Posted on 05/25/2005 8:42:08 AM PDT by qam1
The debate over whether to reform Social Security is full of idiosyncrasies.
Here's a big one: No matter what fix we're talking about - partial privatization, raising the retirement age, means testing so millionaires forfeit benefits, tying benefits to inflation rather than wages, etc. - the most ferocious opposition comes from the demographic that won't be affected either way by any proposal being discussed at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue: Americans already 55 and over.
If you can imagine that, you're already two steps ahead of the Bush administration. White House officials seem baffled that their biggest fight has turned out to be with a group with whom the administration went out of the way to avoid picking a fight. The polls on this issue back that up. Most show the same trend: The older the polling sample, the less support you find for tinkering with Social Security. The younger the sample, the greater the support.
The more the administration tries to reassure seniors that they'll squeak by before any rule change takes effect, and so this debate doesn't concern them, the more concerned seniors get. Here's what the White House missed: This isn't just about self-interest. It's also about sentimentality. No other generation is as passionate - and therefore as protective - about Social Security as the World War II generation, those Americans now in their 70s and 80s. For that demographic, this debate is about preserving a program that served their generation well and which they hope will be around several decades from now to serve their grandchildren.
That's interesting. If they really wanted to protect their grandchildren, they'd do everything they could to ensure some generational fair play. Unless something is done, the current system will - 10 or 20 years from now - soak taxpayers with tax rates that experts say could easily top 50 percent when you combine income taxes with the payroll taxes necessary to fund Social Security and Medicare.
But there's no reasoning with the elderly on this issue. I know. I tried.
Recently, I agreed to sit on a panel here in Coronado and discuss Social Security reform. Home to a lot of retired naval officers, the well-to-do community has a reputation for being conservative. But you wouldn't know it from the way the audience - made up almost exclusively of senior citizens - seized every opportunity to tear into President Bush and his proposal to allow young people to invest part of the money they contribute to the current system into private accounts.
The way these seniors see it, this isn't about demographics and the undeniable fact that, with every year that goes by, we have fewer workers supporting more retirees. This isn't about the fact that Americans are living longer, and so it only makes sense to push back the retirement age.
For this crowd, the whole issue of reforming Social Security comes down to trusting George Bush. For those who don't, it's tempting to buy the argument that the administration is manufacturing a crisis to gin up public support for a scheme that will make a fortune for ''Bush's friends on Wall Street.''
Judging from their questions and comments, that's what many in the Coronado audience believed. And they couldn't get past it. They insisted on making the issue political, when it's really generational.
That disappointed me. So did the fact that these seniors had convinced themselves that there was no ''crisis'' in Social Security because the best estimates are that benefits will continue to be paid out for the foreseeable future. They didn't seem to care a whit about the financial strain that future taxpayers will be put under to make that happen. This is the real crisis.
You know what else was disappointing? That many of the seniors were so openly contemptuous of the idea of letting poor and working people invest their own money in private retirement accounts. To listen to these seniors, the less well-off aren't smart enough to know what to invest where, and so need the government to provide them with a guaranteed benefit.
Putting aside the rank condescension, such comments were horribly naive. Given the demographic changes ahead - beginning with the retirement of 70 million baby boomers - don't expect the Social Security system to give out any guarantees or to honor them if it does.
That's something that older generations need to understand - and which younger generations figured out a long time ago.
The point is more people will cut off, if we dont stop the spiral.
Knock it off
Anyone my age or older who doesn't see this is suffering from a condition I call cerebro-rectalopathy.
You're kidding, right?
Believe it or not, it is conservative to desire cutbacks in socialism rather than advancement of it.
SS in its current form is not sustainable. It must be grandfathered out so that the younger people of our country will be able to support themselves, their families, and provide for their own retirements in the future.
No problem there at all. However, that has nothing to do with what I responded to. My response was to the notion that we should just cut loose Granny and Grandpa who're already depending on the SS check.
Folks below that age limit cannot expect their SS checks to be the amount "promised" them years before.
Not only can you take the money with you, or will it to your heirs. The government does not get the use of the money, or the interest while you are growing the nest egg.
Yes, proving they know the benfeits of investing. This leads me to conclude that if a democrat proposed this personal savings plan it would be supported by the AARP. In some respects, the plan will trigger a step in the stoc market investment, and whoever is in charge when it happens will get credit for this. Clinton proposed it too, only did not make much of a fuss over it.
We have not seen the details of the plan, but if like a 401 K, the plan will have low investment management fees and several choices of investment from "total stock market" to "total treasuries". I realize the govt may have to be draged away kicking and screeming when they see that they can't fondle the money anymore, but we should insist on this. (I also see where you are coming from, govt never saw a program that they could not mess up via their participation.)
My mom and dad were born in 1921, and 1922 respectively...I remember, during the 70s, my mom kept saying, that she doubted if Social Security would be around when they got ready to retire...she and dad planned their senior years around what they could save for themselves, plus dads retirement from Sunbeam....when they did retire when dad was 60, they were surprised that Social Security was still around...so getting their Social Security checks when they turned 62 was a surprise to them, and added money to their nest egg...
So I grew up, believing that Social Security would never be around for me...I was born just before the beginning of the Baby Boomers, in late 1945, my hubby a few years before that time, ,born in 1943....the hubby just retired, less than a month ago, at age 62....sure, he gets a lower Social Security monthly, but heck, he does not even know if he will live long enough to wait for a full check at age 66...he wants to enjoy life now, not spend his last few years working....so his army retirement, plus his postal office retirement, plus both of our social security checks, really is more than enough for us...but we both never thought Social Security would be around...our true savings came in the form of the Thrift Savings Account, we started and maintained at the post office...used wisely, the amt we draw in an annuity each month, about equals the interest we gain, so we almost never touch the principal...that way, we could live many, many years and enjoy our life...
My older boy died early, at age 15, many years ago, so he never contributed to Social Security, , but will also never draw any...so it evens out...
Our younger son, is 30, unmarried, and makes tons of money, but also pays tons of Social Security taxes...but all his life he heard his grandparents, and us, his parents, warn about the eventual failing of Social Security...so from the beginning of his working career, he has always saved towards his eventual retirement, as he never wants to rely on Govt, to support him, and he hopes we, his parents, spend all of our money before we die...he does not want to inherit a dime from us.....so he looks to himself, as the sole person responsible for his own retirement...he figures by the time he is old enough to retire, Social Security will be a bust...
It is beyond me why seniors dont care what happens to those who are left working after they are gone...that attitude just confounds me...I worry(as parents should do)about my surviving child, about any possible grandchildren he may have(if he ever settles down), and what their financial future will be....thank goodness, my son has shown that he understands what he should do for himself for his old age, and he acts on that...
We should all worry about how we leave the world when we die...leaving it in a terrible financial condition is a nasty epitaph...
The elderly who are against Social Security reform are greedy and selfish. That's all there is to it. They simply don't care if the country goes down in flames, or if their grandchildren endure near-slavery under a crushing tax burden. Logic does not work. They want what's yours, and they intend to get it. If America declines to European status or worse in the process, so be it.
It infuriates me, frankly, because I'm one of the ones they are bilking.
Exactly. It is not a retirement program, it is a welfare program. No one pays into anything.
I'm sure you are a generous person, but I don't recall you paying for my education or helping me along the way. I don't owe you Social Security. As a Christian God teaches us to help others, but I resent having my "charity" taken from me by force to be redistributed.
You are very correct, this is why the democrats are correct when they say Bush's plan will end social security. First the government will handle the deduction and investment for you, and at some time in the future a second change would be to let you handle it yourself. Of course there is the question of whether people would save or spend once they are fully in charge. We seem not to be able to cut off someone who has made foolish choices all his life. Thus some program of mandatory saving still with the employee handling the transaction does not seem unreasonable. Especially when compared to a the present system where the money is taken by the friendly government and simply spent on something else.
This is very true - sometimes tens of thousands of dollars more!
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.