View Poll Results: Your Identity and For/Against this SS Reform model

Voters
91. You may not vote on this poll
  • Socialist and Against

    10 10.99%
  • Socialist and For

    1 1.10%
  • Democrat and Against

    21 23.08%
  • Democrat and For

    6 6.59%
  • Republican and Against

    2 2.20%
  • Republican and For

    22 24.18%
  • Libertarian and Against

    9 9.89%
  • Liberarian and For

    9 9.89%
  • I am for it, but with a particular modification (explain)

    11 12.09%
Page 36 of 51 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 360 of 503

Thread: Social Security Fix

  1. #351
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: Social Security Fix

    Why would anyone be against SS reform........Don't you know it is a Ponzi scheme and will soon run out of money?
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  2. #352
    Sage
    Crosscheck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:56 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,467

    Re: Social Security Fix

    If we all passed away at age 70 it would work.

  3. #353
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Denio Junction
    Last Seen
    11-13-14 @ 12:09 AM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,039
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Social Security Fix

    Mathematically I believe your plan bankrupts our country as there is not enough of the SS tax left outside the individuals defined saving to make good on its current promise. This fix is great for 30-40 years from now but I have a hard time believing we'd get there with the deficit this would produce.

    I read a similar suggestion by a Stanford University group that suggested individuals get 5% total of what they pay into social security as a refund if they out the same amount into an IRA or 401k type of plan. In exchange they lose. 2.5% of their social security benefit in the future. Do it for 40 years you get no social security and they concluded the deficit created to the nation was too severe.

    Fact is 20 years from now you best hope we can still print money out of thin air. If not we're screwed thanks to the redistributive vote buying of the liberals.


    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Here is my proposal:

    Allow workers to opt into a partially privatized system, where of their 7.65% FICA expenditures, 5% goes into a private TSP-style account; and the Employers match follow the same. the remaining 2.65% (or, when you count the match, 5.3%) will go straight into SS, but it will be revenue for which SS will never see a liability. the cost for opting out is that part of your pay continues to go to pay for others, but the upside is that you get a combined total of 10% of your annual income going into a retirement account that belongs to you, and grows tax-free. Social Securities' revenues will instantly drop, but nowhere near as severely as their liabilities. To ensure solvency in the adjustment period (and to make it politically palatable); lift the cap. We can lift the cap on only the worker (and not the employer) if we want to encourage job-creation; or lift it on both if we need the revenue to ensure solvency, or if that's the only way to get the thing passed; here is room for compromise wiggling. Higher paid workers will see more of their money leave in the form of taxes, but those making less than $604,000 will get back even more in the form of ownership of personalized accounts (assuming the employer cap isn't lifted, and that's not figuring for the added benefit of those accounts growing tax-free), and so they will be willing to make the trade. Perhaps another compromise point would be to raise the cap to $604K. Poorer workers can either spend their lifetime building far more wealth than they ever would have seen under Social Security if they are younger, or keep the guaranteed program benefits if they are older.

    ta-da! the American people and the Government are left better off.

    how much better off?

    welllll, let's do a quick example:

    Joe graduates High School and goes to work, making 25,000 a year. Not anyone's idea of incredible pay, but there you are. Joe gets' a 2% raise every year to account for his increasing talent, experience, etc. The 10% of his income goes into a mix of funds that matches the S&P 500 Combined Annualized Growth average since 1982: 7.98% (after you account for inflation). If Joe retires nice and early at 62; his retirement fund will be worth $1,030,110, and if placed into an annuity / conservative account that generates a 5% annual return, his monthly benefit will be $4,292. That would be slightly less than his last monthly paycheck of $4,979; but still quite livable. If Joe works until he's 65, his monthly benefit will climb above his monthly income to $5,473; and if he decides (as most of us probably will) to delay retirement to 68, he's looking at a monthly retirement check of $6,966.

    And remember, Joe isn't exactly one of society's higher paid workers.

    But he also had the advantage of time. Let's say instead Joe went to two years of college, and got an associates before entering the workforce to earn that 25,000; and let's say that instead of 2%, Joe turns out not to learn new skills that well, and his annual raise above inflation is actually 0.5%. We're stacking the deck a little against ole Joe, but he still seems to come out okay; his monthly benefit at age 62 is $3,050; at age 65 it's $3,875; and at age 68 it's $4,915. It's worth noting that under this model, the most Joe ever made was $31,672 in a given year; and that his monthly retirement benefits at age 65 represents a $1,200 monthly pay increase over his monthly income. Even if Joe retires early at 62 he will have more in income off of his account than he would from working; and the longer he chooses to keep working, the greater, obviously, his return is.

    AND ALL THIS WITHOUT COSTING OLE JOE A SINGLE RED CENT. since the money was cash he was losing to taxes in the first place, his take-home pay wasn't reduced one iota; but because we partially privatized social security, Low Income Worker Joe can retire a millionaire.

    OR, if he didn't want the 'risk' of the marketplace, he could have chosen to stay with regular social (in)security. average monthly payout: about $1,100 dollars. or, roughly 1/3rd of what Joe made in our worse case scenario at age 65.


    BUT WAIT!!! WHAT IF THE MARKET TANKS!!!

    Markets recover. If the market tanks right as Joe was planning on retiring, he can work for an extra year while it rights itself, or simply choose to draw less from the account in order to leave more in there to ride the upswing. OR, if Joe makes the worst decision possible, at the worst time possible and withdraws all of his money while the market is at the low point on the trough (say, a 40% drop, similar to what we just saw), to purchase a 5% annuity... then his monthly income in our worse-case scenario at age 65 will still be more than twice what he could have expected from Social Security.





    I am particularly interested in liberal critiques of this plan. Conservative ones (it leaves Social Security, which is unConstitutional, still in place, so on and so forth) I already know, but tend to discount them as beyond the politically palatable. It strikes me that this offers a little something for both sides of the economic aisle: for you Keynesians, the existence of a retirement fund growing tax-free will spur people to consume more and save less; for you Austrians, the existence of a steady flow of capital into the market irrespective of what it is doing will smooth out the business cycle, and create a massive interest group against easy money (people like few things less than watching their nest eggs dwindle thanks to inflation).

  4. #354
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:30 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,587

    Re: Social Security Fix

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    Why would anyone be against SS reform........Don't you know it is a Ponzi scheme and will soon run out of money?
    Any problem that has at its core a need for money simply needs more money. Easy fix.

    Of course, that is not really what this is all about for many on the right now is it?
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  5. #355
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,035

    Re: Social Security Fix

    Quote Originally Posted by CalGun View Post
    Mathematically I believe your plan bankrupts our country as there is not enough of the SS tax left outside the individuals defined saving to make good on its current promise. This fix is great for 30-40 years from now but I have a hard time believing we'd get there with the deficit this would produce.
    Then you are incorrectly treating current inputs to the accounts as a total loss for the next three decades. Remember that this plan reduces the scheduled payouts from Social Security as well. Starting the year after this was enacted, individuals' accounts would be taking up portions of their payment, and that portion would increase every year. Using rough averages, it looks like the typical retiree will only require about 50% of what they otherwise would have needed from Social Security Funds as of year 15.

    Almost immediately the highest-income will start to see sharp reductions in how much they are drawing out of the fund. For example, if you are making a combined income of around $240,000 then your account will already be supplying about a little less than a third, reducing Social Security's lifetime commitment to you by that much.

    Now - not many make that, but the point remains - you immediately begin reducing Social Security's scheduled payouts and unfunded liability.

    It won't solve Social Security's deficit overnight - but neither will it destroy us (as near as I can tell) like you are suggesting.


    Fact is 20 years from now you best hope we can still print money out of thin air. If not we're screwed thanks to the redistributive vote buying of the liberals.
    Nah. We're going to kick everyone but the poor off the programs. We could make it much better, but we won't. It's too easy to get old people to fear change, and vote accordingly.

  6. #356
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,503

    Re: Social Security Fix

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Then you are incorrectly treating current inputs to the accounts as a total loss for the next three decades. Remember that this plan reduces the scheduled payouts from Social Security as well. Starting the year after this was enacted, individuals' accounts would be taking up portions of their payment, and that portion would increase every year. Using rough averages, it looks like the typical retiree will only require about 50% of what they otherwise would have needed from Social Security Funds as of year 15.

    Almost immediately the highest-income will start to see sharp reductions in how much they are drawing out of the fund. For example, if you are making a combined income of around $240,000 then your account will already be supplying about a little less than a third, reducing Social Security's lifetime commitment to you by that much.

    Now - not many make that, but the point remains - you immediately begin reducing Social Security's scheduled payouts and unfunded liability.

    It won't solve Social Security's deficit overnight - but neither will it destroy us (as near as I can tell) like you are suggesting.




    Nah. We're going to kick everyone but the poor off the programs. We could make it much better, but we won't. It's too easy to get old people to fear change, and vote accordingly.
    Plus, making it better would require a Congress that was able to put petty partisanship and extreme ideology aside and work for something that might be of practical benefit, but wouldn't increase the power of their party.

    Now, that's just pie in the sky.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  7. #357
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    36,762

    Re: Social Security Fix

    I truly believe the "Senate Fix" will jolt this Congress into action..
    It would be nice if the two chambers worked the same schedule for starters..
    At least the Dec. 15 date will not shut the government down, giving us a breather during Christmas..
    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    Plus, making it better would require a Congress that was able to put petty partisanship and extreme ideology aside and work for something that might be of practical benefit, but wouldn't increase the power of their party.

    Now, that's just pie in the sky.
    Physics is Phun

  8. #358
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Denio Junction
    Last Seen
    11-13-14 @ 12:09 AM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,039
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Social Security Fix

    No disrespect but the numbers of high wage earners don't out number the masses who's distribution of social security payments won't be reduced a dime thanks to the vote buying left.

    Do some math. 40-50% have government as their primary source of hand out! and wage earners over a $100k aren't even 5-10% of the US population and even less when you add them into the total working population of what - 135-150 million? The reason your math fails is that it reduces the lion share of revenue (from the 5%) and only cuts payments to that same small block while the rest still want and get full benefit. So you cut out like 66% of the income and reduce distributions by 10% at most!




    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Then you are incorrectly treating current inputs to the accounts as a total loss for the next three decades. Remember that this plan reduces the scheduled payouts from Social Security as well. Starting the year after this was enacted, individuals' accounts would be taking up portions of their payment, and that portion would increase every year. Using rough averages, it looks like the typical retiree will only require about 50% of what they otherwise would have needed from Social Security Funds as of year 15.

    Almost immediately the highest-income will start to see sharp reductions in how much they are drawing out of the fund. For example, if you are making a combined income of around $240,000 then your account will already be supplying about a little less than a third, reducing Social Security's lifetime commitment to you by that much.

    Now - not many make that, but the point remains - you immediately begin reducing Social Security's scheduled payouts and unfunded liability.

    It won't solve Social Security's deficit overnight - but neither will it destroy us (as near as I can tell) like you are suggesting.




    Nah. We're going to kick everyone but the poor off the programs. We could make it much better, but we won't. It's too easy to get old people to fear change, and vote accordingly.

  9. #359
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,035

    Re: Social Security Fix

    Quote Originally Posted by CalGun View Post
    No disrespect but the numbers of high wage earners don't out number the masses who's distribution of social security payments won't be reduced a dime thanks to the vote buying left.

    Do some math. 40-50% have government as their primary source of hand out! and wage earners over a $100k aren't even 5-10% of the US population and even less when you add them into the total working population of what - 135-150 million? The reason your math fails is that it reduces the lion share of revenue (from the 5%) and only cuts payments to that same small block while the rest still want and get full benefit. So you cut out like 66% of the income and reduce distributions by 10% at most!
    We reduce scheduled payouts in two ways - 1. fixing benefit increases to inflation and 2. from the accounts. Every single person who earns an income will see the cost of their benefit to the government go down starting the next year; the effect is simply more pronounced and faster for those with higher incomes. In the meantime, we also pop the cap to bring in additional revenue. We see a temporary mitigated increase in the need to support Social Security followed by a long term decrease and a longer term (2-3 decades) complete removal of the program from the government rolls, and a longer term (3-4 decades) shift from Social Security being a net cost to it being a revenue generator for the government.

    Basically, we can borrow an additional $200 Bn now to save and strengthen social security, or an additional trillion or so later just to keep it afloat for the poorest of our elderly.

    I find it interesting that you direct me to do some math, but seem so averse to using it yourself. If you can demonstrate that any of the formulas I have presented are inaccurate, I would love to see it.

  10. #360
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Denio Junction
    Last Seen
    11-13-14 @ 12:09 AM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,039
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Social Security Fix

    I don't discount your formulas. What I believe is skewed is the number of people paying in is very small and the number of people getting a benefit is very large. Your formula reduces what is paid in dramatically and reduces what is paid out only to those who pay in. I do want to believe in your math, but I don't see it. Please correct me.

    According to this
    Personal income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    48% of the US population makes less than $25 k a year. Does your plan reduce their social security payment? 75% makes less than $50k is there social security to be reduces?

    Now if I read your plan correctly that higher 25% will get less social security while 10% of their social security is diverted to their retirement accounts? So you are taking out 80% of the money and redding the benefit obout. 25%. Please correct me?



    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    We reduce scheduled payouts in two ways - 1. fixing benefit increases to inflation and 2. from the accounts. Every single person who earns an income will see the cost of their benefit to the government go down starting the next year; the effect is simply more pronounced and faster for those with higher incomes. In the meantime, we also pop the cap to bring in additional revenue. We see a temporary mitigated increase in the need to support Social Security followed by a long term decrease and a longer term (2-3 decades) complete removal of the program from the government rolls, and a longer term (3-4 decades) shift from Social Security being a net cost to it being a revenue generator for the government.

    Basically, we can borrow an additional $200 Bn now to save and strengthen social security, or an additional trillion or so later just to keep it afloat for the poorest of our elderly.

    I find it interesting that you direct me to do some math, but seem so averse to using it yourself. If you can demonstrate that any of the formulas I have presented are inaccurate, I would love to see it.

Page 36 of 51 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •