'You can't take away MY Money. I need to be able to raid social security with fake IOUs. How dare you try to take MY money for social engineering away from ME!'
/Sarcasm OFF
Posted on 02/02/2005 8:08:48 AM PST by qam1
Ping list for the discussion of the politics and social (and sometimes nostalgic) aspects that directly effect Gen-Reagan/Generation-X (Those born from 1965-1981) including all the spending previous generations (i.e. The Baby Boomers) are doing that Gen-X and Y will end up paying for.
Freep mail me to be added or dropped. See my home page for details and previous articles.
My own simple solution to Social Security is to allow individuals to opt out. If I don't care about receiving benefits later on in life, I should be allowed to not have the funds withheld from my paycheck today. It's telling that this option is, of course, not on the table at this time.
I'm 37 and I get the impression I am already too old for whatever happens. They've been squawking about this since at least 92 with Perot and all that, but nothing gets done. I believe GW wants to get something done, but I also believe he'll sign absolutely any kind of soc security reform that crosses his desk. And I believe I'll be left out in the cold with the crappy old system.
I'm 37 and I get the impression I am already too old for whatever happens. They've been squawking about this since at least 92 with Perot and all that, but nothing gets done. I believe GW wants to get something done, but I also believe he'll sign absolutely any kind of soc security reform that crosses his desk. And I believe I'll be left out in the cold with the crappy old system.
I think we need to address that insidious, socialist Medicare program also, as it's projected to run out of money long before Socialism Security.
I read yesterday where Medicare pres. drug benefits will now cover Viagra and other similar drugs. Thanks to Bush's increases here, we now get to subsidize the sexual activities of senior citizens!!! Where's the outrage over this?
I started dealing with the social security issue about 15 years ago when I started working full-time.....it's called 401K. My wonderful husband (also an accountant) wisely proclaimed at the onset of our marriage that social security is nothing but a TAX and our family would not count on it, so we don't.
Anyone born after 1960 has lived their entire work career under Carter's extreme Save SS forever tax hike. We also have had our benefits cut so that we no longer can retire at 65, but two full years later, at 67. So we have already had our taxes raised and our benefits cut. Any more cuts or tax increases should only be on those born BEFORE 1960.
I agree. As my husband and I are the lone employees of our home businees, that extra 16% would be better invested in our company, which in turn would provide the real capital we would need to invest in our retirement! I'm 27, he's 31, so Social Security is not even on our radar as something to look for.
And won't be because it "opts out" those receiving the funds you won't be paying. No realistic proposal anticipates that the people who have been paying the tax will willingly let the government break it's promise.
There are many realistic proposals to get from where we are to where we want to go, yours hasn't shown up because it is not realistic.
I think it is realistic. True, because of the flawed set-up of Social Security (pay-as-you-go), there would a short-term shortfall in funding. In the short-term, pull funds from the general fund to make up the difference. In the long-term, this goes away, the Social Security crisis is behind us (or, at least, is not a "crisis" for those who don't want Social Security in the first place), and Americans have more freedom to choose how they want to finance their own retirements. What's wrong with that?
You seem to be the only one.
True, because of the flawed set-up of Social Security (pay-as-you-go), there would a short-term shortfall in funding. In the short-term, pull funds from the general fund to make up the difference.
LOL, how much? Run the numbers then get back to me.
and Americans have more freedom to choose how they want to finance their own retirements.
That should be the goal. It is not the goal for many Americans.
What's wrong with that?
Nothing in theory, I have always called for the abolition of the Ponzi scheme. But, your plan is not politically realistic.
The "general" fund you speak of, is in deficit. Where will the money come from? There is no tooth fairy, so you either have to cut spending or raise revenue. Propose a plan for that and we will look at it and see what happens. Until then, your idea is not realistic.
'You can't take away MY Money. I need to be able to raid social security with fake IOUs. How dare you try to take MY money for social engineering away from ME!'
/Sarcasm OFF
Retirement is simple not going to be an option. The only way to "save" SS is to put the retirement age beyond the average life expectancy.
Simply put, forget about retirement or private SS accounts, neither is going to happen.
This has been a huge issue for me for a while now.
Make SS completely voluntary.
That too!!
The old codgers on SS is too worried about not getting your money now if you opt out of SS. Until we come up with a way to replace the money that those like you and me would not pay in taxes if we opt out they won't go for it.
My solution would be a 10% tax on all imports from China. Judging from Wal-Mart that should bring in Billions.
typical Democratic response....steer the reform away to other issues. Check out http://www.socialsecurity.org/catoplan/
When SS started...it was a simple check to cover groceries and the essentials...it was NOT a pension check. Look over all the literature that the Roosevelt adminstration put out...they never claimed that...and today's SS program doesn't advertise itself as a pension program. Its not such a vehicle. If people really wanted a government pension program...then the total that you and your employer need to put into the system is 20 percent (10 and 10). Thats the only way to make it a true retirement program. And yes, it must take into account that people are living longer.
The only issue I have with private investment deals...alot of folks could come up and risk an awful lot (80 percent of their reserve) on a fund that is possibly doomed to turn south. And lets face facts...if you had a $300k retirement account one day...and suddenly lost $100k over 30 days (Lets use 1/3 of your investment in Enron for example)...your ability to sustain yourself on the account left rapidly decreases. I know lots of people with no investment knowledge and would not be smart at 55 to move all their invested money over to bonds...and their risk ratio may be tied to the fact that they invested in a fund that constantly delivered less than expected goals.
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.