• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Social Security Fix

Your Identity and For/Against this SS Reform model


  • Total voters
    75
I believe this would be more expensive than meets the eye since it would require SS be a fully funded system to begin with.

edit: Let me expand.

I believe if you want to encourage personal savings for retirement a better proposal would be to increase tax credits going towards 401k type plans and to make employee participation in 401k type plans more automatic (ie. opt out instead of opt in).

So instead I would propose a combination of increasing SS payroll tax as it is now the required 1.84% (done gradually overtime), and increasing the retirement age, and increasing tax credits/tax breaks for things like 401k's. This would require more funding for the retirement credits as well, which should come from somewhere in the general fund. I will propose we get this money by eliminating farm subsidies:2razz:.

Since congress is involved and their will be earmarks I would also include removing ethanol subsidies and ethanol tariffs.
 
In asking your question you make a gross error. I get your point. I simply and utterly reject it as not being valid.

you don't believe in the economic impacts of supply and demand?

6%...7% ...whatever it may be ... the employer will just figure that in as a cost of employee compensation and adjust accordingly

yes, and part of that adjustment will be hiring fewer workers.

You did get the Al Gore ref right.

i did. but even Gore was 20-ish years too late.
 
from cpwill

yes, and part of that adjustment will be hiring fewer workers.

And how do you come to this conclusion? We are only talking about an increase for the employer for employees who make over $106K per year. That is only six to seven percent of people in America. It is just as reasonable to assume that if an employer has $250K to spend on a valuable employee, that the employer will budget the 7% of that for FICA and the other 93% for salary. That is exactly what employers do for workers under $106K.

I am sorry but I do not know what your point is about supply and demand.
 
anyway, so so far 100% of democrats who have voted are against allowing the poor financial independence from the government.
 
But there will be no increased cost for these workers. Employers can simply move the needed 7% from salary to the FICA tax and the end cost is the same. Employers of workers earning under the $106K level have been doing this all along.
 
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.

From a practical standpoint, that plan would work as long as the additional revenues from lifting the cap made up for the temporary loss due to people pulling their 5% out. In the long run, workers would be far better off than they are under the current system.

From a political standpoint, the plan is dead in the water. The Liberals aren't going to like the idea of privatizing part of SS, and the conservatives aren't going to like raising the cap. There aren't enough in the center to make it pass.
 
From a practical standpoint, that plan would work as long as the additional revenues from lifting the cap made up for the temporary loss due to people pulling their 5% out. In the long run, workers would be far better off than they are under the current system.

From a political standpoint, the plan is dead in the water. The Liberals aren't going to like the idea of privatizing part of SS, and the conservatives aren't going to like raising the cap. There aren't enough in the center to make it pass.

Its not really that I am against the idea of privatization. Its that for SS to be privatized it requires it to be converted to a fully funded system. You are correct, that the long run prospects of such a system are better, but the costs that would have to be incurred to transition from PAYG to a fully funded system are huge. You won't get people to vote for it because it screws over the generation that is voting for it. If you want private accounts why would you not just favor slowly phasing out SS all together?
 
Last edited:
Its not really that I am against the idea of privatization. Its that for SS to be privatized it requires it to be converted to a fully funded system. You are correct, that the long run prospects of such a system are better, but the costs that would have to be incurred to transition from PAYG to a fully funded system are huge. You won't get people to vote for it because it screws over the generation that is voting for it. If you want private accounts why would you not just favor slowly phasing out SS all together?

cpwill proposed eliminating the cap in order to make up for the temporary shortfall. I'm not sure if that would be enough, though. It really doesn't matter, as it is not politically viable.
 
It would be enough if you also froze benefits levels to where they are today plus a modest inflation allowance.

2/3 of Americans support that in poll after poll.

here is just the latest taken on election day that measures the support for SS

http://www.democracyforamerica.com/poll
 
Last edited:
I propose that SocSec be converted into a systems like the state of Ohio has for its teachers.

Ech month generates revenue equal to x% + y% of your gross pay, where x% comes from the employee and y% comes from the employer. x% is a pre-tax deduction.

The employee has three options for this revenue:
-All of the $ goes into a 'defined benefit plan' where you lose control of the money but are guaranteed a certain benefit at retirement.
-Al of it goes into a 'defined contribution plan' where all ov the money goes into a 401k style account
-x% goes into the latter and y% goes into the former.

Its all about choice.
 
But there will be no increased cost for these workers. Employers can simply move the needed 7% from salary to the FICA tax and the end cost is the same. Employers of workers earning under the $106K level have been doing this all along.

economists are in near agreement that all of FICA taxes (the employer and employee section) come out of compensation, this is true; what you are missing is that many people are earning more than 106,000 now; and people who would like to make that much in the future.
 
economists are in near agreement that all of FICA taxes (the employer and employee section) come out of compensation, this is true; what you are missing is that many people are earning more than 106,000 now; and people who would like to make that much in the future.

What do you mean that I am missing this fact? Now you have lost me and I have no idea what you mean by that.
 
From a practical standpoint, that plan would work as long as the additional revenues from lifting the cap made up for the temporary loss due to people pulling their 5% out.

yeah, i have no idea how to go about checking that. even if we saw a temporary deficit though; i think the long term gain would probably more than outweigh it.
 
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.

Given that Republicans are claiming they will be offering entitlement reforms in their upcoming budget proposal; i figured this could use a bump. I still think that making people financially independent in such a manner as to bring in new revenue with no liability attached to them would be a powerful wealth building and debt reduction tool.
 
Last edited:
Given that Republicans are claiming they will be offering entitlement reforms in their upcoming budget proposal; i figured this could use a bump. I still think that making people financially independent in such a manner as to bring in new revenue with no liability attached to them would be a powerful wealth building and debt reduction tool.

