• 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!

The way forward: SS, Unemployment, Medical

Renae

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Imagine if you will, that instead of paying into SS, Medicare and Medicaide adnd the like, you instead on your 18th birthday were setup three accounts.

1. Retirement.
When you begin working, your employer is forced to pay 1% of your of you income to this. You can choose to add up to 7%, pretax, to this fund. This fund is never taxed income. Ever. You can choose, to have it government managed (mostly US Savings bonds and such) or have it managed by a 3rd party , kinda like a 401k. If you pass away before you retire, it goes to who you designate or next of kin. Tax free. It's YOUR SS, but for you, by you.

2. Unemployment.
Again, like the retirement fund, your employer pays 1% of your income into this, you can up up 7% of your pretax into this fund. It's a little different than the 1st fund, in that it's government managed, and falls under the same basic rules as Unemployment today. You can't just quit and demand the money. You also have to exhaust this fund before you can receive ANY Government assistance. The good news: It's non-taxable income. It can be handed down incase of death. If you retire, it becomes supplemental income.

3. Catastrophic/long term care fund.
Again, Employer pays 1%, you can pay up to 7%. It's nontaxable, can be handed down if you die, and is YOURS. Use of the fund is restricted, you can't fund a boob job, or pay for basic care or non-medical issues. You do have to use it all first before Government assistance can be applied for.

These three things would make you own your own future, give you incentive and control over your life.
 
Renae said:
Imagine if you will, that instead of paying into SS, Medicare and Medicaide adnd the like, you instead on your 18th birthday were setup three accounts.

1. Retirement.
When you begin working, your employer is forced to pay 1% of your of you income to this. You can choose to add up to 7%, pretax, to this fund. This fund is never taxed income. Ever. You can choose, to have it government managed (mostly US Savings bonds and such) or have it managed by a 3rd party , kinda like a 401k. If you pass away before you retire, it goes to who you designate or next of kin. Tax free. It's YOUR SS, but for you, by you.

2. Unemployment.
Again, like the retirement fund, your employer pays 1% of your income into this, you can up up 7% of your pretax into this fund. It's a little different than the 1st fund, in that it's government managed, and falls under the same basic rules as Unemployment today. You can't just quit and demand the money. You also have to exhaust this fund before you can receive ANY Government assistance. The good news: It's non-taxable income. It can be handed down incase of death. If you retire, it becomes supplemental income.

3. Catastrophic/long term care fund.
Again, Employer pays 1%, you can pay up to 7%. It's nontaxable, can be handed down if you die, and is YOURS. Use of the fund is restricted, you can't fund a boob job, or pay for basic care or non-medical issues. You do have to use it all first before Government assistance can be applied for.

These three things would make you own your own future, give you incentive and control over your life.
Click to expand...

Interesting.
 
I like it.....but there should be serious penalties for corrupt fund managers that essentially steal funds from these accounts....
 
UtahBill said:
I like it.....but there should be serious penalties for corrupt fund managers that essentially steal funds from these accounts....
Click to expand...

Well, yes setting up the details will take some serious wonk work, this is just a basic outline.
 
What happens if you get disabled at the age of 32?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
What happens if you get disabled at the age of 32?
Click to expand...

I answered this. You first utilize the funds you earned, and then the Government assistance comes available.
 
Renae said:
I answered this. You first utilize the funds you earned, and then the Government assistance comes available.
Click to expand...

OK, so why pay anything into it yourself?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
OK, so why pay anything into it yourself?
Click to expand...

When you pay into it, it's yours. You can pass on YOUR wealth, or use it yourself. You have control, not the government. It lowers the burden on the Taxpayer, incentivizes independence, increases accountability.
 
Renae said:
When you pay into it, it's yours. You can pass on YOUR wealth, or use it yourself. You have control, not the government. It lowers the burden on the Taxpayer, incentivizes independence, increases accountability.
Click to expand...

Yep, but few can manage to save 7%, much less 14%, so why put any into a (third?) fund that simply delays getting "free" government medical/disability assistance?
 
Renae said:
Imagine if you will, that instead of paying into SS, Medicare and Medicaide adnd the like, you instead on your 18th birthday were setup three accounts.

1. Retirement.
When you begin working, your employer is forced to pay 1% of your of you income to this. You can choose to add up to 7%, pretax, to this fund. This fund is never taxed income. Ever. You can choose, to have it government managed (mostly US Savings bonds and such) or have it managed by a 3rd party , kinda like a 401k. If you pass away before you retire, it goes to who you designate or next of kin. Tax free. It's YOUR SS, but for you, by you.

2. Unemployment.
Again, like the retirement fund, your employer pays 1% of your income into this, you can up up 7% of your pretax into this fund. It's a little different than the 1st fund, in that it's government managed, and falls under the same basic rules as Unemployment today. You can't just quit and demand the money. You also have to exhaust this fund before you can receive ANY Government assistance. The good news: It's non-taxable income. It can be handed down incase of death. If you retire, it becomes supplemental income.

3. Catastrophic/long term care fund.
Again, Employer pays 1%, you can pay up to 7%. It's nontaxable, can be handed down if you die, and is YOURS. Use of the fund is restricted, you can't fund a boob job, or pay for basic care or non-medical issues. You do have to use it all first before Government assistance can be applied for.

These three things would make you own your own future, give you incentive and control over your life.
Click to expand...

nope, i've paid into these programs, and i don't believe that any proposed replacement will be designed with any goal other than to eliminate SS, Medicare, unemployment,etc. meanwhile, workers will be left holding the bag. i'll take the traditional system, thanks.
 
Renae said:
Imagine if you will, that instead of paying into SS, Medicare and Medicaide adnd the like, you instead on your 18th birthday were setup three accounts.

1. Retirement.
When you begin working, your employer is forced to pay 1% of your of you income to this. You can choose to add up to 7%, pretax, to this fund. This fund is never taxed income. Ever. You can choose, to have it government managed (mostly US Savings bonds and such) or have it managed by a 3rd party , kinda like a 401k. If you pass away before you retire, it goes to who you designate or next of kin. Tax free. It's YOUR SS, but for you, by you.
Click to expand...

Requires benefit cuts to current and soon-to-be beneficiaries, relative to what they're expecting. If you're in support of this, we might be getting somewhere.

You'd also have to show how 1% of lifetime earnings is sufficient for retirement, or acknowledge that it might not be but tough ****. Which is your position?

These three things would make you own your own future, give you incentive and control over your life.
Click to expand...

A citation to some sort of source that verifies the math checks out on this, but personally I'm skeptical. SS, SS disability, and unemployment are adequately funded by 3% payroll tax on earnings? I doubt it. They're not even funded by our current level of funding which is much more than 3%.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, but few can manage to save 7%, much less 14%, so why put any into a (third?) fund that simply delays getting "free" government medical/disability assistance?
Click to expand...

I see the light, better to leech off the tax payer base, not encourage people to take care of themselves. Why make that effort? Free **** for all!!! /smh
 
Helix said:
nope, i've paid into these programs, and i don't believe that any proposed replacement will be designed with any goal other than to eliminate SS, Medicare, unemployment,etc. meanwhile, workers will be left holding the bag. i'll take the traditional system, thanks.
Click to expand...

Wait, you're a single payer guy right? That's right, you want the Government to care for you, cradle to grave. I don't.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Requires benefit cuts to current and soon-to-be beneficiaries, relative to what they're expecting. If you're in support of this, we might be getting somewhere.

You'd also have to show how 1% of lifetime earnings is sufficient for retirement, or acknowledge that it might not be but tough ****. Which is your position?



A citation to some sort of source that verifies the math checks out on this, but personally I'm skeptical. SS, SS disability, and unemployment are adequately funded by 3% payroll tax on earnings? I doubt it. They're not even funded by our current level of funding which is much more than 3%.
Click to expand...
It's a starting point Neo, you can choose to pay more, or less. If you're an employer, you can offer that as incentive to work, "Hey Neo, we'll pay you X amount a year, and match your input in the Government Savings System up to 4%. So in reality, you could put 5% of your own money in, and get 5% paid for by your employer. Ergo, 10%, of your pay, into each.

Also, SS, this program... aren't intended to be the only savings you have in life, they are help, not only. Only fools rely on one source of funding for their later years.
 
Renae said:
Wait, you're a single payer guy right?
Click to expand...

yes, i support enacting a first world solution to fix our ridiculously inefficient and unnecessarily expensive health care system.

Renae said:
That's right, you want the Government to care for you, cradle to grave.
Click to expand...

false. i want to collect the benefits that i've been paying into for my entire career.
 
Helix said:
nope, i've paid into these programs, and i don't believe that any proposed replacement will be designed with any goal other than to eliminate SS, Medicare, unemployment,etc. meanwhile, workers will be left holding the bag. i'll take the traditional system, thanks.
Click to expand...


The traditional system is making you broke, I've broken down the numbers in other threads, the average American if they invested what they pay in to social security to decent 401(k)s would have an additional one million dollars in retirement over what they would've collected in SS, it literally costs you a million dollars to support social security. sad!
 
Renae said:
It's a starting point Neo, you can choose to pay more, or less. If you're an employer, you can offer that as incentive to work, "Hey Neo, we'll pay you X amount a year, and match your input in the Government Savings System up to 4%. So in reality, you could put 5% of your own money in, and get 5% paid for by your employer. Ergo, 10%, of your pay, into each.

Also, SS, this program... aren't intended to be the only savings you have in life, they are help, not only. Only fools rely on one source of funding for their later years.
Click to expand...

So, benefit cuts for current and soon-to-be beneficiaries, yeah?
 
Renae said:
When you pay into it, it's yours. You can pass on YOUR wealth, or use it yourself. You have control, not the government. It lowers the burden on the Taxpayer, incentivizes independence, increases accountability.
Click to expand...

You are going to find that socioeconomic status affects how much support your plan has. If your family makes 100K or more a year, then it is an appealing idea. For families who make substantially less, it is hard enough to get by paycheck to paycheck. I make about 34K myself, and I find it extremely hard to save with college debt and other bills. Your idea would make college an even worse investment unless you could work full time while in school.
 
Helix said:
nope, i've paid into these programs, and i don't believe that any proposed replacement will be designed with any goal other than to eliminate SS, Medicare, unemployment,etc. meanwhile, workers will be left holding the bag. i'll take the traditional system, thanks.
Click to expand...


And yes replacements are intended to replace social security, which must be replaced at some point, or stabilized with massive influx of money from the general fund, or benefits slashed. The numbers don't work out, and despite political agendas, do not lie.

You could barely pay rent on a two bed apartment in any ok city in America on benefits, they average maybe 1300 a month. You would've had twice that income a month from your SS contributions being routed to IRAs or an employee retirement plan.

At some point something will have to give, and the "well I've payed into it for twenty years" line won't cut it. The money you've payed in was payed out to current and former benficiaries, it is not being managed for you, if it were you could sue the SSA for breach of fiduciary trust because they are getting you returns so far below the market average it's unreal
 
EMNofSeattle said:
The traditional system is making you broke, I've broken down the numbers in other threads, the average American if they invested what they pay in to social security to decent 401(k)s would have an additional one million dollars in retirement over what they would've collected in SS, it literally costs you a million dollars to support social security. sad!
Click to expand...

no thanks. i have a 401k and a public pension. i'll take my SS benefits as is. as for alternative proposals, every time they tweak my pension, my benefits are reduced, and someone else makes money. put simply, i don't trust politicians to make changes to the system that will benefit me as a worker in any way. in fact, quite the opposite.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, but few can manage to save 7%, much less 14%, so why put any into a (third?) fund that simply delays getting "free" government medical/disability assistance?
Click to expand...

You'd require contributions, just like they are now
 
Helix said:
no thanks. i have a 401k and a public pension. i'll take my SS benefits as is. as for alternative proposals, every time they tweak my pension, my benefits are reduced, and someone else makes money. put simply, i don't trust politicians to make changes to the system that will benefit me as a worker in any way. in fact, quite the opposite.
Click to expand...


You don't trust politicians which is why you demand we continue an antiquated system run exclusively by the government that demonstrably robs you of over a million dollars over a working career?

That doesn't make any sense

I don't see how it is not to your benefit to have a million dollar net gain on your retirement, maybe ou don't want an extra million in retirement ?
 
EMNofSeattle said:
And yes replacements are intended to replace social security, which must be replaced at some point, or stabilized with massive influx of money from the general fund, or benefits slashed. The numbers don't work out, and despite political agendas, do not lie.

You could barely pay rent on a two bed apartment in any ok city in America on benefits, they average maybe 1300 a month. You would've had twice that income a month from your SS contributions being routed to IRAs or an employee retirement plan.

At some point something will have to give, and the "well I've payed into it for twenty years" line won't cut it. The money you've payed in was payed out to current and former benficiaries, it is not being managed for you, if it were you could sue the SSA for breach of fiduciary trust because they are getting you returns so far below the market average it's unreal
Click to expand...

though there's nothing that i can do about it other than to vote, i have paid into these programs for my entire career. changing the rules mid-game is breach of contract. as for "unsustainability," tough ****. apparently, our historically low tax rates are "unsustainable." raise them, reprioritize, or both. i'm not willing to support losing one more dime of the benefits that i've paid for.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
You don't trust politicians which is why you demand we continue an antiquated system run exclusively by the government that demonstrably robs you of over a million dollars over a working career?

That doesn't make any sense
Click to expand...

the politicians who want to change the system don't have my best interests in mind.

EMNofSeattle said:
I don't see how it is not to your benefit to have a million dollar net gain on your retirement, maybe ou don't want an extra million in retirement ?
Click to expand...

there's no million dollars coming from giving up my guaranteed SS benefits. there's no advantage to the patient in the upcoming Medicare privatization scheme which will surely be floated. what is coming is what always happens whenever the system is deemed "unsustainable" and tweaks are enacted : the worker gets shafted, and someone else makes money. again, no thanks.
 
Helix said:
though there's nothing that i can do about it other than to vote, i have paid into these programs for my entire career. changing the rules mid-game is breach of contract. as for "unsustainability," tough ****. apparently, our historically low tax rates are "unsustainable." raise them, reprioritize, or both. i'm not willing to support losing one more dime of the benefits that i've paid for.
Click to expand...

You've not payed a penny for any benefits, read the law authorizing social security, it is not your money you're paying. It is nt your money you will recieve. You need to educate yourself on the matter, social security is an income transfer scheme, that's all it is, they calculate how much they can afford to pay based on how much comes in and send out the checks, that's SS in a nutshell.

You would benefit far more from putting the tax in your 401(k), you are acting like the General in The Mouse that Roared when he gets captured he Demands a cell with exact dimensions and a steel tray to eat on because that's what the Geneva convention requires, and all his fellow prisoners who didn't open their mouthes are taken to a banquet hall fed a feast, while the generals in the basement eating on his steel tray thinking he won.

You cannot possibly benefit more from social security then privatization, the only argument against it is fear based and not data based
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom