| Author |
Messages |
|
todd
Posts:6
 |
| 10/09/2008 2:06 PM |
 Alert
|
that was Bush's plan.
Looking at 35 percent decline in one year, aren't you glad republicans and their wall street cronies had failed to privatize Social Security?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
XBoxBoy
Posts:27
|
| 10/09/2008 3:00 PM |
Alert
|
While I don't support the concept of privatizing social security, I wouldn't be so smug if I were you.
Last time I checked, all those social security taxes weren't really going in a "lock box". Nope they' are all being spent. And I wouldn't be too sure if I were you, that in another twenty years Social Security will pay out anything. Which if comes to pass, would be a 100% loss.
So, arguably it would have been better to lose 35 percent in a year, then losing it all. Not saying that's what's gonna happen, but I wouldn't be so confident that it's not going to happen.
And don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to defend bush either. He's been terrible for this country, just saying that you shouldn't be so sure that you haven't already lost more than 35% of your social security "investment".
XBoxBoy
|
|
|
|
|
hakura
Posts:16
|
| 10/09/2008 4:04 PM |
Alert
|
| XBoxBoy, don't fall for the scam that social security will not pay out in the future. That's what the neo-cons want you to think so they can eliminate it. There's a simple fix that will provide an adequate revenue stream for SS forever: remove the current 100K cap. Right now every dollar you earn up to 100k is taxed for social security, and every dollar beyond that is not taxed. If we remove the cap social security will be solvent forever. How convenient that the current system is set up so that the vast majority of us pay 100% tax for social security while the wealthy pay only on their first 100K... |
|
|
|
|
tpc
Posts:498
|
| 10/09/2008 4:48 PM |
Alert
|
[quote]Last time I checked, all those social security taxes weren't really going in a "lock box". [/quote]
Xboy-There isn't any money in the lock box, but there is $4T+ in govt securities. That is because, even to the present day, their has been a surplus of incoming receipts from SS payments over expendituress. The govt securities are same kind of securities that are sold every day on wall street. The same kind of securities that foreigners and americans buy because they are supported by "the full faith and credit of the US govt". Bush would have you believe that there is nothing supporting social security. I guess in his estimation that govt securities should only be valuable when owned by wealthy people. |
|
|
|
|
tpc
Posts:498
|
| 10/09/2008 4:55 PM |
Alert
|
[quote]So, arguably it would have been better to lose 35 percent in a year, then losing it all[/quote]
Xboy-privatizing soc sec was never even a consideration by the repubs. That is because the only way that they could purchase the necessary stock was to borrow from the govt and increase the deficit. You can't spend SS security benefits twice. Once to pay for govt expenses (SS payts go into the general fund). And then to buy stock.
It was a wedge issue. Convince the young people they are being screwed so they will hate the old people. If the repubs lose the old voters they would replace them with young voters. Must have learned that trick in his bible. |
|
|
|
|
XBoxBoy
Posts:27
|
| 10/09/2008 5:02 PM |
Alert
|
hakura & tpc, All I can really say is, "Wow you guys sure have a lot more faith in our government than I do." Maybe I'm just a cynic, but given how royally the government has screwed things up lately, how fiscally irresponsible they have been, how they are now planning to bail out the wall street bankers but screwing those of us who have been responsible and saved.... well honestly, I'm just not sure how to respond to your certainty that I shouldn't worry. I guess I just look at the government's track record, and sorry, but I really can't share your faith that the government will come riding in with my social security check when I need it. But if you say so....
XBoxBoy
|
|
|
|
|
jqcoffey
Posts:24
|
| 10/09/2008 5:46 PM |
Alert
|
Given that a) social security has yet to fail, b) it's the most popular government program c) it only requires minor funding tweaks to keep it solvent for another 100 years and d) it's insanely efficient (something like 4% overhead costs), I have no problem trusting the government to pay out.
One more thing. If the US Government ever defaulted on social security payments, well, let's just say that you'd have much bigger issues to deal with than your missing monthly check. That would indicate that the entire world economy had utterly collapsed (yes, we're approaching that point, but we've still got a ways to go). And of course, if the world economy did collapse, and your social security benefits had been privatized, you'd have nothing anyway.
