Beating Social Security

[Sun Devil 92]

If you want to "beat" Social Security, you have to come up with a solution that is better.

All the proposals I have seen assume Social Security is just torn up and we start from scratch. We can't do that. Hundreds of millions of Americans have already paid in or are now living off of Social Security. Any proposal to "beat" Social Security would have to provide a methodology to transition off of Social Security while you move to some sort of savings plan

Hard to do that without raising withholding or slashing benefits

TOTAL BS.

There have been a myriad of proposals out there that don't tear up the system but seek to transform it over decades to something that forces responsibility on those who otherwise would wind up destitute and rewards those who are more pro-active.

Why would a millionare need to save for his retirement through the government ?

Name one and we can discuss

I've already listed one.

1. You start by personalizing S.S. That means you get a statement that says this is what you put in, your interest, and balance. It is handled by the government. Not wall street. That money is yours for retirement. When you start taking out, your balance goes down. If you run out, you go on minimum support from the government (and I do mean minimum) because now you are on welfare.
2. When you pass, remaining money in your account goes to your designated heirs. It beefs up their accounts.
3. If an account hits a minimum, then you have the choice to stop paying in. This might 1,000,000 or 2,000,000. It depends on when you plan to retire.
4. We stop the employer portion and take it all from the employee. Initially, employers would be required to add that to their employees salaries until things equilibrate. That way people see how much money is going into the system. Many people today do not realize that their employer pays an equal amount into S.S.
5. We lift the cap on S.S. We don't raise it. We go to the top and work our way back down. Below 150K, it becomes progressive.
6. With the extra revenue from (5), we start to cut back the contribution of those at the bottom (again it be somewhat progressive to start) to the general fund and start the personalized funds. It makes no difference to the bottom line. With the extra revenue and the existing general fund, it simply means that we are now starting to accumulate people's actual balances. The %'s will shift over time.
7. We means test the rich off the program. I don't like it, but that's gotta happen. Again, it is progressive and only starts with people who have incomes above some silly level like $100,000 a year (maybe they only get 90% of they were slated to collect).
8. We bust the elderly and anyone else who is scamming the system. And I mean we come down hard on them. This is a violation of trust and if you steal from the elderly you are going to PAY dearly....that includes a reduction of benefits and loss of property.

All this gets moved around and arranged so that on day 1, the percentage going to personalized accounts is 1/2 percent (the other 13+% going to the general fund. In a year, it shifts a little more.

We will need to look at the general fund to see if there need to be adjustments.

If we start today, 40 years from now everyone's contributions go to personalized accounts. We've done away with Pay-go and we have a general fund for those who run out of cash before they pass away.

How the money gets handled on the government side will be another discussion. Harvard has actuaries who kick the crapp out of the stock market every year. We would pull some of them in and make safe investments (like mortgages where you have a 30% downpayment...imagine interest rates if you had all that money looking for a safe haven).

This isn't comprehensive and it certainly needs to be moved around.

But something LIKE THIS beast the living s**t out of the current system.

Don't even bother to respond with a rebuttal unless you can show me WITH NUMBER how the two compare.

I still don't see you adressing the problem I identified before. Your plan works OK for those just entering the workforce. But where does the money come from to pay off those who are now receiving SS and those who have been paying in for decades? It is a substantial sum of money...where does it come from if workers start paying in to private accounts?

Read

What going into the paygo system will still go......

The guy making 75K a years puts 7% and his employer puts 7% in. To start 1/4% goes into his private account on each side for a total of 1/2%. Then he pays 13.5% into the general fund as he always has. The difference is made up by the additional money coming from the lifted cap.

There is not change in that amount. That progressively increases according to some schedule. If the obligations we have now (which we do have and we should honor to the fullest) will continue to be paid out. If the trust fund starts to go under, then benefits to those getting now get cut. That was always going to be the case. But that small percentage is now going into a personal account which the government is accountable to him/her for.

If the bubble in the baby boomers gets to be to much as the percent will go to personal accounts, then we will need to raise a very temporary general tax to cover it. It should only be required as it would be anyway (in the face of a benefits cut.).

Got it.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

If you want to "beat" Social Security, you have to come up with a solution that is better.

All the proposals I have seen assume Social Security is just torn up and we start from scratch. We can't do that. Hundreds of millions of Americans have already paid in or are now living off of Social Security. Any proposal to "beat" Social Security would have to provide a methodology to transition off of Social Security while you move to some sort of savings plan

Hard to do that without raising withholding or slashing benefits

TOTAL BS.

There have been a myriad of proposals out there that don't tear up the system but seek to transform it over decades to something that forces responsibility on those who otherwise would wind up destitute and rewards those who are more pro-active.

Why would a millionare need to save for his retirement through the government ?

Name one and we can discuss

I've already listed one.

1. You start by personalizing S.S. That means you get a statement that says this is what you put in, your interest, and balance. It is handled by the government. Not wall street. That money is yours for retirement. When you start taking out, your balance goes down. If you run out, you go on minimum support from the government (and I do mean minimum) because now you are on welfare.
2. When you pass, remaining money in your account goes to your designated heirs. It beefs up their accounts.
3. If an account hits a minimum, then you have the choice to stop paying in. This might 1,000,000 or 2,000,000. It depends on when you plan to retire.
4. We stop the employer portion and take it all from the employee. Initially, employers would be required to add that to their employees salaries until things equilibrate. That way people see how much money is going into the system. Many people today do not realize that their employer pays an equal amount into S.S.
5. We lift the cap on S.S. We don't raise it. We go to the top and work our way back down. Below 150K, it becomes progressive.
6. With the extra revenue from (5), we start to cut back the contribution of those at the bottom (again it be somewhat progressive to start) to the general fund and start the personalized funds. It makes no difference to the bottom line. With the extra revenue and the existing general fund, it simply means that we are now starting to accumulate people's actual balances. The %'s will shift over time.
7. We means test the rich off the program. I don't like it, but that's gotta happen. Again, it is progressive and only starts with people who have incomes above some silly level like $100,000 a year (maybe they only get 90% of they were slated to collect).
8. We bust the elderly and anyone else who is scamming the system. And I mean we come down hard on them. This is a violation of trust and if you steal from the elderly you are going to PAY dearly....that includes a reduction of benefits and loss of property.

All this gets moved around and arranged so that on day 1, the percentage going to personalized accounts is 1/2 percent (the other 13+% going to the general fund. In a year, it shifts a little more.

We will need to look at the general fund to see if there need to be adjustments.

If we start today, 40 years from now everyone's contributions go to personalized accounts. We've done away with Pay-go and we have a general fund for those who run out of cash before they pass away.

How the money gets handled on the government side will be another discussion. Harvard has actuaries who kick the crapp out of the stock market every year. We would pull some of them in and make safe investments (like mortgages where you have a 30% downpayment...imagine interest rates if you had all that money looking for a safe haven).

This isn't comprehensive and it certainly needs to be moved around.

But something LIKE THIS beast the living s**t out of the current system.

Don't even bother to respond with a rebuttal unless you can show me WITH NUMBER how the two compare.

It is going to be difficult to give you numbers to compare when your list doesn't have hard numbers. 5 and 6 seem to be a wash. #7 sounds great but it will save you a very small amount.

Today SS gets 10.6 (it is about to get closer to 10 because of DI). So you are looking at 1/2 percent going to a private account and 9.5 percent going to SS. At 1/2 percent a typical worker will get to $1,000,000 somewhere around 70 years.

These figures are aggressive. The worker starts @ 28K, and gets 3% real raises for 45 years. He invests the money 100% in stocks earning 6.5% real. After 45 years, he has about $529,000. What are you going to do for the minimum wage worker?

He may require a boost or it may be a minimum payment which means he is going to pay a greater percentage. They have to be on track for some minimum when they retire or become disabled.

Speaking of which, unemployment insurance would go away and would be paid into this account too. There are some other things that might go into the account too. If you become unemployed, you get a check from this account.

