Beating Social Security

[Jarlaxle]

Anyone who had control of the 15% of their life time income confiscated by the government for SS would be much better off and I daresay would have something left to leave their families when they die

SS is nothing but guaranteed government dependence

The people will become dependent no matter what. Not everyone has the skill or knowledge to invest and prepare for their retirement. The options seem to be forced payment into a program. Taxes Social Security is the system we have chosen. The other option would be forced investment into private firms and entities. Can't imagine forcing folks to pay into a private investment firm. Who pays when the firm invest in a looser or the market just tanks when it is time for some particular folks to retire?
The problem is not that the numbers and concept of your idea are incorrect, rather it is that over a lifetime or working, most people have periods of not really being able to afford to put a percentage of their earnings into a savings program. They will not do without things they deem necessities and priorities but will instead make excuses to skip the investment of their funds in favor or those other things. Whether it be the purchase of a chicken for a Sunday dinner or a few extra dollars for a car payment, the funds are not being invested the way they should be. It may be a weakness and people should be responsible for themselves, but it is what it is. In the end, we would end up with folks who didn't invest the way they should have and becoming persons who without assistance end up living on the sidewalks in boxes or homeless shelters, dependent on charity or the state to feed them and care for their needs. Just straight out welfare.
In one way, SS can be viewed as a scheme to force citizens to pay taxes to at least contribute to the funds that might be used to support them when they go on "welfare" if welfare is the way you choose to describe Social Security.

==========

If it wasn't so sad it would be funny.

Right wingers hate Social Security and welfare ( all Social spending by Federal Gov't is less than 3% of the total budget ) but absolutely LOVE giving money to corporations in tax cuts and subsidies -- CORPORATE WELFARE which is a FAR FAR larger expense to the government than social programs for human beings.

So, basically, one could say that righties hate PEOPLE.

And it shows in their posts.

Their posts are full of words of hate and envy.

Righties think everyone is out to phuck them and steal from them and no one but them works for their money ... everyone else is a " leech ".

Would you like a baseball bat to use on that straw man?

 

[Lakhota]

Beating Social Security

On almost any given day I can "beat" Social Security - but that's not the point of Social Security. Social Security is an insurance safety net - a valuable lesson learned from the Great Depression. The Trust Funds are invested in U.S. government securities - that same "safe" investment that China and Japan like. Imagine using the stock markets to insure your home, health, and vehicles - instead of actually having insurance policies for specific protection.

It is a 'safety-net' for which 1/5th of the poorest quintile of retirees is not even eligible - some safety-net. Something like 40% of benefits paid go to those people in the highest quintile of earnings history.

Who pays for Social Security?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Social Security is an insurance safety net."

1. Can you find the article of the Constitution that gives the federal government the power to create 'insurance'?

2. Can you explain why the Left, behind all sorts of government expansion, has not formed and advanced an amendment for that purpose?

Ask SCOTUS.

I'm asking you....why do you oppose the United States Constitution....the 'law of the land'?

SCOTUS has upheld Social Security.

On May 24, 1937, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the SocialSecurity Act.

Social Security Online History Pages

Constitutional Background to the Social Security Act of 1935

How Social Security Was Defended by Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson

So....you agreed with this decision, too?

March 6, 1857 The court held that Dred Scott was not free based on his residence in either Illinois or Wisconsin because he was not considered a person under the U.S. Constitution.


Clearly, both decisions were wrong.

If you don't believe it, brush up on the English language, and read the Constitution....specifically article 1, section 8.


No Supreme Court decision is correct unless it is directly related and consistent with the language of our Constitution.

Wow, you're sort of like the Orly Taitz of Social Security.

I speak English,and understand the Constitution.

Do you?

If so....answer the question: why, if insurance is not a granted authority, has there been no attempt to alter the Constitution with an amendment?

"in America, the law is King. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other." 'Common Sense,' by Thomas Paine.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Anyone who had control of the 15% of their life time income confiscated by the government for SS would be much better off and I daresay would have something left to leave their families when they die

SS is nothing but guaranteed government dependence

The 15.3% does more than provide retirement benefits. You are really talking about 10.6% (soon to be less because of DI). They would be worse off if they keep the 15%, 10.6%, 10% if the government has to raise income taxes in order to pay benefits to existing retirees. Unless you will tell retirees to pound sand, the deal you are suggesting does nothing but change the name of the tax.

Any transition would require some sort of grandfather clause and even the so called extra benefits are pretty crappy

SS disability is one of the worst out there in fact any private DI would be less expensive and provide much better benefits

I find it funny that any private pension fund would be deemed illegal if current contributions were used to pay out benefits but you people think it's just fine for the government to do it

If you grandfather the deal, then there is no way to improve the system. Someone is going to have to pound sand. The generations thereafter can improve. Until you tell someone to pound sand, all you are doing is changing the name.

DI is a problem for DI. It is a tiny fraction of the overall problem. The entire system can go away, and it adds a year to the solvency of the old-age system.

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.

In total you want to make SS a welfare program (not sure to the degree). Having researched SS for 5 years, I can tell you the cheapest version is end the program and transfer the resources to an actual welfare program.

I may have already shared this with you, but it explains the false promises of the Bush 2005 proposal. Yours is better than what he suggested, but you ought to make the same mistakes. The economic returns of Social Security were wildly overstated, and he made legacy SS costs a ward of the state.

What are your projections for 7 and 8.

What I see is a massive legacy cost that will be shifted to the general taxpayers. That is no more realistic than saying leprechauns will pay for the system.

I can't, for the life of me, figure out how you got that out of my post.

I posted a few things later on that provide some idea of the targets I am shooting for.

Possibly, we could take this on to the Bull Ring where we can discuss it one on one and not have to wade through the other stuff.

I assume that you are talking about my welfare comment. The founding principles of Social Security were that no means-test should be applied. FDR did not want this program to be confused with a public dole. The more that your system depends upon the rich paying for the poor the more it will look like welfare. The system is progressive. You are simply suggesting to make it more so. At what point it becomes welfare is up for debate. I can tell you why FDR opposed it. I do not want SS to become welfare. It needs to be an earned benefit, something that you pay for. Today it isn't and we need to figure out how to reign in the excess.

I am not a fan of personal accounts. Insurance manages risk. Investments don't. It is simply a bad model, but I think I already shared the MoneyTips piece that I wrote.

I don't know what the Bull Ring is. There is a lot of noise in this thread.

 

[Lakhota]

Ask SCOTUS.

I'm asking you....why do you oppose the United States Constitution....the 'law of the land'?

SCOTUS has upheld Social Security.

On May 24, 1937, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the SocialSecurity Act.

Social Security Online History Pages

Constitutional Background to the Social Security Act of 1935

How Social Security Was Defended by Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson

So....you agreed with this decision, too?

March 6, 1857 The court held that Dred Scott was not free based on his residence in either Illinois or Wisconsin because he was not considered a person under the U.S. Constitution.


Clearly, both decisions were wrong.

If you don't believe it, brush up on the English language, and read the Constitution....specifically article 1, section 8.


No Supreme Court decision is correct unless it is directly related and consistent with the language of our Constitution.

Wow, you're sort of like the Orly Taitz of Social Security.

I speak English,and understand the Constitution.

Do you?

If so....answer the question: why, if insurance is not a granted authority, has there been no attempt to alter the Constitution with an amendment?

"in America, the law is King. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other." 'Common Sense,' by Thomas Paine.

You speak "English"? Actually, you speak "shit". Are you more intelligent and powerful than SCOTUS? It's up to SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Beating Social Security

On almost any given day I can "beat" Social Security - but that's not the point of Social Security. Social Security is an insurance safety net - a valuable lesson learned from the Great Depression. The Trust Funds are invested in U.S. government securities - that same "safe" investment that China and Japan like. Imagine using the stock markets to insure your home, health, and vehicles - instead of actually having insurance policies for specific protection.

It is a 'safety-net' for which 1/5th of the poorest quintile of retirees is not even eligible - some safety-net. Something like 40% of benefits paid go to those people in the highest quintile of earnings history.

Who pays for Social Security?

The workers almost none of whom are eligible.

 

[Lakhota]

Beating Social Security

On almost any given day I can "beat" Social Security - but that's not the point of Social Security. Social Security is an insurance safety net - a valuable lesson learned from the Great Depression. The Trust Funds are invested in U.S. government securities - that same "safe" investment that China and Japan like. Imagine using the stock markets to insure your home, health, and vehicles - instead of actually having insurance policies for specific protection.

It is a 'safety-net' for which 1/5th of the poorest quintile of retirees is not even eligible - some safety-net. Something like 40% of benefits paid go to those people in the highest quintile of earnings history.

Who pays for Social Security?

The workers almost none of whom are eligible.

Please provide "credible" proof of your claim that "almost none of whom are eligible" - after they paid into Social Security.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The meaning of Article III Section 2 invalidates every far right reactionary's and or libertarian's nonsense about SCOTUS.

"The federal courts will decide arguments over how to interpret the Constitution, all laws passed by Congress, and our nation’s rights and responsibilities in agreements with other nations. In addition, federal courts can hear disputes that may arise between states, between citizens of different states, and between states and the federal government."

Article III Section 2

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm asking you....why do you oppose the United States Constitution....the 'law of the land'?

SCOTUS has upheld Social Security.

On May 24, 1937, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the SocialSecurity Act.

Social Security Online History Pages

Constitutional Background to the Social Security Act of 1935

How Social Security Was Defended by Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson

So....you agreed with this decision, too?

March 6, 1857 The court held that Dred Scott was not free based on his residence in either Illinois or Wisconsin because he was not considered a person under the U.S. Constitution.


Clearly, both decisions were wrong.

If you don't believe it, brush up on the English language, and read the Constitution....specifically article 1, section 8.


No Supreme Court decision is correct unless it is directly related and consistent with the language of our Constitution.

Wow, you're sort of like the Orly Taitz of Social Security.

I speak English,and understand the Constitution.

Do you?

If so....answer the question: why, if insurance is not a granted authority, has there been no attempt to alter the Constitution with an amendment?

"in America, the law is King. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other." 'Common Sense,' by Thomas Paine.

You speak "English"? Actually, you speak "shit". Are you more intelligent and powerful than SCOTUS? It's up to SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution.

I see the vulgarity that serves as the Liberal's white flag.

 

[NYcarbineer]

On almost any given day I can "beat" Social Security - but that's not the point of Social Security. Social Security is an insurance safety net - a valuable lesson learned from the Great Depression. The Trust Funds are invested in U.S. government securities - that same "safe" investment that China and Japan like. Imagine using the stock markets to insure your home, health, and vehicles - instead of actually having insurance policies for specific protection.

"Social Security is an insurance safety net."

1. Can you find the article of the Constitution that gives the federal government the power to create 'insurance'?

2. Can you explain why the Left, behind all sorts of government expansion, has not formed and advanced an amendment for that purpose?

Ask SCOTUS.

I'm asking you....why do you oppose the United States Constitution....the 'law of the land'?

SCOTUS has upheld Social Security.

On May 24, 1937, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the SocialSecurity Act.

Social Security Online History Pages

Constitutional Background to the Social Security Act of 1935

How Social Security Was Defended by Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson

So....you agreed with this decision, too?

March 6, 1857 The court held that Dred Scott was not free based on his residence in either Illinois or Wisconsin because he was not considered a person under the U.S. Constitution.


Clearly, both decisions were wrong.

If you don't believe it, brush up on the English language, and read the Constitution....specifically article 1, section 8.


No Supreme Court decision is correct unless it is directly related and consistent with the language of our Constitution.

And what is the constitutional mechanism for determining that a Supreme Court decision was 'incorrect'?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Tell me how many of you have actually figured out how much money you would have if you had invested the 15% of your life time income instead of it being confiscated by the fucking government?

I have and if I had had control of it I would be retired already

The payroll tax isn't 15%.

Excuse me but you are forgetting about the employer contribution

What's the matter you forget about the other times I've informed you of this?

The employer contribution is not YOUR contribution. If you end SS you end the obligation of your employer to pay that tax.

Think before you post.

It is generally accepted economic theory - and acknowledged by CBO and SSA - that the employer portion of payroll taxes is a pass-through to the employee in the form of lower wages. As you said, research before you post.

You make the incorrect assumption that he has any interest whatsoever in honesty.

Do you dispute that if SS were abolished today, the payroll tax paid by business would be abolished in the process?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Social Security is an insurance safety net."

1. Can you find the article of the Constitution that gives the federal government the power to create 'insurance'?

2. Can you explain why the Left, behind all sorts of government expansion, has not formed and advanced an amendment for that purpose?

Ask SCOTUS.

I'm asking you....why do you oppose the United States Constitution....the 'law of the land'?

SCOTUS has upheld Social Security.

On May 24, 1937, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the SocialSecurity Act.

Social Security Online History Pages

Constitutional Background to the Social Security Act of 1935

How Social Security Was Defended by Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson

So....you agreed with this decision, too?

March 6, 1857 The court held that Dred Scott was not free based on his residence in either Illinois or Wisconsin because he was not considered a person under the U.S. Constitution.


Clearly, both decisions were wrong.

If you don't believe it, brush up on the English language, and read the Constitution....specifically article 1, section 8.


No Supreme Court decision is correct unless it is directly related and consistent with the language of our Constitution.

And what is the constitutional mechanism for determining that a Supreme Court decision was 'incorrect'?

Answered in post #354.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ask SCOTUS.

I'm asking you....why do you oppose the United States Constitution....the 'law of the land'?

SCOTUS has upheld Social Security.

On May 24, 1937, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the SocialSecurity Act.

Social Security Online History Pages

Constitutional Background to the Social Security Act of 1935

How Social Security Was Defended by Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson

So....you agreed with this decision, too?

March 6, 1857 The court held that Dred Scott was not free based on his residence in either Illinois or Wisconsin because he was not considered a person under the U.S. Constitution.


Clearly, both decisions were wrong.

If you don't believe it, brush up on the English language, and read the Constitution....specifically article 1, section 8.


No Supreme Court decision is correct unless it is directly related and consistent with the language of our Constitution.

And what is the constitutional mechanism for determining that a Supreme Court decision was 'incorrect'?

Answered in post #354.

The "mechanism" is PC's opinion.

"If you don't believe it, brush up on the English language, and read the Constitution....specifically article 1, section 8. No Supreme Court decision is correct unless it is directly related and consistent with the language of our Constitution."

In other words, the self evident truth is PC.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Beating Social Security

On almost any given day I can "beat" Social Security - but that's not the point of Social Security. Social Security is an insurance safety net - a valuable lesson learned from the Great Depression. The Trust Funds are invested in U.S. government securities - that same "safe" investment that China and Japan like. Imagine using the stock markets to insure your home, health, and vehicles - instead of actually having insurance policies for specific protection.

It is a 'safety-net' for which 1/5th of the poorest quintile of retirees is not even eligible - some safety-net. Something like 40% of benefits paid go to those people in the highest quintile of earnings history.

Who pays for Social Security?

The workers almost none of whom are eligible.

Please provide "credible" proof of your claim that "almost none of whom are eligible" - after they paid into Social Security.

You asked who PAYS for Social Security. It is workers - who may or may not attaining eligibility. They aren't dead. They aren't by and large 62 or older. Given that the system has $25 trillion in unfunded obligations, it is impossible to guess who will and who will not get paid.

 

[francoHFW]

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

This statement is ignorant.

Prior to Social Security most people worked on the family farm or in the family business. As they got older, they got reduced responsiblities.

Industrialization made it so the elderly had to get out of the way. And they had no where to go.

Once again, piss poor history lesson from the left.

Baloney. Back to poor houses and Potters' Fields- The Golden Age that only exists in demented Reaganism. Read "The Good Old Days- They Were TERRIBLE!".

 

[Lakhota]

On almost any given day I can "beat" Social Security - but that's not the point of Social Security. Social Security is an insurance safety net - a valuable lesson learned from the Great Depression. The Trust Funds are invested in U.S. government securities - that same "safe" investment that China and Japan like. Imagine using the stock markets to insure your home, health, and vehicles - instead of actually having insurance policies for specific protection.

It is a 'safety-net' for which 1/5th of the poorest quintile of retirees is not even eligible - some safety-net. Something like 40% of benefits paid go to those people in the highest quintile of earnings history.

Who pays for Social Security?

The workers almost none of whom are eligible.

Please provide "credible" proof of your claim that "almost none of whom are eligible" - after they paid into Social Security.

You asked who PAYS for Social Security. It is workers - who may or may not attaining eligibility. They aren't dead. They aren't by and large 62 or older. Given that the system has $25 trillion in unfunded obligations, it is impossible to guess who will and who will not get paid.

Social Security has a SURPLUS of about $1.7 trillion last I heard. What are you talking about? You seem lost.

 

[Jarlaxle]

The payroll tax isn't 15%.

Excuse me but you are forgetting about the employer contribution

What's the matter you forget about the other times I've informed you of this?

The employer contribution is not YOUR contribution. If you end SS you end the obligation of your employer to pay that tax.

Think before you post.

It is generally accepted economic theory - and acknowledged by CBO and SSA - that the employer portion of payroll taxes is a pass-through to the employee in the form of lower wages. As you said, research before you post.

You make the incorrect assumption that he has any interest whatsoever in honesty.

Do you dispute that if SS were abolished today, the payroll tax paid by business would be abolished in the process?

Would you like a baseball bat to use on that straw man?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jarl,

 

[Lakhota]

It might help if the people bashing Social Security actually knew something about Social Security. They just keep regurgitating right-wing lies and misinformation.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Lefty idiots think everybody who disagrees with them hates them

The real issue here is that if people had control over where their SS contributions went they would retire much richer than they can now and the government can't have that after all when less people are dependent the government and the fucking crooks who run it have less power

Not unless you tell retirees to pound sand. If your SS contributions when to your personal account it would grow. Just not as fast as the income tax increases that are required to pay the benefits of existing retirees. This is a left pocket is rich, and we ignore the right pocket which is full of bills.

funny how we can find money to fund all kinds of bullshit yet you think we can;t find a way to grandfather people in during a transition to a new system that in the long run would decrease dependence on government thereby resulting in a savings of far more than any funding required to keep paying those already trapped in the current system