Privatizing social security was another way for the US Government to divert money into the stock market--to increase stock market returns. As the original poster pointed out, had social security been privatized at the outset, it would be bankrupt now.
-Justin |
|
|
|
|
LoonyQT
Posts:894
|
| 10/09/2008 6:25 PM |
Alert
|
xbox, wanna move to new zealand with me?
;-) |
|
|
|
|
lurknomore
Posts:270
|
| 10/09/2008 6:28 PM |
Alert
|
As I understand it, the SS "fund" is still taking in more in payroll taxes than it pays out (positive cash flow, for those of you who speak that langauge). That will continue for some estimated number of years (the estimate changes yearly, based on employment, COLA percentages, death rates, etc.). Then there is a period of years when full benefits will be paid out of using new inflows and the accumulated surplus (paid in capital??). After the surplus is used up, "income" alone will be sufficient to pay out some percentage of promised benefits. An SS "fix" is needed to make that percentage be 100%, by increasing inflows, reducing benefits (for some or all income levels), and/oxtending the full-benefit retirement age.
If you are cynical or inclined to think the worst of government, those facts won't matter. Maybe a future Congress will decide to relocate to a Pacific isle and take all the SS fumds with it. Or a future president will decide to launch wars against everyone who doesn't like the U.S. I think the situation will play out exactly as intended and, most likely, SS will be fixed to guarantee benefits or, possibly, benefits will be reduced (or COLAs reduced) for wealthier recipients. But then again, I trust government in spite of its propensity to make policies I don't like. Like most Americans, I like my own representatives even though I think yours are fools. |
|
|
|
|
wilson
Posts:541
|
| 10/09/2008 6:38 PM |
Alert
|
| When I plan for retirement, I don't count on anything from SS. I think you would be dumb if you did. |
|
|
|
|
tpc
Posts:498
|
| 10/09/2008 7:19 PM |
Alert
|
[quote]When I plan for retirement, I don't count on anything from SS. I think you would be dumb if you did.[/quote]
Wilson-you don't believe in the "full faith and credit of the US govt". You and your pinko communist friends are welcome to leave the land of the free and the home of the brave. Goodbye and good riddance. |
|
|
|
|
wilson
Posts:541
|
| 10/09/2008 8:18 PM |
Alert
|
hahaha. good one.
Social security was never envisioned as a retirement plan. Everyone should rely upon their own resources and look at social security to be the minimum safety net it was intended to be. |
|
|
|
|
jqcoffey
Posts:24
|
| 10/10/2008 9:14 AM |
Alert
|
It's not that you should count on social security as your sole means in retirement, but you should, absolutely count on it to supplement your retirement. In today's dollars my statement says that I'm going to get something like $2300/mo upon retirement (in 30 odd years). That's not chump change, especially since that payment will go up according to the CPI. The SS web site has a calculator that will give you a rough estimate of what you can expect at retirement in future dollars--$2300/mo turns into something like $7500/mo.
lurknomore, I think that you're right on the funding issue. If I recall correctly SS is in a surplus until 2035 or so, and then has a funding short fall, but is still able to make full payments until around 2050. Obama's proposal to add payroll tax to those making over $250K will shore things up for another good chunk of time, however, the payroll cap should be removed all together such that there's no gap between $100K-$250K. Doing so will keep SS solvent for quite some time to come.
For those who say, "well, it will still fail some day," I say, in 100 years, when it will truly be untenable to continue SS as-is, we'll all be dead and the chances that our economy will continue to function in the same manner as it does today are nill, and thus any sort of formulas and projects we use today will be irrelevant then.
Have faith in SS and by extension the US government or not, but the government will continue to take your payroll tax, and when the time comes for you to retire, they'll pay you every month, and you'll be pleased they do. Especially since any savings you may have had has had a very good chance of being wiped out by either the real estate crash or the current stock market crash (dow at 8100 and dropping).
|
|
|
|
|
wilson
Posts:541
|
| 10/10/2008 8:22 PM |
Alert
|
| I still don't think you should count on the SS amounts as sceduled. I see there being future reductions in benefits. |
|
|
|
|
|