NA-The New Social Security Plan
- Thread starter PaSkyhawk
- Start date
RogerT
Cleared for Takeoff
PaSkyhawk said:
Unbelievable. Income redistribution at it's finest. I actually
voted for him. Is he changing parties?
poadeleted3
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 2,055
Gee, let's just keep our head in the sand and ignore the problems with Social Security. Oh.... I forgot, most of ya'll are old enough that you'll still get to pick my pocket. I guess those of us who are younger are supposed to just ignore the fact that after we get done spending a lifetime paying ever increasing amounts for your retirement, there won't be anything left for us.
Social Security is a massive theft from us younger folks. There will be nothing left after the baby boomers suck the system dry. The only income redistribution I see is me paying you for your retirement, and being expected to save for mine because ya'll bankrupted the system, and are flat refusing to fix it.
Social Security is a massive theft from us younger folks. There will be nothing left after the baby boomers suck the system dry. The only income redistribution I see is me paying you for your retirement, and being expected to save for mine because ya'll bankrupted the system, and are flat refusing to fix it.
Greebo
N9017H - C172M (1976)
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 10,976
- Location
- Baltimore, MD
- Display Name
Display name:
Retired Evil Overlord
I missed the speech last night I do know that up until yesterday, the plan for changing social security included a guarantee that current recipients would be unaffected, and that changes would be implemented gradually.
Can anyone provide a link to an accurate summary recap of last nights speech?
As a 36 year old looking at the crop of baby boomers who are about a generation ahead of me, I agree that the current scheme is doomed to fail. People say, "Oh we're good until 2042" or some such. Well gee, that's wonderful - that means I can count on Social Security until I'm what, 71 before it collapses? Considering we are living well into our 80's (and living well while living well into them - my folks just got back from their fourth trip to England and they're both in their 70's) I don't think we can afford to ignore the problem.
Can anyone provide a link to an accurate summary recap of last nights speech?
As a 36 year old looking at the crop of baby boomers who are about a generation ahead of me, I agree that the current scheme is doomed to fail. People say, "Oh we're good until 2042" or some such. Well gee, that's wonderful - that means I can count on Social Security until I'm what, 71 before it collapses? Considering we are living well into our 80's (and living well while living well into them - my folks just got back from their fourth trip to England and they're both in their 70's) I don't think we can afford to ignore the problem.
woodstock
Final Approach
why not just raise the age for full benefits? it's 67, but you can start collecting some at 62... raise that a little bit.
Carol
Line Up and Wait
Greebo said:
I will not get into politics here. I was just wondering how many of us "old farts" will even be around in 2042? i.e. When will the bulk of the baby boomers pass on?
I am not planning to depend on SS. What will happen with survivor benefits? The survivor benefits part of it helped at least one young family I know to survive while the young mom worked.
Ken Ibold
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2005
- Messages
- 5,888
- Location
- Jacksonville, Florida
- Display Name
Display name:
Ken Ibold
In '42 I'll turn 83. My grandfather lived to 102. My grandmothers lived to 98 and 97. My parents are doing great at 74. I'm planning to be around at least 20 years past Social Security D-Day. However, I am planning for my future as if I will get a grand total of $0 from the Social Security system. Call me a pessimist, but I refuse to trust the bozos in DC, regardless of party affiliation, to provide me with any financial support in my old age. It'll probably happen, since dollars mean votes, but I'd rather be pleasantly surprised than out on the street.Carol said:
Maverick
Line Up and Wait
Joe Williams said:
Don't feel like the lone ranger there son. I'm one of those baby boomers and I've been paying into that system all my life and I'll most likely never get my money out of it or be able to retire. I had my own retirement accounts set up that were pretty much wiped out by the current state of our economy. Ironically the only asset I have that's still worth anything is my airplane. In 2000 I almost sold it because I felt I had too much money tied up in a toy and I should have had that money invested. It turned out the airplane was the better investment and I'm really glad I didn't sell it.
Because of everyone's desire for lots and lots of cheap goods and big business looking for slave labor in third world countries, our decent paying jobs are being eroded at warp speed. I'm not talking about just union jobs here either, lots and lots of high tech jobs are going to third world countries where cheap labor can be found. The current administration seems to be interested in only two things, protecting the assets of the Uber Wealthy and the vendetta against Iraq.
I voted for him the first time around because I really liked his dad. I guess you could say that I identified with the Reagan Democrat idea. But he has caused me switch parties.
It seems this country can't give away it's manufacturing capability fast enough. The very thing that made us victorious during WWII we are now giving to anyone who will provide cheap/slave labor. If this continues our country and economy will continue to decline. As more and more jobs go offshore who will be left to buy our goods and fuel our economy?
I agree that social security needs fixing but I don't think there is an easy solution and I doubt privatizing alone is the answer either. Social security is not the only thing we need to fix if this country is going to survive.
Just my own opinion and I'm not looking to start a flame war. I am getting a tired of seeing out right greed destroying our economy.
Jeannie
Keith Lane
Pattern Altitude
I another rendition of the currentb spate of reform plans, people age 50 and older would get full benefits. Younger people's bennies would be reduced by approximately 40%. Those people would be able, however to divert some of their cotributions to "private accounts" (whatever they are). The problem I see with that, being 49 years old, is that I have paid into SS since I was 15 years old, and now get my benefits cut, and I don't have enough working years left in me to recoup that reduction. Perhaps that age could be reduced to 21, though I'm sure the chicken littles of the budget world will have a problem with that. I don't plan to use SS as a main income, who would, but it sure sucke to be right at the age cutoff.
woodstock
Final Approach
Maverick said:
agreed.
your statement about your own retirement accts which were wiped out by the economy... why aren't more people seeing this??? we already HAVE private retirement accounts in this country. how many folks have seen them disappear? underfunded pensions, Enron and WorldCom turning folks' stocks into toilet paper overnight... private accounts as a supplement, sure. but as the only thing - don't think so. especially when it's going to cost MORE to switch everything around.
corjulo
Line Up and Wait
Joe Williams said:
Um, No.. lets stick our heads in the sand and ignore the real problem.. Medicare Costs!!!!!
I'm not even going to get into the rest of your "points". Other then to say Social Security is not bankrupt, nor will it be in 2041 as the president said. The way the President has chosen to address social security has been a utter disaster for the Republicans. Far be it from me to get in the way of a good train wreck. By all means, keep up the attacks on a SS system with false claims, inflated threats and changing rational. You can fool some.........
The constitution in exile republicans have no intention of fixing anything. THEY WANT TO DESTROY SOCIAL SECURITY AND HAVE FOR 60 YEARS. America aint buying it. Moderate republicans aint buying it. Rural conservative republicans aint buying it. christian conservatives aint buying it.
Can't blame the democrats on this one. There are tough solutions, like raising the retirement age and increasing payroll tax level above 90K. American will support those options.
Iceman
Pre-takeoff checklist
Maverick said:
You have some good points...the problem is the out right greed is from the population of this country. The free market system and the explosion of global markets are to blame for this which started a long time ago (however I think it is the natural evoultion of the system).
The SS system is messed up. By my own research a year and a half ago I think 2028 was when the system would really be in trouble. And remember you can't just fix the system the year it goes bad you need to plan ahead.
These are some things that bother me...
The people that complain about the rising gas prices - same ones that complain that bush has not introduced enough tech for other sources (the rising price with push tech...now with the greater cost of fuel other sources can be used for the same cost). If fuel stablizes at around 2.50 or above, Biodiesel will finally gain in popularity because it cost that much to produce. Bush pushed money to this technology over a year ago (read: before everyone freeked out about it). A side benefit is farmers will be more ulitilized producing crops for biodiesel and has almost no polution.
People complain that our dollar is not "powerful" anymore, that bush is letting it slip - At the same time they complain that the US is not exporting enough. I don't think I need to explain this one but no other countries are going to buy our quality goods unless they can get a good value for their money.
It is impossible to make everyone happy. Do you let the rich collect more because they paid their dues throughout their lifetime? Do you let the poor starve because they did not add anything to the system? Do you only let the people that can not afford health care receive help after an accident? Do you put user fees on flying etc that drain the system for the benefit of a few?
These are not stating any of my opinions you just need to keep them in mind when complaining about the current system.
Iceman
Pre-takeoff checklist
woodstock said:
Because no one really takes the time to crunch the numbers for themselves...This is not a new discovery people have been worried about this problem for years.
corjulo said:
Lets start with medicare cost...
Americans want the best medicare in the world but they don't want to pay for it. They want maricale drugs but don't want the big drug companies to make money which provide for more research (jobs) to create more wonder drugs.
SS problems...
No problem??? Do some simple calculations combining medicare and SS and the money going out vs money coming in and look at age demographics...you would have to be stupid or blind to not see the problem.
Dems are right there is not a critical problem right now. They are also right than if you raise tax on a select few privilaged people (read aviation) it will balance out.
I'm going to stop and just say that I do not agree with a lot of his policies but Bush is stating true problems in a country that has a lot of them!
Ken Ibold
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2005
- Messages
- 5,888
- Location
- Jacksonville, Florida
- Display Name
Display name:
Ken Ibold
I don't think anyone is denying the problems exist. It's just a matter of coming up with practical, fair and politically expedient solutions. So far, it's "pick any two."Iceman said:
Iceman
Pre-takeoff checklist
Ken Ibold said:
Amen, I agree with you 100%. I'm just making the point that all of these problems were not caused by Bush or the Rep party and MOST of the problems they discuss are not made up.
poadeleted3
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 2,055
Ken Ibold said:
MMM... might want to read Dan Corjulo's post. It's pretty consistent with what the far left is saying, along with the older folks who are scared of losing money. "No problem.. no problem at all"
poadeleted3
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 2,055
PaSkyhawk said:
Yeah. That's what I keep hearing. Facts are, though, the only way to get anything back is to get it from me. And then leave SS bankrupt, since nobody wants to mess with a failing system. :besick:
poadeleted3
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 2,055
PaSkyhawk said:
Me want charity? Absolutely inaccurate. You have no basis for that statement. What I want is to end Social Security right now, and quit having my money stolen to pay for the retirement of others. I want people to pay their own way, and quit taking money from me. I'll plan for my own retirement, which I'm having to do anyway. It will simply be easier if I'm not carrying a generation who for some reason thinks their kids should pay for the short sightedness of their elders. My generation didn't create SS, and we shouldn't have to shoulder some one else's burden. It is my money that is being "redistributed" to pay for someone else's failure to plan.
Joe Williams said:
I agree, I only want what I paid in, no more no less. But if you want me to fix it with my money, then you are asking for charity, so that you don't have to pay for the government's handouts. The only difference between you and me is I already paid in.
Rich
poadeleted3
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 2,055
PaSkyhawk said:
Yet another inaccurate statement. I've been paying in for two decades. The only real difference between you and me is that you'll get my money, and I'll likely get nothing.
Who's taking the charity?
Keith Lane
Pattern Altitude
Maverick, Iceman, All we need is Goose, Jester, and..........
All seriousness aside though.
If the politicians of all stripes would leave (or have left) the SS trust fund alone instead of raiding it for all sorts of budgetary shenanigans would we be having this discussion/crisis/non-crisis ????
We, as a pilot community get charged up about the aviation trust fun not going to it's intended purposes, why not the SS fund?
All seriousness aside though.
If the politicians of all stripes would leave (or have left) the SS trust fund alone instead of raiding it for all sorts of budgetary shenanigans would we be having this discussion/crisis/non-crisis ????
We, as a pilot community get charged up about the aviation trust fun not going to it's intended purposes, why not the SS fund?
Anthony
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 18,478
- Display Name
Display name:
Anthony
Joe Williams said:
Social Secuirty is just another income tax and drain on the working, productive people in the U.S. The government borrows from SS to pay for social programs, then repays the fund with a phoney I.O.U. If SS is to be a retirement fund, then leave it alone and keep the money for retirement.
BTW. I like the ideas of vonluntary, private retirement accounts funded by my SS contributions. I'd rather it be mine, like an IRA than in some nebulous fund that gets used for other stuff besides what is intended. If I'm that scared of the stock market (and I'm not) I could put it in safe bonds or guaranteed income stuff. Its a no brainer.
wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
Ya know, private accounts can be accomplished by simple rebranding of the proposition.
We already have private accounts, they're called IRAs (and other variants). I say remove the income limits from IRAs, expand the eligibility, increase the limits of contribution, and encourage more participation.
