Should the Social Security and Medicare Age be Raised

[Ray From Cleveland]

You have no clue. God help anyone you have power over.

So what is it I don't have a clue about? Industry all over the country paying good money and you opt to work a low wage job. I call that a choice. What do you call it?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The way EVERY privatized SS idea works would prevent you from making that asinine mistake.

SS actually is still needed, it just needs to be an actual savings program that you own rather than the government funding program that it is today.

If this country did go to private retirement they would have to regulate what you are and not allowed to buy. Better still what your professional investment company were allowed and not allowed to buy. Unlike IRA's and 401's where you could take your money out anytime you liked (with taxes and fees of course) you would not allowed to withdraw any money until you reach retirement age or are approved for disability.

 

[Lesh]

The way EVERY privatized SS idea works would prevent you from making that asinine mistake.

SS actually is still needed, it just needs to be an actual savings program that you own rather than the government funding program that it is today.

Worked great in Chile huh?

No. It didn't

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The best part of privatizing at least a portion of SS is that it will expose EVERYONE to how effective long term savings is accomplished. Part of that program should be sending you a monthly accounting of how your SS is doing and how much you have made.

Exposure is the first step. When people see what they can do, they will explore doing it on their own.

I don't want to state this as a fact, but I'm pretty sure that anytime you make a contribution they have to send out a monthly statement by law. I know mine does anytime I put a dime into my retirement account.

 

[FA_Q2]

I don't want to state this as a fact, but I'm pretty sure that anytime you make a contribution they have to send out a monthly statement by law. I know mine does anytime I put a dime into my retirement account.

Yes, that is currently the case with private institution.

Not with the government though and this would still be a government program.

 

[ThisIsMe]

As long as their Log Books record their rest periods.Truckers
CANNOT drive non-stop all day or all night.
They have to stop for rest.

I never said could drive non stop all day and night. I said they can drive every single day, with a rolling log book. Its the way the 8 day 70 hour week works for truckers.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, that is currently the case with private institution.

Not with the government though and this would still be a government program.

i don't think it would be a government program, but government regulated. We can't have amateurs making investment decisions if their entire retirement hinged on those investments. Perhaps a mandate on who you can invest with; very successful reputable companies that don't take big risks for their clients.

 

[Lesh]

This thread has made it abundantly clear that Republicans want to KILL Social Security.

And not only do these tards repeat what they're told by pundits and right wing think tanks...GOP politicians listen to creeps like thee AND those pundits and think tanks.

This IS the GOP

 

[Lesh]

And no amount of stock market crashes will change that

 

[ThisIsMe]

My son is a trucker. He makes serious bank. Retirement will not be a problem.

There are a lot of truckers in their 70s and 80s. It's not that grueling a job.

Depends. If you are one that runs local or regional, and can keep the same hours every day, and get home once a week, it's not bad. Most otr drivers don't get that kind of life. They are gone for several weeks at a time, and they day rotates depending on when they drop off their load, and where and when their next load picks up.

I know that otr pay is increasing, but most otr drivers are not making good money. Depending if they are owner operator or a company driver can make a big difference in pay.

Company drivers pay can swing wildly. When I was otr, I drove for one of the big carriers, I remember having some weeks where I'd clear $1000, and other weeks where it would be less. I remember one week my check was $236 and I didn't take any time off, and this was in 2016.

Most of the time your check would be between $600 and $800 per week, and you are living in your truck 24/7, eating either truck stop food or whatever you can cool in your truck if you have time. Every day is a 10 hour break and it's back.on the road. Long hours of driving and inactivity, putting up with traffic, weather.

It's not physically demanding, but it is rough on the body, if you are one of those that doesn't exercise regularly.

But let's not detract from what I was saying. My point was that there are jobs that are rough on the body and those that aren't. 70 is a lot different depending on which type you were.

 

[Lisa558]

No, you would not be allowed to sell it at all.

How do you think such mandatory savings ideas work? Just like now you would be 'taxed' on your income. Then you could take a portion of that and move it into private investments. You could change investments but you cannot cash out until you reach a certain age, exactly as it is done now. The only difference here is sending the money to the government will become purchasing private assets.

Also, the assets you would be able to purchase with that money would be limited - no penny stocks, day trading or anything else that amounts to gambling. It would be set funds. Something else the program would need are controls on fees and performance.

It is not as though you would be purchasing specific stocks as well though I could see an even smaller portion being allowed to do such things. You generally need to buy into specific funds and that is how it should work.

The assumption is that you know nothing about investing so the investment options need to be tailored to that level of understanding.

Actually, it sounds like a “forced” 401k. Unsophisticated investors are given a choice of several funds, and then contributions must remain. That would work, and as knowledgeable people around here know, the end result would be superior to that of Social Security.

 

[FA_Q2]

i don't think it would be a government program, but government regulated. We can't have amateurs making investment decisions if their entire retirement hinged on those investments. Perhaps a mandate on who you can invest with; very successful reputable companies that don't take big risks for their clients.

You don't have to think - it is not as though these measures have not been introduced, here and elsewhere.

It is, indeed, a government program they are advocating for. A government agency like the current SS agency that determines what the rules are that surrounds the funds you can invest in and how those investments are managed.

Even at 100 percent private, the laws surrounding it would still make it a government endeavor. All of them require a set amount to be paid based on your income, all require the money to be invested in specific instruments and all limit the ability to cash your assets out, before and after retirement age.

Otherwise, we are not even talking about SS anymore.

IF society will not accept old people having to deal with whatever mistakes they have made, and society will not accept this, then some sort of program with controls to ensure there is enough to retire on is necessary.

The best way of doing so is a controlled private investment strategy.

 

[FA_Q2]

Actually, it sounds like a “forced” 401k. Unsophisticated investors are given a choice of several funds, and then contributions must remain. That would work, and as knowledgeable people around here know, the end result would be superior to that of Social Security.

You could call it that.

The label is immaterial. The goal is a sustained program that promotes positive outcomes.

I reiterate, the largest gain is NOT from better returns but rather both exposure to proper and simple investment strategies as well as generational wealth.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You don't have to think - it is not as though these measures have not been introduced, here and elsewhere.

It is, indeed, a government program they are advocating for. A government agency like the current SS agency that determines what the rules are that surrounds the funds you can invest in and how those investments are managed.

Even at 100 percent private, the laws surrounding it would still make it a government endeavor. All of them require a set amount to be paid based on your income, all require the money to be invested in specific instruments and all limit the ability to cash your assets out, before and after retirement age.

Otherwise, we are not even talking about SS anymore.

IF society will not accept old people having to deal with whatever mistakes they have made, and society will not accept this, then some sort of program with controls to ensure there is enough to retire on is necessary.

The best way of doing so is a controlled private investment strategy.

Middle-aged and older people would not accept it because their money is already tied up with the government earning next to nothing in interest. But I think those entering the workforce would gladly not give their money to government and instead, put it in a safe growth account even with government restrictions.

It's too late for me now. I'm already collecting. But if we did turn to private investment, allow people under the age of 30 to get reimbursed the money they contributed so they could transfer it over to a fund. They have plenty of time left for it to grow. If they are skeptical, they can stay with SS and retire on it just like me.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Actually, it sounds like a “forced” 401k. Unsophisticated investors are given a choice of several funds, and then contributions must remain. That would work, and as knowledgeable people around here know, the end result would be superior to that of Social Security.

It would be the best thing.

Years ago I knew a guy that hit the lottery. Cash value was like a little over 4 mil. Of course he had to pay tax on that, but what was left over, he bought a house and a couple of vehicles. He took the rest and went to an investment company. He said he handed them a million dollars.

With no expenses outside of property tax, insurance and utilities, he was bringing in a thousand bucks a week with the way it was invested. He was just living off the interest. The capital never changed and perhaps even increased during good times.

That's the way our retirement should work. You and your employers contribute the same as you always have, and a new worker would easily have a million bucks by the time they retire, and probably even more.

You'd easily have more than SS could ever give you, and when you pass away, will that account to your heirs.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This thread has made it abundantly clear that Republicans want to KILL Social Security.

And not only do these tards repeat what they're told by pundits and right wing think tanks...GOP politicians listen to creeps like thee AND those pundits and think tanks.

This IS the GOP

Not kill SS, just replace it with something much better. As we see, government is a failure at things like this. SS is going broke and there are no reasonable ways to save it. It's a Ponzi scheme that is soon to meet it's match.

 

[FA_Q2]

Middle-aged and older people would not accept it because their money is already tied up with the government earning next to nothing in interest. But I think those entering the workforce would gladly not give their money to government and instead, put it in a safe growth account even with government restrictions.

It's too late for me now. I'm already collecting. But if we did turn to private investment, allow people under the age of 30 to get reimbursed the money they contributed so they could transfer it over to a fund. They have plenty of time left for it to grow. If they are skeptical, they can stay with SS and retire on it just like me.

Any change must be phased in - increasing the age would require it as well. That is just a given, it is hard to change programs like this until the fall under their own weight as SS itself proves quite clearly.

 

[boedicca]

It would be better if we got rid of SS as a general benefit. Get rid of the SS and Medicare taxes. Encourage long term saving for retirement by getting rid of the Capital gains tax. Pay for social safety net programs out of the general tax base. SS "lockbox" has been raided by the government. It's just a bunch of IOUs to be paid for by future taxpayers...iow, a Ponzi Scheme.

 

[Lisa558]

It would be better if we got rid of SS as a general benefit. Get rid of the SS and Medicare taxes. Encourage long term saving for retirement by getting rid of the Capital gains tax. Pay for social safety net programs out of the general tax base. SS "lockbox" has been raided by the government. It's just a bunch of IOUs to be paid for by future taxpayers...iow, a Ponzi Scheme.

You still have to have some sort of forced savings for retirement. You know how people are. Most spend every cent they earn, and then some. We’d end up with tens of millions of old people without any money, and no SS payment either.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Any change must be phased in - increasing the age would require it as well. That is just a given, it is hard to change programs like this until the fall under their own weight as SS itself proves quite clearly.

I think the only problem (as always) would be the Democrats. They don't want people being independent of government, they want people dependent on government. Just like they did when GW suggested the possibility of people being able to invest 2% of their contributions to their IRA, the Democrats lied about it and fought it tooth and nail.