SS has been used as a slush fund for so many years with no thought for the future that it is difficult to see how it can now be reformed and fill its role as a retirement fund for seniors. Now that there are a lot more of us over 65, the money paid in to SS no longer exceeds what has to be paid out, so the whole idea is being attacked as social spending that has to be cut back. When more was paid in than had to be paid out, it was a handy ATM for government spending. Now, the time has come to start paying back those IOUs. I hope I'm wrong, but I think Hell will freeze before the Republicans actually talk seriously about taking SS out of the general fund and paying back what is owed to it.
 
The only necessary SS fix, if this is even necessary, is to up the "cut-off" SS tax from 106K to the end of the income spectrum (billions).
This will, of course, never be as the wealthy wish to keep it all.
A compromise is an increase to 400K$, I think this is fair.
The conservatives will block this as well..
I suspect they want an end to SS and a return to pre FDR days..
I tend to think they want to join the radical Islamics and push back mans progress to the 16th century..
 
Last edited:
""I am particularly interested in liberal critiques of this plan. Conservative ones (it leaves Social Security, which is unconstitutional""
Security Security is neither Constitutional nor unconstitutional..
Read your Constitution as I have..without a jaundiced eye.
CP, you do have a good argument, I may be a Liberal, still it has some merit..
There is something about the un-inflated SS money that I like.
SS is NOT broken, the conservatives are probably blocking the possibily necessary increase of the 106K$ cap.......
 
The only necessary SS fix, if this is even necessary, is to up the "cut-off" SS tax from 106K to the end of the income spectrum (billions).
This will, of course, never be as the wealthy wish to keep it all.
A compromise is an increase to 400K$, I think this is fair.
The conservatives will block this as well..
I suspect they want an end to SS and a return to pre FDR days..
I tend to think they want to join the radical Islamics and push back mans progress to the 16th century..


Exactly. They could even raise the cap temporarily (just as they did for the temporary tax cuts to the wealthy) until SS is solvent again and then set aside those SS funds so they won't be used to offset other government expenses (remember Gore's lock box proposal).

SS crisis averted. :sun
 
Exactly. They could even raise the cap temporarily (just as they did for the temporary tax cuts to the wealthy) until SS is solvent again and then set aside those SS funds so they won't be used to offset other government expenses (remember Gore's lock box proposal).

SS crisis averted. :sun

But that would mean asking those making over $106K per year to pay the same percentage as the rest of us. EGADS!!!!

You can find a bunch of threads where right wingers advocate a system where we all pay the same percentage ---- watch to see how many jump on this or stay away altogether.
 
But that would mean asking those making over $106K per year to pay the same percentage as the rest of us. EGADS!!!!


Well if we are to get serious about our debt problems, the freeloading will have to stop. You can't cut worker's pay to third world status to pay down the debt.

Does the expression you can't get blood out of a turnip come to mind?
 
Last edited:
Well if we are to get serious about our debt problems, the freeloading will have to stop. You can't cut worker's pay to third world status to pay down the debt.

Does the expression you can't get blood out of a turnip come to mind?

It does, along with the phrase "no free lunch".
 
The only necessary SS fix, if this is even necessary, is to up the "cut-off" SS tax from 106K to the end of the income spectrum (billions).

1. this leaves the working poor in their current less advantageous position than they would see under privatized accounts. those numbers don't lie: allowing wokers to divert a portion of their SS to privatized accounts which grow tax free is an incredible tool in giving them financial independence.
2. i sincerely doubt that it would produce solvency for social security, merely to lift the cap.
3. there is plenty of evidence, in fact, to suggest that the additional funds raised by lifting the cap would be - at best - muted

This will, of course, never be as the wealthy wish to keep it all.

everyone wishes to keep it all; the wealthy who seek to reduce their tax exposure are acting no differently from the middle class family who takes a mortgage interest deduction.

A compromise is an increase to 400K$, I think this is fair.
The conservatives will block this as well.

if it's by itself, then yes. i'm willing to hike taxes as part of an overall reform of the system; but not as a standalone.

I suspect they want an end to SS and a return to pre FDR days.

i've seen lots of Republicans come up with ways to reform SS. I havent' seen many (or any big names) call for it's removal.

I tend to think they want to join the radical Islamics and push back mans progress to the 16th century..

:roll:
 
SS has been used as a slush fund for so many years with no thought for the future that it is difficult to see how it can now be reformed and fill its role as a retirement fund for seniors. Now that there are a lot more of us over 65, the money paid in to SS no longer exceeds what has to be paid out, so the whole idea is being attacked as social spending that has to be cut back. When more was paid in than had to be paid out, it was a handy ATM for government spending. Now, the time has come to start paying back those IOUs. I hope I'm wrong, but I think Hell will freeze before the Republicans actually talk seriously about taking SS out of the general fund and paying back what is owed to it.

given that it is de facto part of the General Fund now, i don't see what we're going to gain in trying to move it back. that horse has already escaped the barn; and we must deal with what we have now.
 
1. this leaves the working poor in their current less advantageous position than they would see under privatized accounts. those numbers don't lie: allowing wokers to divert a portion of their SS to privatized accounts which grow tax free is an incredible tool in giving them financial independence.

i would like to add that this is the portion that truly confuses me. I had always assumed that liberals were seeking to take care of the most vulnerable amongst us, and that it was merely their means that were problematic.

but, given the option to help middle-low class workers at the cost of reducing the scope of government.... Democrats vote to maintain government, even to the detriment of those for whose "benefit" the program was developed.

is it really just All About a Big State?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom