Social Security: Years of screwing the poor workers

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Essentially they fucked you, again.

But you didn't get fucked?

And WTF is with all these threads with you talking like you are everyone's dad. Man you must have had your ass handed to you a ton on the playground, is that what causes this psychosis?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i want to fix the exact thing i said i would: making it so congress can't monkey with it any time they feel like. property right. SS was sold as insurance, but if i buy an annuity with insurance they have to pay out or i can sue them for breach of contract. with SS, congress could decide one day to means test benefits and you can't do anything about it other than vote and protest.


edit: at least, i never said anything about moving it out of tbills in this thread, at least.

I'd have to think about that for a while. I think it really boils down to the details regarding how we make it so congress does not have as much flexible control over it.

At the end of the day, all I really want is there to be a nearly risk free backup plan for retirement and that is a very thin "nearly". I'm open to changes and reform, but I am not willing to increase risks. I believe the purpose of SS is very necessary.

here's the thing: even with the stock market melt down, a properly diversified portfolio is probably still 50% higher than what regular SS is at (assuming the you've got the same money deposited at the same time). so you're paying a huge premium for whatever increase in risk there is. i don't think there is much increase in risk with good diversification.

the risk of holding government bonds as your personal property is less risky than social security is right now. right now, as i said, congress could decide to means test beneficiaries. that's riskier than holding bonds as personal property. so SS is riskier than holding the bonds yourself and you're not getting paid anything for it. sounds like a bad deal to me.

not only that, there is also the risk that you die and don't collect. at least if you held bonds yourself you'd be able to provide for your family with it. so again, there is a risk you're not getting compensated for.

Originally posted by: soulcougher73

This. Its not the program that is bad, its the misuse or implementation of the program. But the idea behind it is a sound one for any country.

no, the idea would have been sound if fully funded, taking advantage of compound interest, and private property. that's a lot different from depending on an increasing stream of payments to fund an increasing number of beneficiaries.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: soulcougher73

This. Its not the program that is bad, its the misuse or implementation of the program. But the idea behind it is a sound one for any country.

no, the idea would have been sound if fully funded and private property. that's a lot different from depending on an increasing stream of payments to fund an increasing number of beneficiaries.

You need to say more than these few words to make a coherent point or argument.

Your post as it is fails to show you understand SS.

There have been people opposed to SS - those who want all the money possible available for their own pockets, and people duped by them - who have said it can't work since 1935.

They've all been wrong, all that time, though when they're in power, they can threaten to cause it not to work, just as Reagan created the terrible borrowing of his surtax.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: soulcougher73

This. Its not the program that is bad, its the misuse or implementation of the program. But the idea behind it is a sound one for any country.

no, the idea would have been sound if fully funded and private property. that's a lot different from depending on an increasing stream of payments to fund an increasing number of beneficiaries.

You need to say more than these few words to make a coherent point or argument.

Your post as it is fails to show you understand SS.

There have been people opposed to SS - those who want all the money possible available for their own pockets, and people duped by them - who have said it can't work since 1935.

They've all been wrong, all that time, though when they're in power, they can threaten to cause it not to work, just as Reagan created the terrible borrowing of his surtax.

please point out exactly what i've said is wrong rather than just doing your usual 'you don't know how to argue' act.

 

[marincounty]

Wait, are you saying that Ronald Reagan, the hero of the right, fucked us by raising taxes and then spent the money that was supposed to be for social security?

This can't be true. Righties have always claimed he was a tax cutter.

 

[lupi]

while there are many good reasons for dumping or totally changing SS; one problem to be faced is the fact that pension plans have all but disappeared from american employers.

 

[Hacp]

The solution is to get rid of social security.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: marincounty
Wait, are you saying that Ronald Reagan, the hero of the right, fucked us by raising taxes and then spent the money that was supposed to be for social security?

This can't be true. Righties have always claimed he was a tax cutter.

depends on if you believe that the social security has always been an accounting fiction or not. if you believe that the social security trust fund was not an accounting fiction until ronnie, but was after ronnie got done, then ronnie spent the money. of course, ronnie also had a democratic house of representatives and so there is no way that you can lay blame solely on ronnie. if you believe that the social security trust fund was always an accounting fiction, then ronnie didn't do anything other than increase the taxes that supported it in response to the short-falls that started in 1975.

 

[extra]

Yeah, pretty much.

Social security money should not able to be touched except to pay benefits. The cap on income so that income over 100k isn't taxed needs to go as well. Benefits should be capped. (sorry, folks) The retirement age raised a year or so. Get it solvent again and make it so that the gov can't touch the money and it will work fine.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Hacp
The solution is to get rid of social security.

The solution is to not get rif od social security. Without it we had 90% of elders in poverty, that was the norm. Hacp spouts idiocy and calls for a return to the terrible situation.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: ElFenix
we need to privatize social security so that congress can't monkey with people's retirements any time they feel like it.

...and what happens when we go through really bad economic times like this one again and those private SS funds that were invested over the years suddenly become almost worthless? Where is the money going to come from that so many retired Americans rely on then?

I'd rather have 70% of MY money in MY name where congress can't spend it; than 100% of my money in government "control."