When you are employed again...you are going to pay in extra to recover. Your parents could move some of theirs to yours if they wanted to cover you too.

5 and 6 are supposed to be a near wash.

7 has to happen as does 8.

I will grab some of my old spreadsheets. But, the 1/2% goes to 1% at some point and will steadily grow. The overall burden will swell at some point and will be helped again by the guys with the big dollars. In 20 years, the average worker will be putting something like 1/2 of his social security into his personal account. In 40 years, the guy starting out puts it
all in there.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

RW owns Sun Devil, no ifs ands or buts. Sun Devil addresses nothing except his strange thoughts.

Sun Devil rides to the libertarian wind on his own unicorn of personalization of retirement incomes, as if we don't have several thousand private firms doing that along with all the civil service programs.

Social insurance is why most elderly do not live in poverty today. Sun Devil knows that before it the majority of the elderly died in poverty.

I happen to support personal retirement accounts, it is a great idea

But there is nothing stopping you from establishing a tax free retirement account right now. But funneling money away from Social Security into private accounts just means we have to somehow make up for that debt to existing retirees.

Nobody seems able to tell me how that is done

Read dumbass....we lift the cap.

That is the trade off.

 

[JakeStarkey]

RW owns Sun Devil, no ifs ands or buts. Sun Devil addresses nothing except his strange thoughts.

Sun Devil rides to the libertarian wind on his own unicorn of personalization of retirement incomes, as if we don't have several thousand private firms doing that along with all the civil service programs.

Social insurance is why most elderly do not live in poverty today. Sun Devil knows that before it the majority of the elderly died in poverty.

I happen to support personal retirement accounts, it is a great idea

But there is nothing stopping you from establishing a tax free retirement account right now. But funneling money away from Social Security into private accounts just means we have to somehow make up for that debt to existing retirees.

Nobody seems able to tell me how that is done

Read dumbass....we lift the cap. That is the trade off.

But we don't ever privatize. Lifting the cap is inevitable.

 

[rightwinger]

If you want to "beat" Social Security, you have to come up with a solution that is better.

All the proposals I have seen assume Social Security is just torn up and we start from scratch. We can't do that. Hundreds of millions of Americans have already paid in or are now living off of Social Security. Any proposal to "beat" Social Security would have to provide a methodology to transition off of Social Security while you move to some sort of savings plan

Hard to do that without raising withholding or slashing benefits

TOTAL BS.

There have been a myriad of proposals out there that don't tear up the system but seek to transform it over decades to something that forces responsibility on those who otherwise would wind up destitute and rewards those who are more pro-active.

Why would a millionare need to save for his retirement through the government ?

Name one and we can discuss

I've already listed one.

1. You start by personalizing S.S. That means you get a statement that says this is what you put in, your interest, and balance. It is handled by the government. Not wall street. That money is yours for retirement. When you start taking out, your balance goes down. If you run out, you go on minimum support from the government (and I do mean minimum) because now you are on welfare.
2. When you pass, remaining money in your account goes to your designated heirs. It beefs up their accounts.
3. If an account hits a minimum, then you have the choice to stop paying in. This might 1,000,000 or 2,000,000. It depends on when you plan to retire.
4. We stop the employer portion and take it all from the employee. Initially, employers would be required to add that to their employees salaries until things equilibrate. That way people see how much money is going into the system. Many people today do not realize that their employer pays an equal amount into S.S.
5. We lift the cap on S.S. We don't raise it. We go to the top and work our way back down. Below 150K, it becomes progressive.
6. With the extra revenue from (5), we start to cut back the contribution of those at the bottom (again it be somewhat progressive to start) to the general fund and start the personalized funds. It makes no difference to the bottom line. With the extra revenue and the existing general fund, it simply means that we are now starting to accumulate people's actual balances. The %'s will shift over time.
7. We means test the rich off the program. I don't like it, but that's gotta happen. Again, it is progressive and only starts with people who have incomes above some silly level like $100,000 a year (maybe they only get 90% of they were slated to collect).
8. We bust the elderly and anyone else who is scamming the system. And I mean we come down hard on them. This is a violation of trust and if you steal from the elderly you are going to PAY dearly....that includes a reduction of benefits and loss of property.

All this gets moved around and arranged so that on day 1, the percentage going to personalized accounts is 1/2 percent (the other 13+% going to the general fund. In a year, it shifts a little more.

We will need to look at the general fund to see if there need to be adjustments.

If we start today, 40 years from now everyone's contributions go to personalized accounts. We've done away with Pay-go and we have a general fund for those who run out of cash before they pass away.

How the money gets handled on the government side will be another discussion. Harvard has actuaries who kick the crapp out of the stock market every year. We would pull some of them in and make safe investments (like mortgages where you have a 30% downpayment...imagine interest rates if you had all that money looking for a safe haven).

This isn't comprehensive and it certainly needs to be moved around.

But something LIKE THIS beast the living s**t out of the current system.

Don't even bother to respond with a rebuttal unless you can show me WITH NUMBER how the two compare.

I still don't see you adressing the problem I identified before. Your plan works OK for those just entering the workforce. But where does the money come from to pay off those who are now receiving SS and those who have been paying in for decades? It is a substantial sum of money...where does it come from if workers start paying in to private accounts?

Read

What going into the paygo system will still go......

The guy making 75K a years puts 7% and his employer puts 7% in. To start 1/4% goes into his private account on each side for a total of 1/2%. Then he pays 13.5% into the general fund as he always has. The difference is made up by the additional money coming from the lifted cap.

There is not change in that amount. That progressively increases according to some schedule. If the obligations we have now (which we do have and we should honor to the fullest) will continue to be paid out. If the trust fund starts to go under, then benefits to those getting now get cut. That was always going to be the case. But that small percentage is now going into a personal account which the government is accountable to him/her for.

If the bubble in the baby boomers gets to be to much as the percent will go to personal accounts, then we will need to raise a very temporary general tax to cover it. It should only be required as it would be anyway (in the face of a benefits cut.).

Got it.

You are getting closer

Key points
How to cover baby boomers with decreased contributions
The cutting of benefits to Social Security beneficiaries who have paid for a lifetime

Why not just have people pay into a 401k?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

TOTAL BS.

There have been a myriad of proposals out there that don't tear up the system but seek to transform it over decades to something that forces responsibility on those who otherwise would wind up destitute and rewards those who are more pro-active.

Why would a millionare need to save for his retirement through the government ?

Name one and we can discuss

I've already listed one.

1. You start by personalizing S.S. That means you get a statement that says this is what you put in, your interest, and balance. It is handled by the government. Not wall street. That money is yours for retirement. When you start taking out, your balance goes down. If you run out, you go on minimum support from the government (and I do mean minimum) because now you are on welfare.
2. When you pass, remaining money in your account goes to your designated heirs. It beefs up their accounts.
3. If an account hits a minimum, then you have the choice to stop paying in. This might 1,000,000 or 2,000,000. It depends on when you plan to retire.
4. We stop the employer portion and take it all from the employee. Initially, employers would be required to add that to their employees salaries until things equilibrate. That way people see how much money is going into the system. Many people today do not realize that their employer pays an equal amount into S.S.
5. We lift the cap on S.S. We don't raise it. We go to the top and work our way back down. Below 150K, it becomes progressive.
6. With the extra revenue from (5), we start to cut back the contribution of those at the bottom (again it be somewhat progressive to start) to the general fund and start the personalized funds. It makes no difference to the bottom line. With the extra revenue and the existing general fund, it simply means that we are now starting to accumulate people's actual balances. The %'s will shift over time.
7. We means test the rich off the program. I don't like it, but that's gotta happen. Again, it is progressive and only starts with people who have incomes above some silly level like $100,000 a year (maybe they only get 90% of they were slated to collect).
8. We bust the elderly and anyone else who is scamming the system. And I mean we come down hard on them. This is a violation of trust and if you steal from the elderly you are going to PAY dearly....that includes a reduction of benefits and loss of property.

All this gets moved around and arranged so that on day 1, the percentage going to personalized accounts is 1/2 percent (the other 13+% going to the general fund. In a year, it shifts a little more.

We will need to look at the general fund to see if there need to be adjustments.

If we start today, 40 years from now everyone's contributions go to personalized accounts. We've done away with Pay-go and we have a general fund for those who run out of cash before they pass away.

How the money gets handled on the government side will be another discussion. Harvard has actuaries who kick the crapp out of the stock market every year. We would pull some of them in and make safe investments (like mortgages where you have a 30% downpayment...imagine interest rates if you had all that money looking for a safe haven).

This isn't comprehensive and it certainly needs to be moved around.

But something LIKE THIS beast the living s**t out of the current system.

Don't even bother to respond with a rebuttal unless you can show me WITH NUMBER how the two compare.

I still don't see you adressing the problem I identified before. Your plan works OK for those just entering the workforce. But where does the money come from to pay off those who are now receiving SS and those who have been paying in for decades? It is a substantial sum of money...where does it come from if workers start paying in to private accounts?

Read

What going into the paygo system will still go......

The guy making 75K a years puts 7% and his employer puts 7% in. To start 1/4% goes into his private account on each side for a total of 1/2%. Then he pays 13.5% into the general fund as he always has. The difference is made up by the additional money coming from the lifted cap.

There is not change in that amount. That progressively increases according to some schedule. If the obligations we have now (which we do have and we should honor to the fullest) will continue to be paid out. If the trust fund starts to go under, then benefits to those getting now get cut. That was always going to be the case. But that small percentage is now going into a personal account which the government is accountable to him/her for.

If the bubble in the baby boomers gets to be to much as the percent will go to personal accounts, then we will need to raise a very temporary general tax to cover it. It should only be required as it would be anyway (in the face of a benefits cut.).

Got it.

You are getting closer

Key points
How to cover baby boomers with decreased contributions
The cutting of benefits to Social Security beneficiaries who have paid for a lifetime

Why not just have people pay into a 401k?

Closer to what ?

It's my plan. If you have an alternative, I am all ears.

My objectives:

1. Get off the pay-go system.
2. Personalize (not privatize) with parameters and objectives.
3. Multi tiered.....the first tier has nothing to do with the stock market.
4. People get through their own savings what they get now.

Making corrections to key points that don't seem to be sinking in.

1. There are no decreased contributions.
2. Cutting benefits is going to happen anyway given the level of contributions. There are things to slow it down. It is possible the that the level of personalized accounts could being swinging around to cover things about the time the trust fund goe empty...no cuts to benefits.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

If you want to "beat" Social Security, you have to come up with a solution that is better.

All the proposals I have seen assume Social Security is just torn up and we start from scratch. We can't do that. Hundreds of millions of Americans have already paid in or are now living off of Social Security. Any proposal to "beat" Social Security would have to provide a methodology to transition off of Social Security while you move to some sort of savings plan

Hard to do that without raising withholding or slashing benefits

TOTAL BS.

There have been a myriad of proposals out there that don't tear up the system but seek to transform it over decades to something that forces responsibility on those who otherwise would wind up destitute and rewards those who are more pro-active.

Why would a millionare need to save for his retirement through the government ?

Name one and we can discuss

I've already listed one.

1. You start by personalizing S.S. That means you get a statement that says this is what you put in, your interest, and balance. It is handled by the government. Not wall street. That money is yours for retirement. When you start taking out, your balance goes down. If you run out, you go on minimum support from the government (and I do mean minimum) because now you are on welfare.
2. When you pass, remaining money in your account goes to your designated heirs. It beefs up their accounts.
3. If an account hits a minimum, then you have the choice to stop paying in. This might 1,000,000 or 2,000,000. It depends on when you plan to retire.
4. We stop the employer portion and take it all from the employee. Initially, employers would be required to add that to their employees salaries until things equilibrate. That way people see how much money is going into the system. Many people today do not realize that their employer pays an equal amount into S.S.
5. We lift the cap on S.S. We don't raise it. We go to the top and work our way back down. Below 150K, it becomes progressive.
6. With the extra revenue from (5), we start to cut back the contribution of those at the bottom (again it be somewhat progressive to start) to the general fund and start the personalized funds. It makes no difference to the bottom line. With the extra revenue and the existing general fund, it simply means that we are now starting to accumulate people's actual balances. The %'s will shift over time.
7. We means test the rich off the program. I don't like it, but that's gotta happen. Again, it is progressive and only starts with people who have incomes above some silly level like $100,000 a year (maybe they only get 90% of they were slated to collect).
8. We bust the elderly and anyone else who is scamming the system. And I mean we come down hard on them. This is a violation of trust and if you steal from the elderly you are going to PAY dearly....that includes a reduction of benefits and loss of property.

All this gets moved around and arranged so that on day 1, the percentage going to personalized accounts is 1/2 percent (the other 13+% going to the general fund. In a year, it shifts a little more.

We will need to look at the general fund to see if there need to be adjustments.

If we start today, 40 years from now everyone's contributions go to personalized accounts. We've done away with Pay-go and we have a general fund for those who run out of cash before they pass away.

How the money gets handled on the government side will be another discussion. Harvard has actuaries who kick the crapp out of the stock market every year. We would pull some of them in and make safe investments (like mortgages where you have a 30% downpayment...imagine interest rates if you had all that money looking for a safe haven).

This isn't comprehensive and it certainly needs to be moved around.

But something LIKE THIS beast the living s**t out of the current system.

Don't even bother to respond with a rebuttal unless you can show me WITH NUMBER how the two compare.

It is going to be difficult to give you numbers to compare when your list doesn't have hard numbers. 5 and 6 seem to be a wash. #7 sounds great but it will save you a very small amount.

Today SS gets 10.6 (it is about to get closer to 10 because of DI). So you are looking at 1/2 percent going to a private account and 9.5 percent going to SS. At 1/2 percent a typical worker will get to $1,000,000 somewhere around 70 years.

These figures are aggressive. The worker starts @ 28K, and gets 3% real raises for 45 years. He invests the money 100% in stocks earning 6.5% real. After 45 years, he has about $529,000. What are you going to do for the minimum wage worker?

Let's go back to where we are now.

What is the average payment from social security ? From what I recall it is about 1,300 per month.

Let's say someone starts working at 20 and retires at 70 and lives to 90.

To get 1,300 month, you'd need 240,000 in your account earning 3% (not in the stock market).

At 50 years this could be done with an average payment of 180/month into your account (again earning that same 3%).

That 180 is 12% of about 1,500/month. That is about $10/hour.

It's not rocket science.

You can adjust the numbers anyway you'd like.

Once again....no stock market. At least not on tier 1 savings.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Why not just have people pay into a 401k?

What are you talking about ?

You mean instead of S.S. ?

Or in addition to ?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Prior to FDR, peoples retirement consisted of having enough kids and hoping one of them would support you in your old age

There was no such thing as retirement. You worked until you were no longer able to work and then hoped you died young

Social Security provided all Americans with a nest egg so they could be protected in their old age

Prior to FDR, peoples retirement consisted of having enough kids and hoping one of them would support you in your old age

There was no such thing as retirement. You worked until you were no longer able to work and then hoped you died young

Social Security provided all Americans with a nest egg so they could be protected in their old age

Another ol' fogey who can't read, or can't remember what he's read.

From the OP:
"Another of the cosmic gaffes of the 32nd President, Social Security.....well, OK...the idea was good....but not the planning nor the insight necessary to go with it."


Gads....you Liberals loose all ability to think when criticism of your god is advanced.


Bulletin: Roosevelt made LOTS of mistakes.

Social Security has evolved. It has lasted for 75 years of republican predictions of impending doom

It needs to be adjusted with a retirement age of 70 and higher payment limits, but other than that, it is working well

Yes...when you can rewrite the rules (and crank out piles of funny money), you can keep your Ponzi scheme going for a long time!

 

[Jarlaxle]

Since Social Security is self-funded by those who paid into it during their working years - how is it somehow a "government liability"? Social Security isn't like food stamps and/or welfare - because the recipients paid for it. As in the past, Social Security simply needs continued tuning and tweaking.

No, that's a lie. The money people have paid in is GONE...it has been spent to pay those currently collecting. You know, like any other Ponzi scheme.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Prior to FDR, peoples retirement consisted of having enough kids and hoping one of them would support you in your old age

There was no such thing as retirement. You worked until you were no longer able to work and then hoped you died young

Social Security provided all Americans with a nest egg so they could be protected in their old age

Well the ripe old age back then was 45

And on average, you could collect Social Security starting five years after you died.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Now, before the "Roosevelt is God" groupies claim it was not/is not possible ....it has been done, and done better.
Before Reagan saved the plan....it was possible to opt out.



8. "THE TEXAS TRIBUNE
How Privatized Social Security Works in Galveston
By BECCA AARONSON
Published: September 17, 2011

.... see how a privatized Social Security plan might work. Government employees in Galveston, Brazoria and Matagorda Counties have controlled their private retirement plan for 30 years. They opted out of Social Security before Congress changed the law in 1983 to prevent others from withdrawing.


Though the private program has its critics — and some say it does not provide all of the important benefits many destitute Americans claim through Social Security — many in these counties consider their system superior.


Almost everyone agrees Social Security will need to be changed in some way to remain solvent.

In the Alternate Plan, retirement benefits are a direct result of employee contributions. In each paycheck, employees contribute 13.9 percent of the their gross pay (6.1 percent from the employee, 7.8 percent from the county) to a private account.

First Financial Benefits invests the accounts conservatively, ... The company guarantees a minimum rate of return of 3.75 percent to 4 percent on the accounts to safeguard employees’ benefits against inflation and severe drops in market rates." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/u...y-works-in-galveston.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


What????

A possible non-lock-step, one-size-fits all, my way or else plan?????

Oh...noooozzzzzz!

Roosevelt must be spinning in his grave!

Some plan when a judge no less, exhausts his account in ten years and the has to rely on Social Security to get by.

I guess he was as stupid as you!

 

[Jarlaxle]

The constitution doesn't prevent a program like SS.

The con is not some magic oracle Ya know .

SS would be fine if it wasn't raided and fucked wh for decades .

"The constitution doesn't prevent a program like SS."
Yeah, it does.


If you'd rather not sound like a fool.....try to find the authority in Article 1, section 8.

The federal government has no such authority.

The Constitution has been pretty much dead for about 80 years now.

 

[Jarlaxle]

So would you like SS to refund all your contributions and take you off the program?

Oh, right, you don't work. You don't have SS contributions.

I would be perfectly happy to just write off everything that has already been taken (it's gone forever) if I could stop having more money taken for something I will never see.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Constitutionality of Social Security Act

The constitutionality of the Social Security Act was settled in a set of Supreme Court decisions issued in May 1937. The text of those decisions, with dissents, is presented here. (We also include a brief historical essay to help general readers better understand the context of the decisions.)

1937 Supreme Court Opinions

• The full text of Justice Cardozo's opinion in Helvering vs. Davis.
• The full text of Justice Cardozo's opinion in Steward Machine Co. vs. Davis, plus dissents.
• The full text of Justice Stone's opinion in Carmichael vs. Southern Coal & Coke and Gulf States Paper, plus dissent.

Other Legal Rulings

• Other Legal Rulings Related to Social Security

MORE: Social Security History

Social Security has clearly been ruled to be constitutional.

Try to understand this:

No matter what a judge claims.....they never had the authority to change the Constitution.


Never.

There are statements to the contrary that are meant to persuade fools like you.


Only an amendment, as per Article five, can do that.

That's a fact.

Justice Cardozo was not just a judge. He sat on the Supreme Court and his writings on the Social Security constitutionality was a response to the SCOTUS ruling the Social Security was constitutional. When Supreme Court rules something is constitutional it is or becomes constitutional. Claims that SCOTUS rulings are unconstitutional are nothing more than meaningless opinions with absolutely no legal standing.
If you were to read the 1937 SCOTUS rulings you would learn that Social Security was written so that the taxes collected to fund it fit into the category of an excise tax and the Courts confirmed the funding as being excise taxes.

Yes, the Supreme COurt has a very long historn of using the Constitution as toilet paper.

 

[Wyatt earp]

So would you like SS to refund all your contributions and take you off the program?

Oh, right, you don't work. You don't have SS contributions.

I would be perfectly happy to just write off everything that has already been taken (it's gone forever) if I could stop having more money taken for something I will never see.

Amen

 

[NYcarbineer]

So would you like SS to refund all your contributions and take you off the program?

Oh, right, you don't work. You don't have SS contributions.

I would be perfectly happy to just write off everything that has already been taken (it's gone forever) if I could stop having more money taken for something I will never see.

Nobody gets SS anymore? lol, you're stupid.

 

[Jarlaxle]

If you log on to the SS website, they can send you a list of every payment you have ever made to Social Security and the date it was paid..

Take that list and try and experiment.

Pick any major private or corporate retirement fund. What if you had made those payments, at those times, to the retirement fund instead of to SS, collecting interest as the years went by at the rates that fund offers? Taking into account the good economic times, the crashes, the recessions etc.?

And if you continue that pattern to the day in the future when you retire, how much would you have at retirement?

I do not dare do that...it might send me into a downward spiral.

 

[RicO'Shea]

Per the title of this thread, the term "Beating" means doing better than.....
And today, another lesson in "The Mythology of Big Government Solutions."
Social security.

Another of the cosmic gaffes of the 32nd President, Social Security.....well, OK...the idea was good....but not the planning nor the insight necessary to go with it.

Is there a far, far better iteration of Social Security than the one with which Franklin Roosevelt insisted on saddling America?
A free-market version, more consistent with the vision of our Founders?
You betcha;!
Unveiled in this thread.



First....Roosevelt's 'gift:'

1. " The CBO puts the 75-year imbalance in Social Security at 1.2% of GDP—about $200 billion in 2014, and rising steadily as GDP increases. If we do nothing, the Social Security actuaries estimated last year, all Social Security reserves will be exhausted by 2033, after which revenues could cover only three-quarters of currently scheduled benefits." The Hard Numbers on Social Security

a. Social Security Liability ....$14.4 trillion (into the future)
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time





2. The Social Security plan was that workers would pay for retirees, and, based on actuarial tables, those who died earlier than expected would add to the fund.

3. "The question here is not whether or not the intention of the SSA is beneficent, but whether or not its inception was properly vetted. The concept of a marketplace of ideas is based on the assumption that information is not buried or distorted, and all aspects of same are given access prior to acceptance of the plan."
Beck and Balfe, “Broke.”


No one considered that life expectancy would increase?

No one considered that the balance of workers and retirees might change?

No one calculated the long-term costs?


a. Like this:
Ida May Fuller, the first person to begin receiving benefits, in January, 1940, when she was 65- she lived to be 100. “…worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.” Social Security History




As conservatives have always banged the drum for free market solutions, plans thwarted by Liberals, socialists, Democrats, Progressives, communists, .....big government devotees of every stripe.....

....this thread will show that, once again....
...the Right is right.

Privatization of Social Security is a stupid fucking idea. Had it been in place when the housing bubble burst a lot of Seniors wouldn't have any income and the US would see the world's most violent form of anarchy. Quit sucking the corporate dick and start using your other head so you're able to think things out.

 

[Jarlaxle]

So would you like SS to refund all your contributions and take you off the program?

Oh, right, you don't work. You don't have SS contributions.

I would be perfectly happy to just write off everything that has already been taken (it's gone forever) if I could stop having more money taken for something I will never see.

Nobody gets SS anymore? lol, you're stupid.

Do you have a SPECIAL computer, that lets you read things I never posted?