Posted on 06/25/2005 12:31:10 AM PDT by FairOpinion
The politicians have been 'stealing' from SS for so long
they cant live without it...
I can't, in my wildest dreams, come to a complacent mindset that in a "free" system which is toted time and time and time again by politicians, during peak election cycles, as the basis of our way of life, that the more government control in our lives is a political directive to personal freedoms consistently.>>>>>>>
You should be in the government, you have demonstrated the ability to write sentences containing no discernible meaning, this skill is highly valued at all levels of government.
I've resigned myself to the fact that it will forever be a permanent tax. We may never see any benefits, (I'm certainly not banking on it) but we will never see the burden of payment go away. Personalyy, I want to opt out. They can keep what they've already stolen, just include me out. But it will never happen.
I agree with you. The government has siezed money from my earnings without my permission for the last 42 years. I can't even get any back for at least another four . I want my $$ back so its not given to some SOB who made the wrong decisions in life or sits on his/hers a$$ all day for a welfare check .I could have amassed a small fortune if I was able to invest that $$ my own way in the stock market .
We're in the same choir brother!
Is this not a possibility, or am I way off base?
Barron's (from the Wall Street Journal folks) made precisely this prediction 10 years ago. Only it won't be a collapse; rather, it will be "slow death". Year in and year out, returns in the stock market will be low, interest rates will increase, and inflation will increase. We've enjoyed low inflation, high growth, and good stock market returns - partly because money was being saved to support the upcoming cohort of retirees. Now we'll see the other side of the coin.
It is, of course, way too late to dodge this particular bullet. But it will make people even more hesitant to consider private accounts.
I could name some names, but will bide my time.
Regards.
I believe the best idea is to make the Senate and House members retire under the SS system and toss the opulent Congressional retirement. They'd fix SS then.
Americans in general save less than 1% of their income. In addition, much of the money in the stock market is from foreign sources.
Money will continue to flow into the equity markets from foreign and domestic source as long as the returns justify the risk. Basically, as long as US corporations remain competitive and offer good returns on investment, the equity markets will not contract.
"Year in and year out, returns in the stock market will be low, interest rates will increase, and inflation will increase."
Nope--just because returns in the stock are/become low doesn't cause higher interest rates nor inflation. If anything, interest rates will go down because the supply of money available for borrowing will increase when returns in the equity market are low.
"The primary problem lies in Social Security's pay-as-you go structure. Social Security is not a savings plan. The money Americans pay into the system is not used to finance their own retirements; rather, it funds benefits for current retirees." - Article.
Actually, it does a lot more than that. It also transfers a big pot of money, the SS surplus, to the general budget.
"The reason, to a tee, why it will never, ever be passed through the house and senate." - EGPWS
The use of FICA witholding to prop-up the federal budget is the real reason congress will do nothing. If they enact private accounts, this surplus will not be there for other spending. Congress will have to borrow more, raise taxes, or reduce spending.
Some folks believe this problem will begin when SS starts to run a deficit. Actually, it starts far before that. It is happening now as the SS surplus erodes and less moeny is available to support government spending programs.
The two events are disjoint, as you suggest.
Note that liquidation of bonds and other debt instruments causes yields to go up. Since retirements will cause a change the flow of funds - more liquidations, fewer purchases - interest rates in the bond market will be forced up.
With inflation, the premise is that you have a body of people consuming goods, but not producing anything - i.e., they're retired. So if one has less production, but continued consumption, one might expect inflation. Then again, we have seen marked changes in globalization over the past decade, which may modify the validity of that premise.
Congress should raze the social security building under eminent domain and build the Charles K. Ponzi monument.
OK, a different perspective on how you fix SS.
Starting Monday, everyone under the age of 50 will be placed into the federal retirement and medical program, just like congress and federal employees have. Anyone over 51 and under 62 can choose if they want to stay in SS or move. If they choose to move they will have money placed in a private account, equal to 1/4 of their contribution to SS since they started paying in.
Anyone over 62 will stay in SS.
Everyone under the age of 50 goes into the federal program with 1/8 of their contribution to SS moved over. You raise the retirement age from 62 to 67 since we do in fact work longer. However, if you want to retire at 62 you can with what you presently have, you keep the medical however.
You go from there.
Both premises, of the bond market yields increasing and equity markets contracting are flawed. Increased foreign investment (EVIL GLOBALIZATION)in the bond and equity markets will "fill in the void" so to speak as long as the return on investment when adjusted for risk is good.
Increased inflation??? That's arguable. It may be an inflationary pressure, but the FED will keep a lid on inflation for the foreseeable future.
Your solution is, perhaps, the most intelligent one I've seen. My compliments!
$ucking $ocialists.
And a chorus is heard from afar--OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!
Yes, Congress should always have to live under the same laws they impose on the rest of us.
I favor the idea of private accounts as the lesser of two evils. (The federal government should not be involved in retirement at all, but private accounts would be better than the current mess.) Nevertheless, I see a great danger in the various privatization schemes being floated right now.
Simply allowing people to put a little money into private accounts will not avert the Social Security crisis. That will happen. What it does, the Democrats will blame the system's financial woes on the relatively modest (dare I say timid?) privatization plan. They will say that the system would be solvent if the Republicans had not fiddled with it. And many people will believe them.
(By the way, we saw the same tactic used against President Bush's tax cuts. When the projected deficit suddenly reappeared, the Democrats blamed it on the tax cuts, even though the cuts had not taken place, the cuts were relatively modest, and the deficit projections were accounting gimmicks to begin with.)
If the Democrats were to convince enough people that private accounts caused Social Security's problems, that would be the end of efforts to privatize the system. The Democrats could ride that to electoral success and further extend the welfare state for generations.
I think you are on to something here.
They tell me that if one rolled a grenade down the hall in the SS Admin. Bldg. in Baltimore, it would take out over half the workers!
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.