Get rid of social security?

NO, and I advocate that also. I was referring to the Republican candidates who want to scale back Social Security or abolish it all together, to keep taxes on the super rich "clients" to a minimum.

 

why ??????????

 

Because Medicare and SSI are going broke.
Because we want a safety net, not an entitlement.

Why not?

 

There are some things to consider in this.
A real example is those who work in jobs that require hard physical labor. By the age of 50 or many of these people are worn out. They already constitute a large portion of the 38% who die before they reach retirement age and are an even larger portion of those who die within a few years of retiring at age 65.

The retirement age is already skewed against these people, raising it further will make it even more plain than it already is that those who do physical work for a living are required to work themselves to death while contributing to the retirement fund of those who sit behind desks.

 

Social Security age is not the same thing as retirement age.

You can retire whenever you choose - just save and invest accordingly. