Posted on 01/24/2005 10:20:14 AM PST by jmc813
Social Security reform promises to be the biggest domestic issue this year in Washington, but most of the proposals are nothing more than flim-flam. The only honest solution to the future insolvency of the program is for Congress to stop spending so much money. Unless Congress makes real cuts in spending-- and stops spending Social Security taxes on completely unrelated programs-- millions of Americans simply will not receive even a fraction of the money they paid into Social Security. Ignore the rhetoric about tax increases and cuts in benefits, as though you are to blame for the problem! All Social Security obligations could be met if Congress did not spend so much on other things.
In the 1930s, Social Security was presented to the American people as a social insurance program, with individuals paying a monthly “premium” in exchange for retirement benefits later. It was supposed to be a forced savings program, based on the assumption that some people would be unable or unwilling to save for their older years. Seven decades later, however, the ratio of younger working people to older retirees has changed dramatically, exposing the Ponzi-like congressional raid on the system itself. What has not changed, however, is our willingness to accept the notion that the government should force us to save for our older years.
Notice that neither political party proposes letting people opt out of Social Security, which exposes the lie that your contributions are set aside and saved. After all, if your contributions really are put aside for your retirement, the money will be there earning interest, right? If your money is put away in a trust fund account with your name on it, what difference would it make if your neighbor chooses not to participate in the program?
The truth, of course, is that your contributions are not put aside. Social Security is simply a tax. Like all taxes, the money collected is spent immediately as general revenues to fund the federal government. The Social Security trust fund does not exist, and Social Security “surpluses” are nothing more than an accounting ledger showing that contributions exceeded benefits paid for a given calendar year-- not that the excess was put aside. Social Security benefits are paid each year from general funds, like other federal programs. Since these programs and overall spending keep increasing, the government can’t give up any sources of tax revenue. Allowing people to opt out of Social Security would force the federal government to admit it has been stealing money from Social Security for decades.
The administration speaks of private accounts, but government-managed investment of Social Security funds is not privatization at all. True capitalism by definition operates without government interference, and we should oppose further government involvement in the financial markets. After all, which government officials will decide what stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or other investment vehicles are approved? Which politicians will you trust to decide what your portfolio may contain? Imagine the lobbyists fighting over which special interests will have their favored investments approved for Social Security accounts. Political favoritism, rather than market performance, will determine what investments are allowed, and Social Security in essence will become a huge source of taxpayer-provided investment capital.
If the administration truly wants to give people more control over their retirement dollars, why not simply reduce payroll taxes and let them keep their own money to invest privately as they see fit? This is the true private solution.
Your money has never been safe in the government’s hands, and it never will be. Governments spend money; it’s just their nature. It is preposterous to believe our government is capable of simply sitting on a huge pile of money without touching it because it’s earmarked for one purpose or another. No matter what politicians promise, Social Security reform will not change the fact that your money is taken from your paycheck and sent to Washington, where it will be spent.
sorry to offend the Paulophiles ... but his response is long winded and typical political speech ...
bottom line with socialist insecurity is that the "old age insurance" program is and has been actuarially out of balance.
i.e. most of the money that goes in pays current retirees ... because people since the late 30s have been getting out more than they paid in plus interest and inflation ... otherwise known as a ponzi/pyramid scheme
e.g. today the average retiree lives to 76/77 but has collected their fare share by about 71 (fair share = everything they put in plus interest and inflation).
Problem is no politician has the guts to talk about putting the system into actuarial balance (i.e. RAISING THE RETIREMENT age ... bumping it up a year every 2/3 years until it gets into actuarial balance .. which today would be about 72/73 ...
about the problem gets worse with the baby boom generation ... who yes paid more into the system ... but their age expectation is expected to rise to the mid 80s.
So, our politician have only addressed the actuarial issue (raising the age) once ... the raising to 67 in the future ... which is too little too late ...
instead the FICA portion of socialist insecurity has gone from I believe initially .5% to 6.2% ...
ANY POLITICIAN ... including Ron Paul ... who is not willing to come out and say the retirement age for the program is the main problem ... is looking out for one thing ... GETTING RE-ELECTED ... becase the AARP is the most powerful DC lobby in the country.!
Dittoes to that!!
Any person who thinks that the scam isn't big enough doesn't understand the real problem.
The government isn't an insurance company. The scheme is just socialism.
The people who support it are evil and/or stupid. The people who think government has a legitimate reason to take people's retirement savings for their own good have no clue about the legitimate function of government in a free society. They are some times called liberals.
not disagreeing whether it is a scam ... how do you REALISTICALLY deal with it? Raise the age for people paying into the current system ... and eventually phase it out to a private plan (a forced 401K of sorts) ... this would take about 60,70 years ...
...
alternative to this is the liberals and RINOs (when the shiite hit the fan) will raise the FICA tax, means test the programs, remove the income level cap on contribution but keep the caps on payouts, and/or move the plan on-budget (lock it into more source of tax money)
Try the CATO INSTITUTE at cato.org. We have been working on it for 20 plus years.
i agree current system is not fair ...
If your actuarial tables say no one gets any money till they are 72, is it fair to make people who die before that pay for people who live longer? NO, THAT IS THE CURRENT SYSTEM ... that we should phase out of ... but that would take about 60 years ... UNFORTUNATELY, the current system CANNOT BE ENDED OVERNIGHT
until you phased in a private system where you own the funds.! You die ... and funds remaining would get passed on to your beneficiaries.
My generations is screwed as far as the Socialist Insecurity program is concerned ... however, it doesn't mean I want to screw my kids and grandkids generations even more.
From his column:
"If the administration truly wants to give people more control over their retirement dollars, why not simply reduce payroll taxes and let them keep their own money to invest privately as they see fit?"
As is plainly obviousl from the above, the man's not going to be winning any points with the AARP any time soon.
Ron Paul is the only person in Congress who speaks the truth about this abomination. If it were run honestly (and that's assuming that the federal government has any business running it at all, which it doesn't), then retirement age would be a simple matter of policy, not a matter of solvency. In other words, it wouldn't matter from a bookkeeping perspective what the retirement age is, because it would simply be money that's kept in account for the person who paid the money into it. But since it's not being run honestly, playing around with retirement ages is only going to be a bandaid - and a highly unfair one at that.
This is the exact point I have been trying to lead you to for days. There is absolutely no difference between the government investing money and authorizing investments for individuals. Either one will be corrupted by politicians. Which investments are approved will depend on which lobbyist pays the biggest bribe. Privatizing Social Security will not work and it will end up costing us and our children a lot more money down the road.
The debate proposing to allow us to invest part of our Social Security payments is not about a "Social Security Crisis". It is just another scam to benefit a select group of "Campaign Contributors"
There may be hope for you yet if you will expand your factual horizons beyond "Four legs good, two legs bad" .
No it isn't. You have never mentioned anything even remotely like that. You lied.
There is absolutely no difference between the government investing money and authorizing investments for individuals.
You are entirely and utterly incorrect and I have told you why in detain on several occasions. You lied again.
Either one will be corrupted by politicians.
Politicians are corrupt beyond doubt. So YOU want to let them continue to steal money from one person and give it to another person to whom it does not belong. You propose to let corrupt politicians trick dummies into thinking they have invested money which they do not have. What you propose is precisely opposite of what you claim is the problem. You are childish.
Which investments are approved will depend on which lobbyist pays the biggest bribe.
It hasn't happened that way yet and a privatized system, IRAs, Keoghs, 401Ks already exists. So your childish predictions are goofy again.
Privatizing Social Security will not work and it will end up costing us and our children a lot more money down the road.
Incorrect. And MY children are none of your business. Of course you think the government should be involved in all this because you are a liberal.
The debate proposing to allow us to invest part of our Social Security payments is not about a "Social Security Crisis". It is just another scam to benefit a select group of "Campaign Contributors"
MORE ANTI BUSH RHETORIC FROM LIBERALS ON FREE REPUBLIC MASQUERADING AS CONSERVATIVES. YOU JUST ACCUSED BUSH OF SELLING THE WHITEHOUSE LIKE CLINTON DID.
There may be hope for you yet if you will expand your factual horizons beyond "Four legs good, two legs bad" .
I never said that anywhere ever. You lied again. Post the place where I said that or withdraw your childish lie.
If politicians want to fix socialist insecurity ... here is the bottom line ...
1) raise the retirment age ... raise it one year every three years until it is actuarial in balance.!
2) DO NOT raise the FICA taxes! DO NOT expand the income limit on what can be taxed (because the payouts are capped). DO NOT adjust the payouts based on age and gender. KEY IS NOT TO TWEAK THE CURRENT SYSTEM ... BUT BE ABLE TO PHASE OUT OF IT ... AND DO IT REALISTICALLY!
3) All those in the current play ... remain in the current plan. Govt. will eventually phase out and eat the cost of FDR's screw deal. Because those of us in it now cannot ask for our money back ... because it has already gone to current recipients, etc.
4) People under a certain age (e.g. 16) begin contributing to a new plan ... there own personal retirement account (PRA) ... basically a forced 401K ... functions the same as a 401K. They die at age 45 and it goes to their beneficiaries (w/option to roll into their own PRA). If you work in the U.S. since you are 18ish (and stay gainfully employed for most of your life), you obviously can have a better chance of retiring earlier than those who don't (e.g. that would include immigrants who move here at a later age in their life). So, retirement would be chosen by the individual (govt. would unfortunately have some say ... i'm being REALISTIC ... minimum age of 59 or something to start drawing an annuity ... and at death ... as mentioned proceeds going to beneficiaries.
If you don't have enough money to retire, you obviously need to continue to work. If you aren't physically or mentally able to work, that is what state and federal disablity programs are for. Whether you like it or not they won't go away. Concern is obviously abuse ...
for example ... I have a neighbor who collects disability with a supposed nerve condition (kind of like fibra mialga ... however you spell) ... but she was okay to be outside landscaping and cutting the grass on a few occassions.
Key is for SS to phase out of current system and replace it with plan where money is account belonging to payee. Unfornately that doesn't happen overnight ... IN REALITY ... and why screw the next generations of the country just because our generation has been.
Just like those who sacrificed themselves in a war for freedom. Where they fighting for their own or their children's and grandchildren's?
What legislation has Ron Paul submitted to address the problems with the socialist insecurity system?
Why does it have to be forced? If the money is for them and them alone, then it's their money and it should be up to them - not the government - to decide what to do with it, period.
The one idea that only liberals and Democrats have proposed ,and that you advocate, is the outright stealing of the money that has already been taken by raising the age of collection. It is the precise way those like you will use to repudiate the commitment the government made. Immorality and evil go together.
Liberals always advocate that government be involved in using force to be a nanny for the dumb populace. It's called elitism.
We were forced into this program when we received our first paycheck (unless you are a government type exempt from the little people laws). I was to get this piss poor return on my money when I retired at 65. Then they passed a law, retroactive in relation to my earnings to force me to wait until 66.5 to receive my full check. That is an illegal ex post facto law and it should be struck down.
The SS number was also supposed to be used for "benefits" only and illegal to require it for other purposes. Well the bastards changed that law in the middle of the game also.
Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a law that applies retroactively. Two clauses in the US Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws: Art 1, § 9 and Art. 1 § 10. see, e.g. Collins v. Youngblood 497 US 37 (1990) and California Dep't of Corrections v. Morales 514 US 499 (1995).
I have made the points I have listed several times in numerous ways but since they don't fit your desired response you always ignore them.
Who are you accusing of being a Liberal and lier, myself or Ron Paul, or both of us. Both of us of have pointed out that politicians are corruptible. If you don't understand that fact you are a fool.
You, sir, mam, or it, are the lier here.
One guy on this thread advocates just what you describe. He wants to raise the retirement age to attain what he calls "actuarial balance" or some such nonsense. He actually thinks it's an insurance policy! And he also actually believes that it's OK for government to go back on it's word. And I'm sure he claims to be a conservative.
Bizarre site sometimes.
I'll be a lier I guess, but you are a liar.
You must have been playing on DU when your spelling class was in session.
Politicians being corruptible is not the topic here little girl.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.