Social Security starting to cash in on IOUs

[Baldy]

I never saw a proposed privatization plan that required one to put their money in the hands of wall street. The point is that it would be your money. you could buy T-bills if that is what you want.

Shhh - don't get in the way of the "Blame Wall Street for Everything" mantra. Some people like to keep things simple, even if it results in inaccuracies.

I guess ignorance is bliss.

[BDKJMU]

SS is easy to fix - retirement age needs to rise with medical advances, the cap on wages taxed by SS needs to be eliminated. Problem solved.

And no privitization - that would kill it.

I agree with the cap on wages being eliminated - never quite understood that.

But isn't the way it is set up now. The $ you pay in under your social security # is suppose to be for your retirement and you're monthly payments are based off of the age you retire and the amount you paid in (as indicated on your yearly statement you get from the Social Security Administration). You remove the tax cap on wages, then you remove the cap on earnings.

After all, why should someone who paid in 10x as much as someone else during their working years not receive 10x in payments upon retirement?

FICA started out at 1% tax on both employer and employee back in the 30s, and about 75 years and 13 tax raises later, its 6.2% each and still staring at a black hole.

Meanwhile, when it was started, the avg life expectancy was only about 63. Now its about 78. But the retirement age has only been bumped (*edit from 65) to 67.

On top of that, you have benefits pegged to go up faster than inflation. How fing retarded is that. Talk about being set up for failure. Its obvious that continuing to increase FICA taxes over and over is barking up the wrong tree. Raise the retirement age to 70 (67 is such an odd # anyway) and peg the payment increases to inflation

[BDKJMU]

They're the lucky ones, I've been paying in for 40 years.

I'm only a coupla years behind ya, dawg, and I don't expect to see much from social security. In fact, I hope I live to 90 and never see a cent, because that will mean we fixed it.

Every arsehole who has lived past 67 or so collected way more than they put in to Social Security. Same with medicare. Nothing but pyramid schemes.Big lies.

Yep, if you or I set up something similar in the private sector then we'd be prosecuted and thrown in prison. Social Security is nothing more than a govt run ponzi scheme saying you're too stupid to invest for your own retirement, so we're going to do it for you.

[dbackjon]

I agree with the cap on wages being eliminated - never quite understood that.

Meanwhile, when it was started, the avg life expectancy was only about 63. Now its about 78. But the retirement age has only been bumped up to 67.

On top of that, you have benefits pegged to go up faster than inflation. How fing retarded is that. Talk about being set up for failure. Its obvious that continuing to increase FICA taxes over and over is barking up the wrong tree. Raise the retirement age to 70 (67 is such an odd # anyway) and peg the payment increases to inflation

I think these are two areas that we can find common ground on. It is a start...

[houndawg]

Meanwhile, when it was started, the avg life expectancy was only about 63. Now its about 78. But the retirement age has only been bumped up to 67.

On top of that, you have benefits pegged to go up faster than inflation. How fing retarded is that. Talk about being set up for failure. Its obvious that continuing to increase FICA taxes over and over is barking up the wrong tree. Raise the retirement age to 70 (67 is such an odd # anyway) and peg the payment increases to inflation

I think these are two areas that we can find common ground on. It is a start...

How are they going to give us our money when they've been borrowing against it? Isn't it collateral against those loans?

[dbackjon]

I think these are two areas that we can find common ground on. It is a start...

How are they going to give us our money when they've been borrowing against it? Isn't it collateral against those loans?

Instead of cash, you will get your choice of cheaply made Chinese goods from Walmart, or your very own underage Chinese gymnast.

[houndawg]

How are they going to give us our money when they've been borrowing against it? Isn't it collateral against those loans?

Instead of cash, you will get your choice of cheaply made Chinese goods from Walmart, or your very own underage Chinese gymnast.

There must be more left than we thought.

[Pwns]

I agree with the cap on wages being eliminated - never quite understood that.

But isn't the way it is set up now. The $ you pay in under your social security # is suppose to be for your retirement and you're monthly payments are based off of the age you retire and the amount you paid in (as indicated on your yearly statement you get from the Social Security Administration). You remove the tax cap on wages, then you remove the cap on earnings.

