• 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
cpwill said:
you're 63. the GOP options wouldn't effect you at all.
Click to expand...


I understand that CP but its not just all about me, what about the person that is 58 and has been paying 40 yrs or the person 54 thats been paying 35 yrs ?
 
lpast said:
I understand that CP but its not just all about me, what about the person that is 58 and has been paying 40 yrs or the person 54 thats been paying 35 yrs ?
Click to expand...

he see's no changes, either.
 
cpwill said:
he see's no changes, either.
Click to expand...


Theres alot of different proposals out there I may not be up on the latest...So I defer to you :)
 
lpast said:
Theres alot of different proposals out there I may not be up on the latest...So I defer to you :)
Click to expand...

all that i have seen are generally uniform on not applying to anyone over 55.

but here is the Republican House Budget Committee Chairmans' plan.

Preserves the existing Social Security program for those 55 or older.

Offers workers under 55 the option of investing over one third of their current Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts, similar to the Thrift Savings Plan available to Federal employees. Includes a property right so they can pass on these assets to their heirs, and a guarantee that individuals will not lose a dollar they contribute to their accounts, even after inflation.

Makes the program permanently solvent – according to the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] – by combining a more realistic measure of growth in Social Security’s initial benefits, with an eventual modernization of the retirement age.


click here for more
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
all that i have seen are generally uniform on not applying to anyone over 55.

but here is the Republican House Budget Committee Chairmans' plan.
Click to expand...

Well then I wasnt all wrong :) a person 54 who has been forced into paying into social security for 35yrs or more takes a hit...
 
reaper said:
I am for privatization of Social Security or having private accounts for each individual.
Click to expand...

I'm for individual freedom too, but unfortunately only about ten percent have enough sense and discipline to take care of themselves and their families. I hate to think what kind of terrible depression we'd be in right now, had the government not forced us all to save for a rainy day.

ricksfolly
 
ricksfolly said:
I'm for individual freedom too, but unfortunately only about ten percent have enough sense and discipline to take care of themselves and their families. I hate to think what kind of terrible depression we'd be in right now, had the government not forced us all to save for a rainy day.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

So why not let those ten percent opt out?
 
ricksfolly said:
I'm for individual freedom too, but unfortunately only about ten percent have enough sense and discipline to take care of themselves and their families. I hate to think what kind of terrible depression we'd be in right now, had the government not forced us all to save for a rainy day.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

Thats precisely the problem you hit it right on the head...if you give choice to all and most dont make enough to do it or are responsible enough...in the end you will pay anyway and pay more.
 
lpast said:
Well then I wasnt all wrong :) a person 54 who has been forced into paying into social security for 35yrs or more takes a hit...
Click to expand...

yes. he has to wait a couple of extra months to get his checks. in return for which the system doesn't go bankrupt and throw him off the rolls when he's 70. I'd call that an acceptable loss.
 
ricksfolly said:
I'm for individual freedom too, but unfortunately only about ten percent have enough sense and discipline to take care of themselves and their families. I hate to think what kind of terrible depression we'd be in right now, had the government not forced us all to save for a rainy day.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

given that the government spends our SS money as soon as it comes in, how, exactly, has the government forced us (who let us recall have recently hit negative savings rates) to save money?
 
ricksfolly said:
Ok by me, but if their luck changes, and their assets run out, they'll have nothing to fall back on.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

Well, that's the choice they made - personal responsibility. As long as they don't come crying for welfare later, let them invest in their own retirement.
 
cpwill said:
ah yes. and with what money, pray tell, we going to be achieving this laudable goal?
Click to expand...

The money we save by budget cuts, and the money we get from raising taxes. How are we going to pay off the money owed to SS, along with the money owed to China and other countries? The printing press?

Oh, I almost forgot. Cutting spending is not popular, nor is raising taxes, so neither is likely to happen. We'll have to crank up those presses, I suppose.
 
I think that people should pay social security on all their income - by employment or by investment. Given this history of contribution you will get a very large monthly check if you become disabled or turn 70. If you never become disabled or make it to 70 a grateful nations thanks you for your kind citizenship.
 
Kal'Stang said:
SS is not broke. It is over drawn due to politicians using it for things that it was never designed to be used for to begin with. It was designed to be used only for retirement. That's it. Instead our politicians saw it as a free dipping money jar and started "borrowing" from it in order to pay for damn near anything that they couldn't get money for legitimately.

Want to fix SS? Make the politicians pay back all the money they "borrowed" from SS.
Click to expand...

Yes, it has basically "funded" our tax cuts and corporate tax structure as evidenced by the growing dependance on payroll taxes to fund the Treasury over the past 50 years...
 

Attachments

  • Numbers_Figure-2_What-are-federal-govt-sources-of-revenue_1.jpg
    Numbers_Figure-2_What-are-federal-govt-sources-of-revenue_1.jpg
    12.4 KB · Views: 159
Last edited:
iamitter said:
Well, that's the choice they made - personal responsibility. As long as they don't come crying for welfare later, let them invest in their own retirement.
Click to expand...


See, this is the fundamental problem. Do you really expect all people to invest well? What if they do not? Social Security came about because the majority of people over 65 in the early 20th century were living in poverty. That has a social and real economic cost, so government pays for this anyway. The social security system and medicare just organize and systematize these social costs. The fundamental flaw in conservative thinking is that if we don't have these programs the cost and the people that are the "burden" go away. They don't. This is not an indictment of CPWill's proposal (it is intriguing for those of us comfortable with investing, but it has its flaws), but rather an indictment of people wanting to wash their hands of the inherent social problem that social security attempts to address. Its not intended to enrich its participants, but rather its a social program (yes, some level of redistribution) to ensure our elderly have some safety net in the years where they are unable to work.

Dickens: "....are there no prisons? are there no workhouses?...."

Is America really a Christian nation? No, as evidenced by its social policies.
 
haymarket said:
Just pop the $106K cap for FICA tax for heavens sake. Then freeze benefits plus a modest inflation allowance. Problem solved.
Click to expand...

No, because the benefits are capped as well. This was not meant to be a program for the wealthy. It is meant as a safety net.

The unfortunate thing is that payroll tax revenue has become an increasingly larger contributor to total tax receipts. What we need to do is raise income taxes, largely on corporations, by cutting tax rates (which will help the multi-nationals declare more US income) and instituting a better corporate minimum tax for companies wishing to do business in the US; but also increase personal income tax rates on wages greater then $1.0M. High wage income should be taxed at 50% or greater and capital gains should be lowered to 10% with a 3-year holding period to disincentivize companies from paying money out in executive wages in lieu of re-investing in their own businesses and expanding jobs.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The money we save by budget cuts, and the money we get from raising taxes
Click to expand...

we can save a dollar for each dollar of cuts (in fact we probably net a little more due to increased growth rates); but raising taxes has been pretty solidly demonstrated to have a tenuous - you could make a good argument negative - effect on tax revenues.

How are we going to pay off the money owed to SS, along with the money owed to China and other countries? The printing press?
Click to expand...

we can't do both. but reforming social security can become a tool for giving the poor financial independence (as outlined in the OP), whereas defaulting on our debt will destroy the world (and hence, our) economy.

Oh, I almost forgot. Cutting spending is not popular, nor is raising taxes, so neither is likely to happen. We'll have to crank up those presses, I suppose.
Click to expand...

:shock: why, that's Glenn Beck Talk!

:lol: hyperinflation also destroys the economy, i'm thinking that admitting we already speant the money reforming SS remains the better option.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
we can save a dollar for each dollar of cuts (in fact we probably net a little more due to increased growth rates); but raising taxes has been pretty solidly demonstrated to have a tenuous - you could make a good argument negative - effect on tax revenues.



we can't do both. but reforming social security can become a tool for giving the poor financial independence (as outlined in the OP), whereas defaulting on our debt will destroy the world (and hence, our) economy.



:shock: why, that's Glenn Beck Talk!

:lol: hyperinflation also destroys the economy, i'm thinking that admitting we already speant the money reforming SS remains the better option.
Click to expand...

OMG! I'm starting to sound like Glenn Beck!

It does appear that the country has a lack of leadership that is willing to take on the hard questions. Budget imbalance that amounts to $15,000 per taxpayer? Whatever shall we do (hand wringing)? Let's see if we can cut this program, that program, another program... what have we proposed so far? A cut of $1 out of that $15,000. But any real cuts will be unpopular! We can't do what is unpopular. Oh, yes, let's by all means extend the Bush tax cuts! We can't raise taxes, that will decrease government income. How do we know? Well, just look at how well trickle down economics worked in the Reagan years. Sure, that's when the deficits started, but the voters really want to believe that cutting taxes increases revenues, and no one wants to pay more.

Now about that $15,000, let's see if we can blame it on the other party.

Yep. Printing presses and hyperinflation do appear to be a real possibility.
 
:) yup, you sound about like Glenn Beck; both parties are responsible, and at this rate they will end up with no choice but to monetize the debt.



perhaps in partial answer of an earlier question about the OP


from April 2011 Wall Street Journals Smart Money: "Nest Eggs: Thinking Outside The Box"

...Not long ago, Burchett's financial planner would have turned up his nose at the idea of putting retirement funds into these insurance contracts. Annuities can be expensive and confusing, and the stoock marcket seemed like such a better deal deal... Today, of course, plenty of people need it, including Burchett. he plowed $250,000 into an annuity that promises to pay him $1,885 a month...
Click to expand...
 
If we valiantly make the tough decisions to reduce the costs of social security the government is just going to use the savings to spend stupidly. Lets give the elderly and disabled a big raise instead and let them spend the money on things like food and transportation. And deluxe walkers.
 
sazerac said:
If we valiantly make the tough decisions to reduce the costs of social security the government is just going to use the savings to spend stupidly. Lets give the elderly and disabled a big raise instead and let them spend the money on things like food and transportation. And deluxe walkers.
Click to expand...

the unfunded liability (the money we currently are slated to pay out but don't have and won't be able to collect) for Social Security and Medicare is currently $106 Trillion. Given that that is almost twice world GDP; where do you propose we get that money?
 
cpwill said:
the unfunded liability (the money we currently are slated to pay out but don't have and won't be able to collect) for Social Security and Medicare is currently $106 Trillion. Given that that is almost twice world GDP; where do you propose we get that money?
Click to expand...
We get rid of all caps on social security and we start taxing all income, not just wages.

We start increasing taxes on anybody who uses our infrastucture to sell their goods and services. And that includes all media and satelite infrastructure. This is where we put our tax focus. Nobody should even pay taxes if they are low income because they are not getting any advantage of our infrastucture.
 
and how is reducing economic growth a better plan than making the working poor financially independent? The plan I posted makes your lower-income families into millionaires. why would you not want that?
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
and how is reducing economic growth a better plan than making the working poor financially independent? The plan I posted makes your lower-income families into millionaires. why would you not want that?
Click to expand...

If every working person put 16% (8 from the paycheck, 8 from the employer, as per Social Security) into an IRA, there is no question that he/she would be far and away better off after 40 or 50 years than by putting the same amount into SS. That was the heart of your suggestion, I believe.

The problem is, we already have a majority of Americans who have been paying into SS, there is an increasing number reaching retirement age, and they will start drawing SS. So, if the people who still have 30 or 40 years of employment ahead of them quit funding SS, where is the money going to come from for the current retirees?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom