of return. Whereas I'm sure some people could very definitely go broke.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Over the period of time I could KILL the expected rate of return. Whereas I'm sure some people could very definitely go broke.

I looked up the 22 different funds I can opt into with my 401K and only 2 of them have lost money long term since their inception. Those 2 came into being in just the past 5 years. I will guarantee that those 2 funds will be profitable by the end of this year.

You can't go broke unless something catastrophic happens in the world. This investment is not day trading or short term.. we are talking about 401K type investments that go on for years and decades.

People would really have to work at losing money in these type of long term investments.. and even then I believe it's close to impossible.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
There really isn't anything wrong with it other than.

1. The alarming number of people drawing from it on disability claims that should be working.This one I especially agree with. Not only are *some* of these people receiving disability claims but many are also receiving welfare in the form of money, food and medical cards from the government.

[HarmNone]

I think most of us, if we've thought about it, are aware that disability should not be included under the Social Security umbrella. They're separate issues, really.

[Vitruvian]

I certainly hope your not counting on social security to retire! Invest man! Mutual funds, stocks, do not count on social security.

[Warriorbird]

"You can't go broke unless something catastrophic happens in the world."

Tell that to my friends who worked for Worldcom... or the people who bought into Enron.

Ken Lay and Dubya are personal friends. Neil Bush destroyed a lot of peoples' life savings as well.

And your 401k funds aren't the ones they're proposing to use.

[Edited on 3-25-2005 by Warriorbird]

Um social security taxes go into the general fund.


As to the governments success in such endeavors look into the Thrift Savings Plan offered to service members.

[Edited on 3-25-2005 by Dave]

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
"You can't go broke unless something catastrophic happens in the world."

Tell that to my friends who worked for Worldcom... or the people who bought into Enron.

Ken Lay and Dubya are personal friends. Neil Bush destroyed a lot of peoples' life savings as well.

And your 401k funds aren't the ones they're proposing to use.

[Edited on 3-25-2005 by Warriorbird]

LMAOAY.. it's all about the Evil George W Bush to you.

I will guarantee you right now.. that they are not proposing that you can take a portion of your Social Security contribution and invest it into a single company.. therefore your example is not relevant.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Just axing the whole thing would force them to educate themselves.Yikes.

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Just axing the whole thing would force them to educate themselves.Yikes.

Heh, I think it's wiser to slowly get people used to not relying on social security rather than yank it from under their feet. However I bet if Bush did that, there would be far more outcry.

[HarmNone]

Damn right there'd be more outcry. What would be done about the people who are within less than five years of retirement right now; particularly, the single women who earned considerably less throughout their careers? These people would be placed at very high risk.

[Warriorbird]

Guess what, Parkbandit!

Mutual funds crash. Mutual fund companies crash epically.

I thought you were old and had money or something.

:whistles:

[Warriorbird]

Set a deadline... like Bush did in essence for traditional Social Security to cut off....except don't replace it with a cashcow for certain mutual fund companies, replace it with Americans doing for themselves.