Posted on 02/09/2005 1:34:44 PM PST by jongaltsr
The President is looking for solutions to Social Security shortfalls in the future of the existing program. Democrats are looking to extend the time until action is taken so that they can regain the issue as theirs, instead of the Republican Party, which has taken the platform from them.
I have a simple solution for the shortfall under the present suggested program of supplementing the program with individual investment programs in the stock market. Since the objection is that there will be a negative intake of monies at about 20 years from the start of such a program and will continue for about another 20 years (estimated) until such time as the program again pays for itself.
My (humble) suggestion is that since it was the politicians that caused the problem by spending "Our" future - THEY should make up that shortfall out of their retirement program and income starting immediately.
They have a very effective program similar to what is now being suggested we mirror - but the difference is that WE were not allowed that alternative by the very people that caused the problem in the first place. "Now" THEY should compensate us by starting (immediately) taking their pay increases, plus a percentage of their pay, plus as a portion of their retirement benefits and include it in OUR depleted Social Security program.
I know it is appropriate to have them compensate us for "their" past greed and indiscressions, but I doubt very much that this suggestion will ever see the light of day. Why? Because it would affect THEM negatively. The fact that it affected the common citizenry is not considered. I also doubt very much that any fair compensation solution will ever be accepted by our current politicians.
Well - maybe not but at least I made a suggestion, which President Bush said he was looking for. He said ALL options and ideas are on the table and open for consideration.
WHAT IS YOUR IDEA ON THIS SUBJECT? Please keep your responses to Practical Solutions only. Please keep your comments to the subject only. Thanks.
1% duty on imports, oil included.
You want to pay more taxes ? They already take 12.4% - if I could invest that 12.4% any way I wanted I'd be a multimillionaire by now. NO MORE TAXES!!!
You are absolutely right. That 12.4% would have made me a lakeside resident with a nice income. I could have made room for a younger person in the work force. Forced participation in the national ponzi has brought nothing much to my life and I cannot stop work in order to collect my 900 bucks/month. If I had just been born when the chain letter was young.
Someday I will do the same - leave PA and move to FL.
Here's mine (I had it 30 years ago when I was sitting at my desk in the Parole Division, AZ DOC):
This year, with my same payroll tax as usual, 1% is raked off into an account with my name on it. 99% still goes into the general fund.
Next year, 2% goes into my account, 98% to the general fund.
And on and on...
Just think: by now, 30% would be going into my account, and I'd have an account with probably $100,000 in it, and the impact on the general fund would've been almost imperceptible. Plus, I'd have some rights in the old system, too.
It's not too late to start. It would get the people used to the idea, on a small scale, and phase out the old ponzi scheme gradually. It makes eminent sense to me.
It's not too late to start.
Private accounts would be great. But just take the tax away. I live in Alaska no state taxes , what a difference a tax makes. I'm able to save much more than when I lived my most of my life in California .
The only viable option that I have seen for replacing the existing SS system is a "pay it forward" model. Under that concept, the money would be set aside now in individually targeted accounts, accumulate wealth over 60+ years, and then be available to purchase anuities to pay a monthly stiepend to the receipent.
For example:
Create a new sales tax of say 1%
All people born and obtain US citizenship during a given month would get an equal share of the 1% tax set aside in an individually TARGETED (NOT OWNED) account.
In 2004 the total GDP is estimated at 11,728 Billion dollars.
1% of that, divided by 12 would be the monthly amount shared by the new US citizens. Or about 9.77 Billion per month. Since the US is adding about 3 million people per year the monthly rate would be about 250,000 people to share $9.77 Billion. Or each account would be credited with about $38,000.
Lets then assume 5% average interest over 65 years till retirement. That would leave the individual account with about $900,000. At 5% interest, that would be about $45,000 annual income - PLUS - any individual retirements.
When the person dies, 20% of the account would be the death benifit, and the remainding 80% would be combined with the 1% sales tax up to a maximum of 2%. Any additional funds would be returned to the general fund.
Unlike the existing system, when the new generation begins to retire - 65 years from the start date, there will be no need for additional taxes etc. The system will continue to work on it's own.
Pay it forward is the only way that will work in the long run. However, I do not see Americans having the politcal will to implement such a system.
It was hard. - Very, very hard to leave behind my family and place of birth, with all that that entails.
And I admit, it was not a deliberate step to do more than finish my education, but the opportunities were everywhere.
And now, going back to Pa. is a somewhat painful contrast in styles of governance, although I now own property there.
There is a contrast.
Question: Was Social Security originally supposed to be permanent or temporary?
I agree with you about taxes. No more. What we need is more responsibility from those that took our money and spent it on their pet projects and then deny there is a problem except to raise the age limit, increase taxes or decrease benefits.
Love your tag line.
It's too late to make the responsible parties to this fraud have their day in court - let's just shut down the whole thing, IMO. Let the seniors continue to draw; everyone else gets their 12.4% to keep every year and you're on your own for retirement.
My parents now live for most of the year in Florida and just love it.
Agreed - the individual repsonsible for themselves would be a far better option, but again, not politically viable.
This is exactly why the AARP is so against having future seniors enjoying privately financed retirments. They exist to "protect" seniors, while living lavishly in their palacial digs. Because they take in so much money from seniors and are subsidized by government as well, they can compete unfairly with auto and health and life insurance companies in the private sector. If seniors are independent, they won't need AARP, and its insurance businesses will suffer.
If social security was tea we would have thrown it in the harbor by now.
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.