2008 was the downfall of the SECOND largest ponzi scheme; furthermore, it was less than 1/1000th the size of the largest.

SS is not an entitlement program, it is a FORCED retirement plan that gives shit returns and no ability for lump sums; futhermore, SS gives zero returns for anyone under the age of 30 today. SS = government run 401k; like anything government does it's expensive and doomed to failure.

As I have stated before (in other threads), I know SS will fail so I save 18% in my 401k (21.6% with company match) and max my roth ira every year. I plan on saving more when I check my budget.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: ElFenix
we need to privatize social security so that congress can't monkey with people's retirements any time they feel like it.

...and what happens when we go through really bad economic times like this one again and those private SS funds that were invested over the years suddenly become almost worthless? Where is the money going to come from that so many retired Americans rely on then?

Feel free to leave your own retirement to congress.
I can make my own investment choices perfectly fine.

Anyone who wants theirs to be privatized should be allowed to do so.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: ElFenix
we need to privatize social security so that congress can't monkey with people's retirements any time they feel like it.

...and what happens when we go through really bad economic times like this one again and those private SS funds that were invested over the years suddenly become almost worthless? Where is the money going to come from that so many retired Americans rely on then?

Feel free to leave your own retirement to congress.
I can make my own investment choices perfectly fine.

Anyone who wants theirs to be privatized should be allowed to do so.

You probably can. However, there are events beyond your control many people experience all the time. Such as a child or spouse gets sick and medical bills cause an early withdrawal on savings just before retirement. Or a husband who gambles it all away dies and leaves wife high and dry. Or...well I could probably go on forever but say it doesnt work out then what? sufficed to say your plan did not work before SS and it won't work next time. The key should be investing the surplus instead of spending it on general funds because politicians are giving tax breaks at the top. Reverse Robin Hood.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: ElFenix
we need to privatize social security so that congress can't monkey with people's retirements any time they feel like it.

...and what happens when we go through really bad economic times like this one again and those private SS funds that were invested over the years suddenly become almost worthless? Where is the money going to come from that so many retired Americans rely on then?

Feel free to leave your own retirement to congress.
I can make my own investment choices perfectly fine.

Anyone who wants theirs to be privatized should be allowed to do so.

You probably can. However, there are events beyond your control many people experience all the time. Such as a child or spouse gets sick and medical bills cause an early withdrawal on savings just before retirement. Or a husband who gambles it all away dies and leaves wife high and dry. Or...well I could probably go on forever but say it doesnt work out then what? sufficed to say your plan did not work before SS and it won't work next time. The key should be investing the surplus instead of spending it on general funds because politicians are giving tax breaks at the top. Reverse Robin Hood.

Events "beyond my control" are more likely to occur between the age of 0-65 than 65-x.
What if I die before I get the chance to collect a single SS check? Will my family and dependents get the amount I paid in the system?

My father died at the age of 49. He didn't get to collect a single dime from SS and neither did we.
How's that for an event beyond my control?

That extra money he contributed to SS could sure have helped fund some our college education.
My mom raised 4 boys working 2 jobs, 68 hours a week as a widow. It would be nice if she was able to see some of the money my father paid in the system.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: Lothar


Events "beyond my control" are more likely to occur between the age of 0-65 than 65-x.
What if I die before I get the chance to collect a single SS check? Will my family and dependents get the amount I paid in the system?

My father died at the age of 49. He didn't get to collect a single dime from SS and neither did we.
How's that for an event beyond my control?

That extra money he contributed to SS could sure have helped fund some our college education.
My mom raised 4 boys working 2 jobs, 68 hours a week as a widow. It would be nice if she was able to see some of the money my father paid in the system.

Either you are lying or your mom did not look into how SS works.

 

[Jhhnn]

Gotta love how the topic immediately devolves into the usual anti-SS raving.

SS isn't the problem. The problem is that increases in SS contributions have been used to offset revenues lost in taxcuts at the very top of the pile, compounded by enormous deficits, courtesy of the party of "small govt and fiscal responsibility"- aka republicans.

As income has shifted to the top, more and more income escapes out the top of the SS contributions limit, compounding the problem, calling for (what else?)- more and bigger deficits, of course...

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Hacp
The solution is to get rid of social security.

The solution is to not get rif od social security. Without it we had 90% of elders in poverty, that was the norm. Hacp spouts idiocy and calls for a return to the terrible situation.

Source for that 90% statistic?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: ElFenix
we need to privatize social security so that congress can't monkey with people's retirements any time they feel like it.

...and what happens when we go through really bad economic times like this one again and those private SS funds that were invested over the years suddenly become almost worthless? Where is the money going to come from that so many retired Americans rely on then?

... and what happens when it's your turn to retire and Congress says, "Oops, we spent all the money! Nothing left for you!!"

Those who trust in gov't deserve to get screwed.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: ElFenix
we need to privatize social security so that congress can't monkey with people's retirements any time they feel like it.

...and what happens when we go through really bad economic times like this one again and those private SS funds that were invested over the years suddenly become almost worthless? Where is the money going to come from that so many retired Americans rely on then?

... and what happens when it's your turn to retire and Congress says, "Oops, we spent all the money! Nothing left for you!!"

Those who trust in gov't deserve to get screwed.

Anyone who has the opportunity to prepare for retirement outside of SS and doesnt' deserves to get screwed. Retirement is ideally private savings/investments, corporate pensions, and SS combined. SS is primarily designed to be stable. You can't simply ignore the other legs of hte stool. Doing so makes you a fool. Trusting in government to hold up its end of the retirement bargain...not so much.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Gotta love how the topic immediately devolves into the usual anti-SS raving.

SS isn't the problem. The problem is that increases in SS contributions have been used to offset revenues lost in taxcuts at the very top of the pile, compounded by enormous deficits, courtesy of the party of "small govt and fiscal responsibility"- aka republicans.

As income has shifted to the top, more and more income escapes out the top of the SS contributions limit, compounding the problem, calling for (what else?)- more and bigger deficits, of course...

Social Insurance taxes as a percentage of overall receipts:
2000 - 32.23%
2005 - 36.87%
(That would be an increase of 14.4%.)

Individual income taxes as a percentage of overall receipts:
2000 - 49.59%
2005 - 43.05%
(That would be a decrease of 13.19%.)


I think over the last few years the % of individual tax receipts has risen to around 45% or so which would seem to be a more positive trend but more likely is due to the serious job-loss problems we have seen over the last 18 months.

I doubt the un- (or under) employed are boosting SS receipts a great deal now but the ""trust fund"" is projected to show around a $300 billion surplus this fiscal year ....

Projected $1.7 trillion surplus over the next 5 years (if we are lucky).

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Hacp
The solution is to get rid of social security.

The solution is to not get rif od social security. Without it we had 90% of elders in poverty, that was the norm. Hacp spouts idiocy and calls for a return to the terrible situation.

Source for that 90% statistic?

Fair question; research I did a couple years ago when looking into SS, and I can't quickly find the sources for. You can accept it or not, and do your own research to confirm/argue.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Hacp
The solution is to get rid of social security.

The solution is to not get rif od social security. Without it we had 90% of elders in poverty, that was the norm. Hacp spouts idiocy and calls for a return to the terrible situation.

Source for that 90% statistic?

Fair question; research I did a couple years ago when looking into SS, and I can't quickly find the sources for. You can accept it or not, and do your own research to confirm/argue.

I did a quick google search, and could find numbers which suggested, at worse, that slight over half of seniors lived in poverty prior to Social Security. Still not a great number, but not 90% either. And it was the Great Depression, after all. Most non-seniors weren't doing too hot either prior to Social Security passing in 1935.

 

[Wreckem]

The sad fact of the matter anyone under 40 right now will probably pay way more into SS than they ever recieve back. Simly because there will have to be across the board tax hikes to cover the social security shortfall since the government wont touch the subject.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Gotta love how the topic immediately devolves into the usual anti-SS raving.

SS isn't the problem. The problem is that increases in SS contributions have been used to offset revenues lost in taxcuts at the very top of the pile, compounded by enormous deficits, courtesy of the party of "small govt and fiscal responsibility"- aka republicans.

As income has shifted to the top, more and more income escapes out the top of the SS contributions limit, compounding the problem, calling for (what else?)- more and bigger deficits, of course...

Social Insurance taxes as a percentage of overall receipts:
2000 - 32.23%
2005 - 36.87%
(That would be an increase of 14.4%.)

Individual income taxes as a percentage of overall receipts:
2000 - 49.59%
2005 - 43.05%
(That would be a decrease of 13.19%.)


I think over the last few years the % of individual tax receipts has risen to around 45% or so which would seem to be a more positive trend but more likely is due to the serious job-loss problems we have seen over the last 18 months.

I doubt the un- (or under) employed are boosting SS receipts a great deal now but the ""trust fund"" is projected to show around a $300 billion surplus this fiscal year ....

Projected $1.7 trillion surplus over the next 5 years (if we are lucky).

That "surplus" is paid back with future general tax reciepts.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Hacp
The solution is to get rid of social security.

The solution is to not get rif od social security. Without it we had 90% of elders in poverty, that was the norm. Hacp spouts idiocy and calls for a return to the terrible situation.

Source for that 90% statistic?

Fair question; research I did a couple years ago when looking into SS, and I can't quickly find the sources for. You can accept it or not, and do your own research to confirm/argue.

I did a quick google search, and could find numbers which suggested, at worse, that slight over half of seniors lived in poverty prior to Social Security. Still not a great number, but not 90% either. And it was the Great Depression, after all. Most non-seniors weren't doing too hot either prior to Social Security passing in 1935.

My compliments for even doing any research, so few bother - but the period I'm talking about is pre-Great Depression, say the 1900-1925 period (or you can go further back, but as you approach earlier years, the simple mass poverty and lack of industrialization of our rural society start to make the issue apples and oragnes to define 'poverty'.) I fairly clearly recall the statements that 'elder poverty was the norm', something to the effect it was 'nearly universal', and the 90% figure, which was eventually reversed in modern times.