Posted on 05/25/2008 5:57:00 PM PDT by shrinkermd
The Social Security fixes touted by John McCain and Barack Obama couldn’t be any further apart — unless Obama was offering a true fix.
McCain would close looming Social Security shortfalls by curbing benefit promises. Obama would leave benefits untouched and rely just on tax hikes — though not nearly enough to erase the funding gap.
But their plans do share one common feature: Both would likely be dead on arrival in Congress, say Social Security reform advocates.
"They’re both very politically attractive options if you’re running in a primary,” said Andrew Biggs, resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. “I don’t see either as being politically feasible.”
Still, their plans give a sense of the priorities each would bring as president to any serious talks with Congress. McCain would push for Social Security reform that depends much more on spending restraint than new taxes. He is prepared to ask for broad sacrifice.
“My children and their children will not receive the benefits we will enjoy,” he said in a 2006 speech on entitlements. “That is an inescapable fact, and any politician who tells you otherwise, Democrat or Republican, is lying.”
(Excerpt) Read more at epaper.investors.com ...
"...An IBD analysis shows that a 12.4% tax on wages over $200,000 would only delay Social Security’s cash-flow deficits by four years to 2021. Over 75 years, the plan would erase just half of the $6.5 trillion unfunded liability at present value.
That includes $2.2 trillion of government IOUs in the trust fund. As Social Security’s trustees noted last year, “Treasury must still come up with this amount in future cash” to make good on those IOUs.
Translation: Americans will be taxed twice to pay for the same benefit. We are taxed once for SS, which the government promptly spends on non-SS programs and giveaways, and issues a worthless IOU to repay SS at a later date. To redeem the IOU, the government must use tax revenue from a different generation.
This scam has been going on since the 1960s. Yet the pols will tell you that SS has solvency because of the IOUs in the SS file drawers.
Sure.
Which is why almost every long term member of Congress needs to be fired, or put in jail.
Maybe these two idiot politicans might consider not giving benefits to foreign immigrants who have never paid a cent into SS. Maybe their might consider the huge deficit flow of $300 BILLION PER YEAR just to pay for support of illegals in this country.
Oh no...that might cost someone a vote...actually doing what is right for America AND ITS REAL CITIZENS WHO PAID IN ALL THEIR LIVES TO SS and now not only are TAXED ON THEIR OWN MONEY (SS BENEFITS) but have to suffer because the freakin’ pols want to buy votes with SS benefits for people who do not even deserve to be in the system.
It just plain sucks. We are being screwed.
Socialist Security doesn’t need to be reformed.
...It needs to be ended.
Especially if it is too late to save enough money (because of everything you have already poured into SS), have a plan to immigrate to another country upon retirement, where your savings will be stretched by the lower cost of living. In addition to low cost of living, you want a country with accredited hospitals, political stability, a good visa system, and low taxes (plus income tax agreements with the USA). Panama, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Uruguay (riskier), the Philippines...a bunch more. A coworker of my father (now both retired) lives very comfortably in Costa Rica for less than $1200 a month, including medical insurance.
It is too late to "save" or "fix" the SS ponzi scam. All you can do is prepare to not get destroyed in its crash.
Doubts about the long term viability of Social Security influenced my decision to take benefits at 62 rather than 65.
Oh, sure, I could have gotten a few more bucks per month by waiting till I was 65. But I’m concerned (I’m 63 now) if Social Security will be there in two years.
At any rate, I’m just hoping to get out what I put in. Even Steven.
BUMP to what you wrote.
Words to plan by for sure!
.Check out this awesome video:
.
The same kind of terrorists who support Obama did this:
http://www.frugalsites.net/911/attack/
Never apologize for them.
Never appease them.
Never forget.
Actually, there is another reason to take benefits as soon as possible. The "break even dates" calculated by SS are very deceptive. They assume that the interest rate on your other investments is zero.
I did the analysis for myself, and if I can get 5% on my money, I would have to live to 82 to "break even". If I can get 9%, I would never break even.
Just for calibration, the average rate of return for the S&P 500 is 12-14% over the past century depending on who does the calculating and what the assumptions are.
I did it very simply. Very rough calculations as SS doesn't mean that much to me.
As an example, if I paid in $10,000 during my working years and my benefit is $500/yr, then in 20 years I'll be even.
Yes, I know about COLA, etc. But I did this very roughly and I'll be even sooner by taking SS at 62 rather than 65. Even though the payout at 65 is slightly more.
Well, from what I see happening with prices rising for goods that likely compose an appreciable fraction of the spending for many folks who might be collecting Socialist Security and the cost-of-living adjustments that are being applied, my guess is that we are already looking at a benefits cut in progress.
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.