Voila. The private accounts issue is solved.
IF the administration and congress truly wanted to create private accounts, this is a simple and palatable way of doing so. OTOH, if this is intended as a high-stakes ideological battle intended to create political issues, they've certainly chosen the right way to do it.
Sigh.
If I have a private account, I want to manage it my way, not leave the fund choices and options to the government. Same reason I moved money out of a corporate 401K into a rollover IRA when the company I was with was acquired. I wanted to direct my own investments.
We already have private accounts, they're called IRAs (and other variants). I say remove the income limits from IRAs, expand the eligibility, increase the limits of contribution, and encourage more participation.
Voila. The private accounts issue is solved.
IF the administration and congress truly wanted to create private accounts, this is a simple and palatable way of doing so. OTOH, if this is intended as a high-stakes ideological battle intended to create political issues, they've certainly chosen the right way to do it.
Sigh.
If I have a private account, I want to manage it my way, not leave the fund choices and options to the government. Same reason I moved money out of a corporate 401K into a rollover IRA when the company I was with was acquired. I wanted to direct my own investments.
corjulo
Line Up and Wait
Greebo said:
CSPAN and the White House web site should both have it up by days end
Maverick
Line Up and Wait
woodstock said:
I think lots of other people have seen this depending on their mix of investment vehicles. My money was in mutual funds that pretty much tanked while my financial planners at American Express sat back fat, dumb and happy watching it happen. I blame myself for putting too much trust in the "Pros", not anymore. But then I have almost nothing left to work with. This all started around the end of 2000 and most of the losses were prior to 911.
I would really have been upset if I had followed through with my plan to sell my airplane for additional investment capital.
I think the lesson here is that putting social security money or some portion of it in private investment accounts is not a guarantee of anything. Especially if our economy goes down the tubes.
Jeannie
RogerT
Cleared for Takeoff
Joe Williams said:
We all shoulder someone elses burden, Joe .. and I don't like it either.
ALL of our contributions are going to pay for the retirement of previous
generations. It's not a savings account or an investment. It's pay
as you go. We didn't set up the system. It was set up before I was
born. But money has been taken from all of us under the system promising to return a certain amount to us based on what we paid in. So now the govt should just say "haha .. we were just foolin' ya. We ain't paying."?? I'd
love to have the money I pay in each month to invest. But if I quit
paying it .. what about the people now collecting benefits that planned
based on what they were told?
I'm all in favor of people being given the choice of doing their own planning
and putting part of it into private accounts if they so choose and knowing
that what they get in benefits will be reduced accordingly. They know it
up front and the ball's in their court. But the problem is funding the
generation caught in between if current funds coming into the system
are diverted to private accounts. I sure don't think it would be unreasonable
to remove the 90k cap and pay it on all income.
poadeleted3
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 2,055
RogerT said:
Pardon me, but the scenario you lay out is exactly what people my age are facing. Are we just supposed to sit back, keep paying ever increasing amounts for other people's retirement knowing we will never get back what we've paid in, and just take it? Could we at least get a little Vaseline with that?
Ouch, I was reported as a Troll, I guess you can't have a discussion without someone getting childish.
Joe, I think I'm younger that you think and your older than I thought, you have been paying in for 20 years and I'm 20 year away from retirement.
Rich
Joe, I think I'm younger that you think and your older than I thought, you have been paying in for 20 years and I'm 20 year away from retirement.
Rich
spiderweb
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2005
- Messages
- 9,488
- Display Name
Display name:
Ben
I believe in Social Security, but the fact is that Joe is right about one point, and that is the most important one--the money that working people pay now go to pay the retirement benefits of the people who receive social security now. For current retirees (like my mother, for instance) to continue receiving their checks, we have to keep paying into the system.
Thus, if you had thought that you were paying into your own retirement plan (which is what those government reports you get in the mail seem to imply), you are now just waking up to the fact that you won't get much if you are more than ten years from retirement (like me, for example).
I guess it depends on the person, but in my case, I've tried to put as much money in the retirement policy I have. That money isn't paying anyone else's retirement. I like the idea of Social Security, but the particulars of that idea have to be revamped. We can all agree on that much, no?
Thus, if you had thought that you were paying into your own retirement plan (which is what those government reports you get in the mail seem to imply), you are now just waking up to the fact that you won't get much if you are more than ten years from retirement (like me, for example).
I guess it depends on the person, but in my case, I've tried to put as much money in the retirement policy I have. That money isn't paying anyone else's retirement. I like the idea of Social Security, but the particulars of that idea have to be revamped. We can all agree on that much, no?
poadeleted3
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 2,055
PaSkyhawk said:
Some things just aren't worth worrying about.
I've been working since I was pretty young, and am more like 30 years from retirement. But if you are anywhere near my age, you'll never get back what you've paid, which is the problem with not doing something to fix SS now. What, I don't know, but they can't keep just talking about it.
Brian Austin
En-Route
Dear US Government:
1. Quit playing games with our tax dollars for stupid pork barrel projects.
2. Balance the darn budget already. Any one of us would be in jail for playing the games you do.
3. Pay off the national debt with the surplus from lack of pork barrel spending.
4. REQUIRE that anyone under the age of 30 set up a private retirement account and exempt them from Social Security. Draw a line in the sand.
5. Pay for the existing SS recipients with the savings of NOT having to pay interest on money you borrowed 10 years ago for (yup) more pork barrel spending.
6. Pretend you're actually working FOR us instead of trying to restrict rights, suck more money out of our pockets and giving it to some illegal immigrant's kid who shouldn't even be here in the first place.
1. Quit playing games with our tax dollars for stupid pork barrel projects.
2. Balance the darn budget already. Any one of us would be in jail for playing the games you do.
3. Pay off the national debt with the surplus from lack of pork barrel spending.
4. REQUIRE that anyone under the age of 30 set up a private retirement account and exempt them from Social Security. Draw a line in the sand.
5. Pay for the existing SS recipients with the savings of NOT having to pay interest on money you borrowed 10 years ago for (yup) more pork barrel spending.
6. Pretend you're actually working FOR us instead of trying to restrict rights, suck more money out of our pockets and giving it to some illegal immigrant's kid who shouldn't even be here in the first place.
corjulo
Line Up and Wait
Joe Williams said:
Ease up on the name calling Joe. I'm hardly far left. Well, other then my Jane Fonda blowup doll.
corjulo
Line Up and Wait
People
Its not about saving anything with these people. It's about dismantling the last of the Roosevelt New Deal. The movement is called Constitution in Exile and the president and his supporters at Club for Growth and the Heritage foundation have preached it for years. If saving it was their plan then they would put a serious plan on the table.
We already have private accounts. They're called IRA's and 401's. This is about undermining SS once and for all.
Its not about saving anything with these people. It's about dismantling the last of the Roosevelt New Deal. The movement is called Constitution in Exile and the president and his supporters at Club for Growth and the Heritage foundation have preached it for years. If saving it was their plan then they would put a serious plan on the table.
We already have private accounts. They're called IRA's and 401's. This is about undermining SS once and for all.
poadeleted3
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 2,055
corjulo said:
If you aren't on the far left, you should quit repeating their rhetoric. It's about not having my money stolen from me to support others. Plain and simple.
Anthony
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 18,478
- Display Name
Display name:
Anthony
corjulo said:
Dan, my friend. If we keep the extremist views, neither of us (lib or conservative) will get anywhere. Both sides need to start using logic instead of emotion. Its not about dismantling, its about the rate of retrun and absolute mismanagement of SS. The rate of return in even the most conservative and sage bond and stock funds is historically much higher than the 2% SS gives. The SS takes OUR money, right? Why can't we, on a voluntary basis choose to manage OUR money within a conservative mix of stock and bond funds? Its only a small percentage anyway, so why not? You'd rather the gov't continue to steal YOUR money to waste on more bureacracy?
Brian Austin
En-Route
HEY! Bureaucrats are people, too, dammit!Anthony said:
RogerT
Cleared for Takeoff
Joe Williams said:
Do you think it's not what the rest of us HAVE been facing? I've been
paying for previous generations' retirement for 40 years in ever increasing
amounts. The issue isn't that a change is needed .. it's HOW do you
do that so that people who are too close to retirement to save the
difference aren't left with insufficient retirement income.
Instead of just standing up and saying "I don't want to pay" .. how
about some proposals on how it can be transitioned fairly?