Here's an interesting perspective on the issue: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/24/AR2009082402654.html Basically, you owe somebody $5 a month. One day you overpay him by $2. Instead of asking for it back, you just tell him to keep it, and actually decide to overpay him again forever that $2. When the next month comes around, you overpay him $2 for a total of $7, as agreed. However, he accuses you of suddenly "cutting back". You overpaid $2 last month, so you should overpay $2 additional this month for a total of $9/month. I think the guy is an asshole and should count himself lucky he got the original $2 bump once.
Then it shouldn't be called a COLA because you aren't even tying it to cost of living. There SHOULD be a means test to receive Social Security, IMHO. If you're making more than 500K a year as a retiree and drawing Social Security while you aren't defeating the word, you are defeating the spirit of the program.
Too bad. Social security, not social bank of investment. If they're making that much money are they really going to gripe because they aren't getting a SS check? More than likely they'll be griping about something and/or everything then.
The age of 65 was put in when the life expectancy was 64 years. It needs to be raised to either 70 or 72. No one every promised you a 10-20 year vacation at the end of your life.
We've always planned the growth of life expectancy to be linear. Give or take, we've been adding about one more year of life expectancy about every 6-8 years: http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=195 So if you look at that chart, it predicts life expectancy to be 82 years in 2039. The interesting thing to me, though, is that we added a year of life expectancy in just 4 years this last go around (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006). What if the rate of life expectancy continues at that pace? What if it actually increases? Not impossible, given how many fields of science and medicine have been doing lately. What if it increases so fast that by 2039 our life expectancy is 90? 100? 120? The chart I link to sources the US census. I assume that's the data our government looks at when projecting future requirements for things like Medicare and Social Security. I suspect it's drastically underestimating what our lifespans will be in 20 or 30 years.
This. Im delighted that someone else knows this fact. Social Security was implemented as a support mechanizim for the very elderly. Most people never even got to collect. What it was not meant to be, was a 20 yr pension for senior citizens, which it has become. I am almost positive that at some point it will become means tested, which pisses me off. Why should those who have paid the most into SocSec, not be entitled to the benefits of the program?
Ponzi schemes rely on there being more people at the bottom of the pyramid to keep selling the scam to. When SS was enacted, people had a very different kind of view toward welfare and charity. Nobody wanted it. In order to foist SS on the people, the program was a promise to everyone equally - you pay in, you get an annuity. Annuity isn't welfare. It isn't charity. People pay in to get something out. It's a sacred pact between the people and govt. No way should Bill Gates be denied his $1400/month after all he's paid in. It's not like he's paying in $1B and getting $2B out, it's progressive and fair, given the pact.
I got no problem with anything you wrote. I just wonder how it'll all work if we screw up by living to 100 instead of 84. It's underfunded as it is now with the current longevity calculations. It's going to be totally fucked if people live an extra ten or twenty years more than planned.
Here's why I always thought privatization of some % of it always made sense. First of all, you should be able to leave the leftovers to your family or charity or donate it to the govt. when you die. You literally pay into the system, you have a right to something out. Second, there are "unsophisticated" people out there who only have SS to retire on. Poor choices, bad investments, no will to save, etc. For the amount people pay in, they should be able to retire reasonably. $1400 / mo is poor people. It violates the whole point of SS. Let them retire in dignity, or work until they're as old as George Burns and want to work. Third, there's only one non-fascist option for investing the surpluses under the current scheme, and that's in T-Bills. T-Bills are the safest investment in the world, so they say (not sure it's going to be true for much longer). The govt. as trustees of the trust fund have a fiduciary obligation to protect peoples' savings. To allow govt. to invest in companies is a horrible idea. I hate that we own Chrysler and GM and AIG, it is fascist. If govt. were to invest SS surpluses in the stock market, they'd be buying outright and quickly all of our largest companies. Allowing govt. to dictate who is CEO based upon political winds is not good business, and you know that is exactly what it already is and always will be (govt. owned companies). Fourth, this would properly fund the program so it's no longer a ponzi scheme. You are in control of your own retirement funds, and those funds are real, and you contributed them. It becomes irrelevant if you live to 62 or 162. Fifth, it really is cheaper to bailout the few who fail at managing their own retirement than it is to tax young kids 80% to pay baby boomers money they're rightly owed. And it is going to come to that kind of tax rate just for SS, nevermind debt interest being piled up. /soapbox
Denny, I honestly think you're losing it. I'm not really sure where to begin... No, you don't. That's right, you heard me, you don't. All of you full bore capitalists (who wouldn't even be alive on this Earth if we had a true capitalist system) are withering in pain right now like you've just been exposed to the seventh layer of Hell. You all think you should be able to spend your money how you want it because you earned it g-damnt and so no one else should get it no matter how poor or underprivileged they are. The system was made to help prevent the elderly from experiencing poverty. Get it? You pay into welfare, you don't get a cut of that either. You pay into our national defense, the government doesn't ship you a free bazooka on your birthday. And I can guarantee the govt. spends more on defense than is necessary for defense of the nation from attacks. Stop being such greedy ducks and let the one class of people who need it - poor elderly - have it. And for the rest of the money put it towards the future SS that isn't even fully funded. Or reduce the deficit you wail about so much. (Never mind that the deficit never seemed to bother your hero Dick Cheney) "Unsophisticated"? So the only options are poor choices, bad investments, or no will to save? How about if there was some catastrophe that sucked out their money? How about a medical issue - oh, no wait, that never happens in America, right? How about people who just weren't able to save enough because they had to make payments towards things like food and health care. Whoops! There I go again - there aren't such people because we have a perfect health care system! Did you just listen to Rush one day and go "Gee, I'm going to start using fascist in everything I say about the administration." Apparently now you are the fascist dictator of the board telling every one there is only ONE option? How ironic.. Uhh..yes, it is cheaper. How about we enact some sort of SS reform that actually has a means test? And then the rest of you who don't need SS can thank your lucky stars or deity or Rin Tin Tin poster that you were able to live in a nation that allowed you to make enough money where you didn't need to take SS. </soapbox>
"unsophisticated" means not skilled at investing, nothing more. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sophisticatedinvestor.asp What Does Sophisticated Investor Mean? A type of investor who is deemed to have sufficient investing experience and knowledge to weigh the risks and merits of an investment opportunity. Social Security is NOT a welfare program, and never was. Our money is entrusted to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund. You can study up on it here, as a start: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html I don't like nor do I listen to Rush Limbaugh. I don't mind paying a reasonable rate of taxes for a reasonable amount of government. This includes the military and it includes welfare type programs. The government is there for the benefit of all the people, not just people who think like I do, or those who think like you do. Means test away. HALF the people have to be means tested away for taxes just to pay for it to only reach 40% by 2060. You know that Bill Gates will get $1400/month from what's due him, right? I fail to see your logic in means testing to save paying a few % of the people what's due them; it's simply too small a drop in the bucket. And read this: http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/29/news/economy/fixing_social_security.fortune/index.htm
A welfare program is not an entitlement. It is not a compact between govt. and the people. It is simply a hand out from the general treasury to help less fortunate people. I don't oppose welfare programs, but I do oppose having 150 or more different ones with the oddity of their rules and the bureaucracies that go along with them. Just write the people who need the money a check. You could just look at their last year's tax return and write them a check for the difference between what they made and 150% of the poverty level (or whatever arbitrary amount) and nobody would be poor. It would cost a lot less than all those programs, too. Social Security is a contract between the people and government. They ding our paychecks and put the money in a Trust Fund. The money is watched over by trustees who are authorized to pay benefits to everyone who paid in and who qualifies (reach minimum age, disability, etc.). In return for contributing for 45 years, everyone is entitled to their fair share of the trust fund. Similarly, the GI Bill is a contract. If you serve, the government pays you $X for college. No means testing or anything.
Do the math. To pay for SS, our kids will be taxed at 80%. If you cut half the benefits, our kids will only need to be taxed 40%. You can cut benefits across the board in half. You can remove half the people who receive benefits. Some combination works, too. Not the promise of social security, though.
