Posted on 11/19/2007 12:48:14 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
It's one of the toughest and most divisive issues facing the American people. And how we respond will have a profound impact on future generations. Yet many elected officials refuse to even talk about it. President Bush proposed a plan to deal with the issue but couldn't even get members of his own party to go along. Congress blew its shot at reform in a flurry of distortions, sound bites and fear-mongering. And most of the presidential candidates won't go anywhere near the subject, perhaps sensing that it could cost them votes.
The issue, of course, is Social Security reform. And you probably thought I was talking about immigration.
But the immigration debate is minor league compared to the rough and tumble political environment surrounding America's most beloved entitlement program. Just ask Congress. As tough as immigration reform turned out to be, it was assumed that fixing Social Security would be even tougher.
Part of the reason is that people can't even agree that there's a problem, let alone how to fix it. There are those who are convinced that, because of the impending retirement of more than 78 million Baby Boomers, Social Security will be on the road to insolvency as early as 2016 - the point at which more money will be going out in benefits than coming in from payroll taxes. Others agree that there is a shortfall but they're more optimistic about when the dam breaks, insisting that the system will have enough money to pay all benefits until 2038. Then there's the last group, which insists there is nothing to worry about.(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
No congress would pass, and no president would sign such legislation. Better to scrap the whole program and rely on 401k’s, IRA’s and pensikon plans.
It looks to me like you will have the quarters and almost do already. 30 years equals 120 quarters which is what you qualify for. Now the only problem could be age. I don’t know of any other way to do it that would satisfy everyone. The senate won’t just do away with the entire program and seniors can barely live on the check they get anyway. It does not seem like a win-win situation anyway.
It is my belief that a great starting point can be found here (post #22) -- a self-serving promotional mention, of course.
It's a viable option that should be explored. But, you see what happens based on one reply so far. I like my idea more but then who doesn't like their own ideas?
that will happen as soon as we have enough votes for a human life amendment
How does a “kid” get 100 quarters? Any such kid would have to 25 years old and started working at birth.
Eliminating the life insurance aspect of SS is OK by me.
What’s the logic of setting an age for diasability? When somebody is disabled, they’re disabled at whatever age. If you want to make them wait until 70, that’s not too understandable, expecially if you want them to complete thier 30 quarters. If they can work, then how the hey are they disabled?
I agree about eliminating the retirement below 65. That’s a drain on the system. Raising the full retirement age to 70 is another idea I an buy into. But you have to let folks who are no longer working take reduced benefits after 65.
Overall the big beef I have is with your 120 quarters deal. I don’t think that people who retire with only 40 quarters get full benefits anyway.
And husbands and wives Can get separate checks, and wifeds DON’T get benefits unless they qualify. I get SS, but my wife (also retired) gets jack. We do NOT get the married benefit and won’t until she reaches retirement age, even though for the past 20 years she’s been nothing but a housewife.
In short, I give you an A for effort, but the thing won’t fly.
Those that work in hard physical labor jobs are worn out by 65 if not before.
There isn’t 10 million jobs for Walmart greeters. It might work for people that sit on their a$$ behind a desk but lots of jobs require real work.
The Social Security Trust Fund should be separated out and the $2.2T IOUs paid off with new publicly traded Treasury Notes. Then the SSTF can go its own way and invest as any real pension fund would.
That would make all the national debt visible in one spot and end all the confusion about the SSTF “lock box”, “on budget vs. off budget”, etc.
The SSTF investing in world markets could reasonably expect a better return than the average 5.25% paper returns on the IOUs. At the same time, the Treasury could expect to pay less than 5.25% to those people that want/need less risk than the SSTF can afford. We’d be saving $25B/yr in interest on the national debt and the SSTF would grow $50B/yr faster than it would holding IOUs.
Please! You're under the impression that the same group that would advocate for one would actually champion the other. Their are many SoCons out there that take no interest in economic matters. And there are more than just a few that actually like entitlement programs and would desperately cling to the New Deal.
“But then funding for agencies would have to be cut somewhere else.”
While desirable, why do you connect the two ? The Treasury would still be able to borrow money and run deficits — just borrow from the public in the open market rather than from the SSTF.
The Treasury can borrow by issuing T-Bills rather than IOUs to the SSTF. Since the SSTF is not going to pay income taxes on the interest it supposedly earns on the IOUs, the Treasury loses nothing by not collecting income taxes on T-Bills to replace the IOUs. Offering tax-exempt T-Bills at less than 5% interest would have plenty of buyers in the open market.
ok then it will be even harder to pass than an HLA
Heck...just take the SS monthly premium..place it in a life insurance policy....and at 65 have it start paying out the equity +interest....give the beneficiary some control over the rate of payout....WHY DO WE CONTINUE TO LET CONGRESS ANYWHERE NEAR THE CASH???!!!!!
Yes, true! But the public is far less tolerant — in magnitude terms — of deficit spending where it is visible. Of course, by spending the payroll tax surplus and writing itself IOUs, the whole accounting gimmick goes over far too many heads for there to be enough public outcry against the practice.
I believe you’ve got it backward. If given the choice between socially conservative issues and economic conservative (economic liberalization = free market embracing), the public at large is far more willing to embrace the former, in my opinion.
that’s what i said...SS reform can only come after we get enough votes for an HLA. not before
I completely agree your assessment. For the most part, FR regulars cannot see this far, IMO.
In short, I am a case where I have paid much more than I ever will receive even in non-inflation adjusted dollars. I have had the minimum retirement age raised on me. I will most likely be asked to pay even more on a higher percentage of my income, for a longer period of time before I retire.
I have literally been robbed by my country in this respect. SS is not an entitlement program, it is an insurance policy for everyone who contributes. Problem is for people like me it is neither, it is a wealth redistribution system, taking money from my retirement and giving it to someone else. I want one of two things to happen: My Government can stop robbing the people who work and invest the money instead of borrowing against it, or they can let me invest the money for myself in some government approved low risk program.
Hell as far as I’m concerned the Government could buy their own bonds with an annually payment and hand the bonds over instead of checks, that way the recipient could spend it, collect interest and spend that. If the us is going to borrow my SS payments to fund some other program, that is just outright theft, let them borrow them money directly.
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.