• 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
OhIsee, what type of engineering did you do? I studied applied math in an engineering school, never envied the engineers, lol.
 
iamitter said:
It's just under 2 million, but I'm only 31. Consultants start off with pretty crappy salaries, but I make nearly half (gross) my net worth every year now.
Click to expand...

Yes, like us. And not concerened about your SS taxes too. At least you shouldn't be.
 
iamitter said:
OhIsee, what type of engineering did you do? I studied applied math in an engineering school, never envied the engineers, lol.
Click to expand...

I designed computers, hardware. ‘Retired’ as a systems architect which most don’t understand the function of. My wife was a software engineer.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
Yes, like us. And not concerened about your SS taxes too. At least you shouldn't be.
Click to expand...

I'm not worried about SS, but I'd rather donate the money myself to a cause I support rather than popping the cap on SS. I already donate a good 1/4 of my salary each year to different nonprofits.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
I designed computers, hardware. ‘Retired’ as a systems architect which most don’t understand the function of. My wife was a software engineer.
Click to expand...

Interesting, sounds like a cool job to do. I looked it up, certainly not something I could do, haha.
 
What about a way to avoid a cap raise for all but the truly wealthy:


"If Social Security is, as Conservatives tell us, heading for Armageddon, then why hasn’t Washington raised the FICA cap, currently at $106,800? Why, for instance, did Glenn Beck and Warren Buffett and Bill Gates and the Kardashians pay the same as I did in 2010? I maxed out in December; some of those folks hit their ceiling within the first few minutes of January.

Whether the great safety net actually will fray beyond repair by 2037—or whatever the current End of Days de jour—is open to debate. Many astute reasonable observers like The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein assure us that that Social Security is one of the most efficient federal programs, and that with a tweak or two it should be fine. Hardliners call for privatization, or a reduction in benefits, or a raised retirement age.

Privatization aside, some of those ideas were incorporated into the Simpson Bowles report. Specifically, the FICA cap would gradually increase to about $190,000 in 2020.

That goes too far—and not far enough. It still places a disproportionate burden on middle and lower income families. Why not a hybrid—cap it at current rates for those with incomes below, say $350,000, or $500,000 or even $1 million—then resume the contributions for all those above that. It’s something on the order of New York Sen. Charles Schumer‘s proposal for the Bush tax cuts—letting them expire only for true millionaires.

Either that or set an income cap for collecting Social Security. Without that $20,000 a year, or whatever it is, my 80-something in-laws would be on the street. But Glenn and Warren and Bill won’t need it; nor will Kim, Kourtney and Khloe—unless they blow all their hard-earned, famous-for-being-famous $$$."

Why Not Raise the FICA Cap
 
haymarket said:
I am very happy to let the poor build wealth. Very happy for that to happen.
Click to expand...

then why not support letting them do so at no additional cost to themselves in a social security reform measure that not only makes the system solvent, but allows people to not be dependent upon government handouts at an old age?
 
Mickey Shane said:
In 50 years $7K is going to have the purchasing power of $700 today. That's less than the current SS pay checks.
Click to expand...

reread the post: that rate of growth is inflation-adjusted, which means that the monthly payout is in constant dollars. in the real world, Worker Joe would make a much larger monthly income, but you are right the value of each individual dollar would be less. I kept everything adjusted for inflation in order to make the dollar amounts more easily translatable.

:)
 
cpwill said:
reread the post: that rate of growth is inflation-adjusted, which means that the monthly payout is in constant dollars. in the real world, Worker Joe would make a much larger monthly income, but you are right the value of each individual dollar would be less. I kept everything adjusted for inflation in order to make the dollar amounts more easily translatable.

:)
Click to expand...

SS was started as a pay as you go program, but it did collect more money than it needed. We spent that money on other things. So, no money is invested. From an investment POV, I look this way: I’ll work for someone else for a couple of hours this week if someone else will work a couple hours for me in the future.
Without knowing it, I trust, you have mischaracterized SS. Then you offer options to what it isn’t. There is a name for this, but I forgot what it is.
 
I don't like it. Just completely eliminate the system and have people take care of their own retirement. It's the best way to keep government's hands off our money.
 
phattonez said:
It's going bankrupt in the not-too-distant future. It needs fixing.
Click to expand...

Just raise the FICA cap for those making over a half million dollars and stop stealing from the fund. Problem solved!
 
Catawba said:
Just raise the FICA cap for those making over a half million dollars and stop stealing from the fund. Problem solved!
Click to expand...

Problem not solved. There is no way that the government would stop stealing from the fund. What's so bad about people taking care of their own retirement?
 
phattonez said:
Problem not solved. There is no way that the government would stop stealing from the fund. What's so bad about people taking care of their own retirement?
Click to expand...

At the first major catastrophe the retirement fund will be used for something besides retirement.
 
Mickey Shane said:
At the first major catastrophe the retirement fund will be used for something besides retirement.
Click to expand...

And that will be the end of the savings? They won't have insurance to take care of the catastrophe? Please.
 
phattonez said:
Problem not solved. There is no way that the government would stop stealing from the fund.
Click to expand...

Sure there is, you lock those funds (legislatively) so they cannot be used for other purposes. The suggestion has already been made by a presidential candidate, but the country decided to vote for the guy they would rather have a beer with instead.

What's so bad about people taking care of their own retirement?
Click to expand...

You mean as invest in the stock market??? I think we've recently seen that would be unwise. The simple matter is the SS system is extremely efficient and secure, properly maintained there is nothing in the private market that can beat it.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Sure there is, you lock those funds (legislatively) so they cannot be used for other purposes. The suggestion has already been made by a presidential candidate, but the country decided to vote for the guy they would rather have a beer with instead.



You mean as invest in the stock market??? I think we've recently seen that would be unwise. The simple matter is the SS system is extremely efficient and secure, properly maintained their is nothing in the private market that can beat it.
Click to expand...

There are other ways to invest besides stock market.

In any case, it's very easy to beat SS, its max return is the return on government bonds, which is pitifully low.
If people want that return themselves, they can invest in bonds by themselves.
 
iamitter said:
There are other ways to invest besides stock market.

In any case, it's very easy to beat SS, its max return is the return on government bonds, which is pitifully low.
If people want that return themselves, they can invest in bonds by themselves.
Click to expand...

People are free already to invest in additional retirement accounts. I see no reason to scrap one of the most efficient and secure methods for providing a safety net for everyone in their retirement, or should they become disabled. All the system needs is some tweaking and locking the funds so they can't be used to offset other government spending and we are good to go!

In a private set up, what happens if people make bad investment decisions, or become disabled and can't work before they have enough returns to support them? Then they are added to the welfare roles. Afraid I just don't see the advantages to a private system.
 
Catawba said:
Sure there is, you lock those funds (legislatively) so they cannot be used for other purposes. The suggestion has already been made by a presidential candidate, but the country decided to vote for the guy they would rather have a beer with instead.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't change a thing.

You mean as invest in the stock market??? I think we've recently seen that would be unwise. The simple matter is the SS system is extremely efficient and secure, properly maintained there is nothing in the private market that can beat it.
Click to expand...

Efficient and secure? In what manner? The interest they've gotten on those funds has been terrible, and then they still from it routinely! Besides, people don't have to invest. They could just save it.
 
phattonez said:
Efficient and secure? In what manner? The interest they've gotten on those funds has been terrible, and then they still from it routinely! Besides, people don't have to invest. They could just save it.
Click to expand...

Efficient, as in little waste in running the program. Secure as having not been lost in the market collapse. The interest at my bank has been terrible as well, and we lost a fair sum of money due to the stock market crash. Higher risk funds do earn more interest but there are risks. What if they spend it instead of saving it? If we have to turn around and support those that have made bad investment choices, what have we gained?
 
Here's a comparison for you:

California State Teachers retirement. Teachers pay 8% into the fund, the employer matches that 8%, just like SS.

Many years ago, the state government wanted to put the fund into the state general fund and spend the surplus, just like SS.

Unlike SS, the (terrible, socialistic, evil, liberal) teachers union put a stop to the state's plot to raid the retirement fund.

Unlike SS, the excess has been put into long term investments by a private agency regulated by the state.

Unlike SS, STRS pays fairly well, and at an earlier age than SS, and is solvent at least through 2042.

Therefore, I suggest we take a lesson from the state of California, and put SS funds into a separate trust fund, administered by a private entity with government regulation, then start paying back the IOUs.

Maybe we can still undo the damage that was done by having allowed the government to steal the SS funds. Of course, we may have to raise that cap and perhaps the retirement age as well until the fund is actually paid back and becomes solvent once again.
 
Catawba said:
People are free already to invest in additional retirement accounts. I see no reason to scrap one of the most efficient and secure methods for providing a safety net for everyone in their retirement, or should they become disabled. All the system needs is some tweaking and locking the funds so they can't be used to offset other government spending and we are good to go!

In a private set up, what happens if people make bad investment decisions, or become disabled and can't work before they have enough returns to support them? Then they are added to the welfare roles. Afraid I just don't see the advantages to a private system.
Click to expand...

They can have precisely the same return rate the government has by investing in bonds, except with absolutely no administrative costs at all.
Or, they can choose a riskier option. It's their choice.


I donate most of the money I don't use or just reinvest every year. It hurts seeing basically a negative return rate on my "investment" in SS, when I could help the world a lot more if just given the freedom to do what I want with it.
I don't want nor will I ever need this insurance. SS was never meant to be welfare and I don't want it to change into that. Taking even more of my money and dumping it basically down a bottomless pit is extremely inefficient.

Did you check the return rate on ten year bonds from the US govt? When you adjust it for inflation in normal times, you basically get nothing on your investment.
 
iamitter said:
They can have precisely the same return rate the government has by investing in bonds, except with absolutely no administrative costs at all.
Or, they can choose a riskier option. It's their choice.
Click to expand...

My concern is what if they make bad investment, get swindled, or simply spend the money. What happens then?


I donate most of the money I don't use or just reinvest every year. It hurts seeing basically a negative return rate on my "investment" in SS, when I could help the world a lot more if just given the freedom to do what I want with it.
Click to expand...

I see where you are coming from and there is something to that, but ultimately I see it as a way to prevent having to throw old and disabled people out in the street.

I don't want nor will I ever need this insurance. SS was never meant to be welfare and I don't want it to change into that. Taking even more of my money and dumping it basically down a bottomless pit is extremely inefficient.
Click to expand...

Its not welfare, its a fund we all pay into to assist in our retirement, or if we become disabled.

Did you check the return rate on ten year bonds from the US govt? When you adjust it for inflation in normal times, you basically get nothing on your investment.
Click to expand...

As the economy improves, so will the rate of return. However, the rate of return is secondary to me to have a secure mechanism to help protect ALL of our old folks and the disabled.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom