• 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!

Fixing Social Security

How Do You FIx Social Security?


  • Total voters
    21

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
112,958
Reaction score
60,487
Location
Sarasota Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Source thread is based upon: Amending Social Security: how to's surface during national debt talks - Yahoo! News

The program has a "trust fund" built up during surplus years, which can allow it to pay beneficiaries in full until 2036, the annual report from program trustees reckons. Even after that, the program's expected payroll-tax revenue would allow it to pay reduced benefits.

But that doesn't mean changes aren't needed sooner.

"What does matter is that Social Security expenses are expected to rise by about 50 percent – from about 4.3 to 6.3 percentage points of GDP [gross domestic product] – from 2008 to 2030, and taxes aren't," finance expert Eugene Steuerle of the Urban Institute wrote in a recent analysis.

I think we all know something has to be done to make SS solvent and last, or at least stop draining the budget. The article lists 5 possible solutions. Please refer to the article for specifics. You can pick more than one option.

Note: Poll incoming, please be patient while I type.
 
You can't fix it, the only way to fix it is to go back in time and stop politicians from raiding it to pay for their other pet projects. It's doomed to failure at this point, there simply aren't enough people paying into the system to pay for the people who are coming of retirement age.

But then again, social security was never intended as a means to pay for retirement, it's a supplement, nothing more. Anyone trying to live off social security is an idiot.
 
You can't fix it, the only way to fix it is to go back in time and stop politicians from raiding it to pay for their other pet projects. It's doomed to failure at this point, there simply aren't enough people paying into the system to pay for the people who are coming of retirement age.

But then again, social security was never intended as a means to pay for retirement, it's a supplement, nothing more. Anyone trying to live off social security is an idiot.

There are many people that live off social security alone because they never made enough money to save for their own retirement....there are millions of people in that boat....just take most of the employees of the USAs biggest employer..walmart...that should put it in perspective for you
What I find particularly amusing is that the teaparty greedsters want SS abolished...and medicare..ok fine. then what do you do with the millions of people that get old that dont have any money...lol...they will pay and pay more at that point. Or you can do what Rand Paul said when asked that question...his answer, Let charities take care of them..LMAO and the paul lovers dont want us to think they are nuts
 
Last edited:
The only cure is to let it die by attrition.
 
Other option: receive benefits in an amount commensurate with contribution. In other words, you get out what you pay in.
 
Last edited:
Social Security is not contributing to the national debt issue in the short term or middle term. Very modest changes in the out years will ensure its solvency throughout the century.
 
There are many people that live off social security alone because they never made enough money to save for their own retirement....there are millions of people in that boat....just take most of the employees of the USAs biggest employer..walmart...that should put it in perspective for you
What I find particularly amusing is that the teaparty greedsters want SS abolished...and medicare..ok fine. then what do you do with the millions of people that get old that dont have any money...lol...they will pay and pay more at that point. Or you can do what Rand Paul said when asked that question...his answer, Let charities take care of them..LMAO and the paul lovers dont want us to think they are nuts

That's their problem now, isn't it? See, people who go their entire lives working minimum wage jobs because they neither have an education, nor do they ever develop job skills that allow them to move up have a problem, don't they, but it's their problem because they caused it themselves. Unless there's something physically or mentally wrong with them that prohibits them from improving their lot in life, why should someone's stupidity, laziness or incompetence let them get free money from the government for the rest of their life?

And yes, I'm entirely good with charities taking over. Since when did the American taxpayer sign up to care for the incompetent?
 
Social Security is not contributing to the national debt issue in the short term or middle term. Very modest changes in the out years will ensure its solvency throughout the century.

The whole point has been that the money that each individual puts in, they get back out at the end. Unfortunately, when the baby boomers were putting in, the fund was raided by greedy politicians who spent the money on every cockamamie porkbarrel project they could come up with. Now that the baby boomers are starting to retire, there just isn't enough money in the system, money they put there specifically for retirement benefits, to cover the money they'll be taking out. There aren't enough Gen-X'ers behind them to replenish the supply either. It's not currently contributing to the national debt, but when these people need that money, it's got to come from somewhere and it certainly will become a major issue in the future.
 
Other option: receive benefits in an amount commensurate with contribution. In other words, you get out what you pay in.


That's great, but the money they put in is gone and there aren't enough people paying into it to recover the money wasted by greedy politicians.
 
Other option: receive benefits in an amount commensurate with contribution. In other words, you get out what you pay in.

That defeats the entire purpose of social security, or insurance in general. If you only get out of it what you put in then there is no point in having insurance at all. Social security distributes the risk over the entire group so that no one person is bearing the entire burden. Without these safety nets people would either have to save huge amounts of their money to have protection from bad days and thus aren't spending; or they would have no savings at all and their productivity would be destroyed when bad days come. Both situations are harmful to our nation, which is the whole reason why social security exists in the first place. Oh, but I forgot, it's socialism and that's bad.

I agree with other sentiments in this thread... social security in of itself is not a failed system, but it's one whose resources have been diverted for arbitrary purposes by both parties and their pet projects. And now that the economy is wrecked because of things that have nothing to do with social spending, it makes it that much easier to attack this safety net - ESPECIALLY because people need it now more than ever.

It never occurs to people to go after the plutocratic thugs that got us in this mess in the first place. There are a few select bank accounts we could drain as punishment in order to take care of a lot of our bills. But because those people are the de facto law writers, it is much easier to just go after the middle and especially the lower classes.
 
Last edited:
I hawk, I hawk, I continue to hawk.


....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....​


points worth noting is that you may still have to slowly raise the retirement age to 67 as this takes effect.
 
I hawk, I hawk, I continue to hawk.


....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....​


points worth noting is that you may still have to slowly raise the retirement age to 67 as this takes effect.


Ask the thousands upon thousands of Worldcom and Enron employees what they think about your hawk and 401ks ...they thought they were SAFE and SECURE because they had 401ks they paid into...68 yr old people that were already retired LOST IT ALL....I dont trust CEOs or corporations ONE fricken iota to protect my money. They will steal it first chance they get. Just like they stole my fathers pension and his will ...screw them...the market is manipulated by the rich for the rich
 
Ask the thousands upon thousands of Worldcom and Enron employees what they think about your hawk and 401ks ...they thought they were SAFE and SECURE because they had 401ks they paid into...68 yr old people that were already retired LOST IT ALL....I dont trust CEOs or corporations ONE fricken iota to protect my money. They will steal it first chance they get. Just like they stole my fathers pension and his will ...screw them...the market is manipulated by the rich for the rich

had those worldcom and enron employees (who were the victims of crime not the market) had these accounts, they would have been in a much better position. the loss of their 401(k)s would not have gutted their retirement - and they still would have been able to retire financially independent. if anything, they demonstrate the need for this switch.
 
The whole point has been that the money that each individual puts in, they get back out at the end. …

Wrong. Your comments demonstrate you actually don't understand Social Security. It's not a savings plan. It's an insurance program. Again, the program doesn't run into shortfalls for a quarter century and even then it's able to pay the overwhelming majority of its obligations. Slight modifications will assure its solvency for many decades to come.
 
That defeats the entire purpose of social security, or insurance in general. If you only get out of it what you put in then there is no point in having insurance at all. Social security distributes the risk over the entire group so that no one person is bearing the entire burden. Without these safety nets people would either have to save huge amounts of their money to have protection from bad days and thus aren't spending; or they would have no savings at all and their productivity would be destroyed when bad days come. Both situations are harmful to our nation, which is the whole reason why social security exists in the first place. Oh, but I forgot, it's socialism and that's bad.

I agree with other sentiments in this thread... social security in of itself is not a failed system, but it's one whose resources have been diverted for arbitrary purposes by both parties and their pet projects. And now that the economy is wrecked because of things that have nothing to do with social spending, it makes it that much easier to attack this safety net - ESPECIALLY because people need it now more than ever.

It never occurs to people to go after the plutocratic thugs that got us in this mess in the first place. There are a few select bank accounts we could drain as punishment in order to take care of a lot of our bills. But because those people are the de facto law writers, it is much easier to just go after the middle and especially the lower classes.

Who do you want to "punish"?
 
Wrong. Your comments demonstrate you actually don't understand Social Security. It's not a savings plan. It's an insurance program. Again, the program doesn't run into shortfalls for a quarter century and even then it's able to pay the overwhelming majority of its obligations. Slight modifications will assure its solvency for many decades to come.

Twenty-five years is not a long time. In 25 years my dad will be of retirement age. My stepmom will have been of age for 4 years. I will be 20 years from retirement. We don't have any proposals, intentions, or suggestions for ANY modifications to the program (even "slight) coming from the legislature. Anytime somebody mentions it we get hyperbolic attack adds trying to scare seniors into thinking we're going to kick 'em out on their asses right now, today, in favor of a new system. Your rose-colored classes are a little smudged, I think.
 
Raising the retirement age and means based testing are the best solutions. Modern medical technology has increased life expectancy which requires longer payouts, but also makes it more viable to work at an advanced age.
 
A ponzi scheme should not be fixed, it should be dismantled.
 
You can't fix it, the only way to fix it is to go back in time and stop politicians from raiding it to pay for their other pet projects. It's doomed to failure at this point, there simply aren't enough people paying into the system to pay for the people who are coming of retirement age.

But then again, social security was never intended as a means to pay for retirement, it's a supplement, nothing more. Anyone trying to live off social security is an idiot.

or had been working poor their entire lives. everybody CAN'T make great wages.
 
Raising the retirement age and means based testing are the best solutions. Modern medical technology has increased life expectancy which requires longer payouts, but also makes it more viable to work at an advanced age.

i disagree. i think we should eliminate the cap on earnings and raise the actual tax, at least back to where it was. we should also means test for SS recipients, on a progressive scale.
 
i disagree. i think we should eliminate the cap on earnings and raise the actual tax, at least back to where it was. we should also means test for SS recipients, on a progressive scale.

The ones that dont need social security do not want it fixed and there can be no reasoning with them...they want everything abolished because they are fortunate enough not to need it and they dont want to pay a nickle in taxs...Id agree with that if all the rich men and their sons were fighting all our wars...Oh I forgot the lower and middle class's do that too.
 
I think you touched on most of the best ideas in your poll options...my ideal plan for social security basically consists of all the things you mentioned. While I do support raising taxes to pay for SS (both the percentage and the cap), I thought that 14.6% was a bit too excessive for me to vote for that option. The cap is more important than the rate...the rate probably only needs to be raised by 1-2% or so.
 
A ponzi scheme should not be fixed, it should be dismantled.

The best part of this is that they can't fix it. Its a ponzi scheme and no matter what they do it will die a ponzi schemes death. I find this all to hilarious.

what people need to do...wait for it...is..

Invest their money.
 
The ones that dont need social security do not want it fixed and there can be no reasoning with them...they want everything abolished because they are fortunate enough not to need it and they dont want to pay a nickle in taxs...Id agree with that if all the rich men and their sons were fighting all our wars...Oh I forgot the lower and middle class's do that too.

Wait, are so you are saying the rich don't volunteer for service? Does that mean everyone that is rich that does is doing it wrong?
 
pop the cap while freezing benefit levels plus a modest inflation allowance

93% of Americans pay FICA on 100% of their earnings. That figure should be 100% of Americans.
 
Back
Top Bottom