Should the Social Security and Medicare Age be Raised

[Flopper]

It includes other things such as disability which you brought up. Disability is funded by FICA contributions. When government said I could no longer work because of my medical conditions, I looked it up.

In any case I think that if we did a slow conversion to private IRA's for our retirement, people would have more money at retirement, possibly able to retire earlier than 67, or whatever age they are going to raise it to, and be able to leave their family or other heirs the money they worked so hard for if they only use part or none of it unlike what they will get from SS which is zero.

SSDI, SSI, and survivor benefits are all part of the 6.2% Social Security portion of FICA.

Americans are not very good when it comes to saving for retirement. In fact, 25% have no retirement savings at all and during retirement 40% rely solely on Social Security. Then there are other problems as who is going manage it? What control would the individual have? And who is responsible for the risk? There is always risks if returns is higher than treasury bills. The only way it would work and provide a safety net would be require mandatory contributions with no withdrawals before retirement, all funds be invested in treasury bills. However then, return is not much better better than the current social security.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

SSDI, SSI, and survivor benefits are all part of the 6.2% Social Security portion of FICA.

Americans are not very good when it comes to saving for retirement. In fact, 25% have no retirement savings at all and during retirement 40% rely solely on Social Security. Then there are other problems as who is going manage it? What control would the individual have? And who is responsible for the risk? There is always risks if returns is higher than treasury bills. The only way it would work and provide a safety net would be require mandatory contributions with no withdrawals before retirement, all funds be invested in treasury bills. However then, return is not much better better than the current social security.

If you read more posts that's already been explained. My idea is this:

FICA will remain the same, but your SS contribution along with your employers will not go to the government. Instead it will be deposited to your own account managed by a professional and reputable investment company of your choice. The government will give you a list of a few dozen approved companies they deemed reliable and responsible that offer conservative growth funds.

You will not be able to touch that money until you hit a certain age, say 50 or 55. The government will determine how much you will be allowed to withdraw per month which will be based on how much you were able to invest. That will be calculated by our average lifespan and interest that continues to grow your account.

Whatever is left over is still your money when you die, and you will be able to leave that money to whoever just like all your other assets. Before it gets to your heirs, it will be taxed at specified rate since it was not taxed when deposited, and your heirs get the net of that fund.

 

[Flopper]

No, it could happen. But what we have now with government handling everything is a program that's going broke and nobody with the balls to fix it. Just keep kicking the can down the road until the program is totally bankrupt. Then it will be the problem of those in Congress to fix it which will be way too late. We should have been looking at the fix over 20 years ago.

Only a fool would expect the entity that created the problem to have a solution to it. As President Reagan famously said many years ago, government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem.

It will be fixed and it will not take any balls to do it. In about 9 or 10 when we are within a few years of having no money in the trust fund to pay benefits and benefits would be reduced 25% to equal current contributions, congress would be getting letters from millions of those 69 million on social promising promising to throw their ass out if they don't do something. Congressmen with tell supports that they have no choice but to raise taxes. Republicans will blame it on democrats and democrats will blame it on something and the system will be saved.

But just as important, S.S. will be funded as it should have been funded for years out of wages and federal funds the way most country pension system are funded. A trust fund may have made sense in the 1930s but not today.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It will be fixed and it will not take any balls to do it. In about 9 or 10 when we are within a few years of having no money in the trust fund to pay benefits and benefits would be reduced 25% to equal current contributions, congress would be getting letters from millions of those 69 million on social promising promising to throw their ass out if they don't do something. Congressmen with tell supports that they have no choice but to raise taxes. Republicans will blame it on democrats and democrats will blame it on something and the system will be saved.

But just as important, S.S. will be funded as it should have been funded for years out of wages and federal funds the way most country pension system are funded. A trust fund may have made sense in the 1930s but not today.

Like I said, the Democrats would never allow that. SS doesn't pay much to begin with yet alone less 25%. And then what about the people who planned to retire early currently at the age of 62? If you retire at that age, you get deducted 25% just for that. So the combination would be half of your SS gone forcing people to continue working regardless of their ability to work. Those people would then be trying for disability and you solved nothing.

It's not a solution, it's a stall. Increasing retirement age and decreasing payouts would get a movement by the people to get government out of our retirement which is why the Democrats would never allow it. We can't wait until the end of the road. This problem should have been addressed over 20 years ago. The only solution when Republicans get full leadership again is to convert everything to a private plan. People will get whatever money they need to make it through retirement, can enjoy the last years or decades of their life, and because it's no longer a strain on government, one less thing for our Congress critters to ever worry about again.

 

[beagle9]

If we don't start doing something about stupid voters being able to vote, that will never happen. If it were up to me, you'd have to take a very simple test before being allowed to vote. But if the Republicans ever made such a suggestion, the Communists would go ape shit.

Not sure what the answer is, because what the problem is, is that on the other side of the coin we have these extremely smart individuals that are very smart in a very corrupt way, manipulating even the average to middle of the road intellectual voter's. So they get elected, and the destructive bull crap just keeps repeating itself over and over again. So it's not so much as to blame the dumb voter so to speak, but actually it's more about the average to upper class citizen's not allowing corrupt manipulative politicians to occupy power because of them.

 

[Blues Man]

Nor should we. Countries without a functional mandatory retirement safety net have a huge poverty problem among retired with more homeless, more health problems to dealt with, more welfare, parents forced to live their children and their families creating more social problem. This is why every developed nation has a mandatory retirement system and more advanced the better funded they are.

Social Security keeps people poor.

I've already shown that even a person with a modest income can be financially independent at the end of a working career if they could choose where that 12.4% of their lifetime income was invested.

And the government is always saying that people shouldn't depend solely on Ss for retirement so it's really not a retirement program it's a government slush fund and the government does it to get its paws on more of the money that rightly belongs primarily to the middle class.

Like i said we can keep the mandatory employer and employee contributions but they should be in a private account that the person gets to say where it is invested and kept out of the hands of our politicians who have proven beyond a doubt that their malfeasance makes them unacceptable stewards of our money .

But we can't have ordinarily middle class people becoming facially independent and allowed to build generational wealth can we?

 

[Blues Man]

If you read more posts that's already been explained. My idea is this:

FICA will remain the same, but your SS contribution along with your employers will not go to the government. Instead it will be deposited to your own account managed by a professional and reputable investment company of your choice. The government will give you a list of a few dozen approved companies they deemed reliable and responsible that offer conservative growth funds.

You will not be able to touch that money until you hit a certain age, say 50 or 55. The government will determine how much you will be allowed to withdraw per month which will be based on how much you were able to invest. That will be calculated by our average lifespan and interest that continues to grow your account.

Whatever is left over is still your money when you die, and you will be able to leave that money to whoever just like all your other assets. Before it gets to your heirs, it will be taxed at specified rate since it was not taxed when deposited, and your heirs get the net of that fund.

All fine except the government telling you what to withdraw

 

[Lesh]

A trust fund may have made sense in the 1930s but not today.

Not sure if I follow you there.

 

[Blues Man]

Social Security isn't and never was a trust fund.

A trust fund is established freely by a grantor with his own money
A beneficiary of the trust is named to whom funds will be distributed under the terms set by the grantor

A trustee is a neutral 3rd party chosen by the grantor engaged to manage the funds on the beneficiaries behalf.

A trustee must not misappropriate funds for his own benefit.

SS has no grantor it has a confiscatory tax levied on all working people

The government as the trustee is guilty of misappropriating funds for its own benefit to the detriment of the beneficiary

 

[Lesh]

Social Security isn't and never was a trust fund.

A trust fund is established freely by a grantor with his own money

Semantics.

The Social Security Trust Fund is a system set up by Reagan in the 80s to fund the shortfall for Baby Boomers.

It doesn't fit your definition?

Who cares.

 

[Blues Man]

Semantics.

The Social Security Trust Fund is a system set up by Reagan in the 80s to fund the shortfall for Baby Boomers.

It doesn't fit your definition?

Who cares.

Definition.

And it's not my definition it is the legal definition.

We already know you are too stupid to care that the government cost you millions of dollars

 

[Lesh]

Definition.

And it's not my definition it is the legal definition.

We already know you are too stupid to care that the government cost you millions of dollars

So it doesn't fit the definition exactly..

Dig up Reagan and bitch at him. I'm sure he'll respond to you

 

[Blues Man]

So it doesn't fit the definition exactly..

Dig up Reagan and bitch at him. I'm sure he'll respond to you

It doesn't fit the definition AT ALL.

And FYI Reagan didn;t set up social security and it was FDR that first said the funds are held in a "trust"

You are too stupid to realize that not only are you being taxed 12.4% of your lifetime income but your taxes also pay the so called returns on the special issue T bills that are the IOUs the government has replaced your money with.

So in reality your ROR on all that money is a negative.

 

[Lesh]

It doesn't fit the definition AT ALL.

And FYI Reagan didn;t set up social security and it was FDR that first said the funds are held in a "trust"

You are too stupid to realize that not only are you being taxed 12.4% of your lifetime income but your taxes also pay the so called returns on the special issue T bills that are the IOUs the government has replaced your money with.

So in reality your ROR on all that money is a negative.

A. I am not being taxed 12.4% I am taxed half of that...on every penny I make. YOU however are only taxed at that rate on the first $125K you make....and you have told us you make much more than that

B. REAGAN made the Trust Fund deal back in the 80s in which he DOUBLED my contribution (raised my payroll taxes) in order to purchase Treasury Bills which when redeemed ...cover the Social Security shortfall. THOSE are the "IOUs" you are referring to.

C. All government securities (Treasury Bills, Bonds, etc.) are "IOUs".

D. The Trust Fund I paid into most of my working life along with current payroll taxes are FUNDING my retirement (or actually part of it...the base of it)

 

[Blues Man]

A. I am not being taxed 12.4% I am taxed half of that...on every penny I make. YOU however are only taxed at that rate on the first $125K you make....and you have told us you make much more than that

B. REAGAN made the Trust Fund deal back in the 80s in which he DOUBLED my contribution (raised my payroll taxes) in order to purchase Treasury Bills which when redeemed ...cover the Social Security shortfall. THOSE are the "IOUs" you are referring to.

C. All government securities (Treasury Bills, Bonds, etc.) are "IOUs".

D. The Trust Fund I paid into most of my working life along with current payroll taxes are FUNDING my retirement (or actually part of it...the base of it)

Your employer contribution is part of your compensation, Idiot.

And you still don't get that YOU are paying the interest on those IOU's so not only does the government take your money it takes more money from you to "pay interest" on the money it took from you and used for something else.

You have to be particularly vapid to think this is good for you.

 

[Blues Man]

Your employer contribution is part of your compensation, Idiot.

And you still don't get that YOU are paying the interest on those IOU's so not only does the government take your money it takes more money from you to "pay interest" on the money it took from you and used for something else.

You have to be particularly vapid to think this is good for you.

AND 85% of Social security benefits are subject to federal income tax.

So not only do you get 12.4% of your income taken from you, you pay the interest on that money AND you get taxed when the fucking government gives it back to you.

 

[Lesh]

Your employer contribution is part of your compensation, Idiot.

It's a Federally mandated part of it. Take that away and the employee never sees it. It goes into the employer's pocket

You have to be particularly vapid to think this is good for you.

Really? Because that whole system is the basis of my current retirement.

What is NOT good for me is people like you trying to screw with my retirement.

What is not good for my SON is people like you trying to trash the whole system

 

[Lesh]

AND 85% of Social security benefits are subject to federal income tax.

Also part of Reagan's 80s deal.


Thanks Ronnie

 

[Blues Man]

It's a Federally mandated part of it. Take that away and the employee never sees it. It goes into the employer's pocket

Really? Because that whole system is the basis of my current retirement.

What is NOT good for me is people like you trying to screw with my retirement.

What is not good for my SON is people like you trying to trash the whole system

Where did I ever say anything about taking that away?

Oh yeah NOWHERE.

I actually said we should leave the contribution system alone and only change the account the money is deposited to so that the individual retains sole ownership of all that money.

And your retirement has already been screwed with you're just too dimwitted to see that.

You could have had millions to leave to your kid but you would rather have him screwed over by the government like you have been

 

[Blues Man]

Also part of Reagan's 80s deal.


Thanks Ronnie

And Reagan was the first in line to RAPE SS I don't know why you think mentioning him is such a big deal. Do you think I am a fan ?

I'm not and never was.