After all, why should someone who paid in 10x as much as someone else during their working years not receive 10x in payments upon retirement?

FICA started out at 1% tax on both employer and employee back in the 30s, and about 75 years and 13 tax raises later, its 6.2% each and still staring at a black hole.

Meanwhile, when it was started, the avg life expectancy was only about 63. Now its about 78. But the retirement age has only been bumped (*edit from 65) to 67.

On top of that, you have benefits pegged to go up faster than inflation. How fing retarded is that. Talk about being set up for failure. Its obvious that continuing to increase FICA taxes over and over is barking up the wrong tree. Raise the retirement age to 70 (67 is such an odd # anyway) and peg the payment increases to inflation

I think it's a bit simplistic to say "well, the life expectancy is in the high-70s so let's raise the retirement age". How many quality years do we have on average is what I want to know.

I think the least unfair way to fix the system is to raise the cap on SS taxes without raising the cap on the earnings. I can understand someone saying that that is unfair but the principle behind it is not much different than the principle behind a progressive taxation system - the variance on how much people pay into the pool is much larger than the variance on the benefits you get from the pool.

As compared to keeping it with the masters of incompetence?
Do you honestly think the private sector could fvck up social security any worse than the government has? It's impossible.

Impossible my ass. It's more than likely. These guys just got done running the country into the ground and now you want to hand them what's left of SS?

houndawg,

If you won a lot of money in the lottery and were going to set up a trust-fund for yourself, are you really going to tell me that you would loan all of it to the federal government and not buy any stocks, corporate bonds, or commodities? You have an interesting philosophy in investment. I don't see how you can possibly say the system wouldn't be better off if the surpluses we've had over the years were invested wisely instead of thrown into the government wealth-reduction machine.

[BDKJMU]

I think it's a bit simplistic to say "well, the life expectancy is in the high-70s so let's raise the retirement age". How many quality years do we have on average is what I want to know.

I think the least unfair way to fix the system is to raise the cap on SS taxes without raising the cap on the earnings. I can understand someone saying that that is unfair but the principle behind it is not much different than the principle behind a progressive taxation system - the variance on how much people pay into the pool is much larger than the variance on the benefits you get from the pool.

You've already got the income tax for redistribution of wealth. Now you want add on to that by doing the same thing with the ponzi scheme FICA tax?

How in the heck is raising the tax cap more fair than by saying what you draw out is based on what you, your spouse if any (and your employers matching if not self employed) pay in, with payments set to increase with inflation (as opposed to what you have now with payments going up about 1% higher a year than inflation (cpi))? Combine that with raising the FULL retirement age (by a few years, say 70) also treats everyone the same. As far as quality years after 70, some people have none, some have a few, some have a decade or 2 or more. You could still have the early retirement option at 62 vs 70 with an even more reduced benefit (now its reduced by 30%-35% for retiring at 62 vs 67).
http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/agereduction.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[houndawg]

But isn't the way it is set up now. The $ you pay in under your social security # is suppose to be for your retirement and you're monthly payments are based off of the age you retire and the amount you paid in (as indicated on your yearly statement you get from the Social Security Administration). You remove the tax cap on wages, then you remove the cap on earnings.

After all, why should someone who paid in 10x as much as someone else during their working years not receive 10x in payments upon retirement?

FICA started out at 1% tax on both employer and employee back in the 30s, and about 75 years and 13 tax raises later, its 6.2% each and still staring at a black hole.

Meanwhile, when it was started, the avg life expectancy was only about 63. Now its about 78. But the retirement age has only been bumped (*edit from 65) to 67.

On top of that, you have benefits pegged to go up faster than inflation. How fing retarded is that. Talk about being set up for failure. Its obvious that continuing to increase FICA taxes over and over is barking up the wrong tree. Raise the retirement age to 70 (67 is such an odd # anyway) and peg the payment increases to inflation

I think it's a bit simplistic to say "well, the life expectancy is in the high-70s so let's raise the retirement age". How many quality years do we have on average is what I want to know.

I think the least unfair way to fix the system is to raise the cap on SS taxes without raising the cap on the earnings. I can understand someone saying that that is unfair but the principle behind it is not much different than the principle behind a progressive taxation system - the variance on how much people pay into the pool is much larger than the variance on the benefits you get from the pool.

Impossible my ass. It's more than likely. These guys just got done running the country into the ground and now you want to hand them what's left of SS?

houndawg,

If you won a lot of money in the lottery and were going to set up a trust-fund for yourself, are you really going to tell me that you would loan all of it to the federal government and not buy any stocks, corporate bonds, or commodities? You have an interesting philosophy in investment. I don't see how you can possibly say the system wouldn't be better off if the surpluses we've had over the years were invested wisely instead of thrown into the government wealth-reduction machine.

1) Until recently I might have agreed with you, but I don't see how you can call Wall Street a "wise investment", amigo. It's a rigged game and always has been.

2) If I won a lot of money in the lottery I would give most of it away.

[OL FU]

I think it's a bit simplistic to say "well, the life expectancy is in the high-70s so let's raise the retirement age". How many quality years do we have on average is what I want to know.

I think the least unfair way to fix the system is to raise the cap on SS taxes without raising the cap on the earnings. I can understand someone saying that that is unfair but the principle behind it is not much different than the principle behind a progressive taxation system - the variance on how much people pay into the pool is much larger than the variance on the benefits you get from the pool.



houndawg,

If you won a lot of money in the lottery and were going to set up a trust-fund for yourself, are you really going to tell me that you would loan all of it to the federal government and not buy any stocks, corporate bonds, or commodities? You have an interesting philosophy in investment. I don't see how you can possibly say the system wouldn't be better off if the surpluses we've had over the years were invested wisely instead of thrown into the government wealth-reduction machine.

1) Until recently I might have agreed with you, but I don't see how you can call Wall Street a "wise investment", amigo. It's a rigged game and always has been.

2) If I won a lot of money in the lottery I would give most of it away.

If you win a lot of money, please call me immediately

[houndawg]

1) Until recently I might have agreed with you, but I don't see how you can call Wall Street a "wise investment", amigo. It's a rigged game and always has been.

2) If I won a lot of money in the lottery I would give most of it away.

If you win a lot of money, please call me immediately

Sure!

[OL FU]

If you win a lot of money, please call me immediately

Sure!

I'll do the same for you

[houndawg]

Sure!

I'll do the same for you

If I hit big I'll buy you a boat, if you hit big you buy me a tractor and a square baler.

[BDKJMU]

I'm only a coupla years behind ya, dawg, and I don't expect to see much from social security. In fact, I hope I live to 90 and never see a cent, because that will mean we fixed it.

Every arsehole who has lived past 67 or so collected way more than they put in to Social Security. Same with medicare. Nothing but pyramid schemes.Big lies.

Yep, if you or I set up something similar in the private sector then we'd be prosecuted and thrown in prison. Social Security is nothing more than a govt run ponzi scheme saying you're too stupid to invest for your own retirement, so we're going to do it for you.

I should have added that it in a govt run ponzi scheme THE WAY IT IS SET UP. Starting out in the 30s by having the 1st generation of workers who retired on it mostly taking out far more (adjusted for inflation) than they paid in, enabled by the contributions of current workers. And the same for each successive generation.

At least if it had been set up so that each worker, instead of having his FICA taxes go to pay for current retirees, had instead actually had a separate account that his (and his employers matching) contributions were paid into that were adjusted for inflation each year for their own retirement, we wouldn't have the problem we have now. Upon retirement the retiree and his spouse would have been paid out what was in their accounts, and once that money ran out, that was it. For people who died off with $ still in their accounts that could have been designated to heirs. That way, everyone would have only gotten out what they had paid in and Social Security could never go broke. But instead these f*cktards in the 30s, Roosevelt being the chief one, gave us the greatest ponzi scheme the world has ever seen. And all Ponzi schemes will eventually fail.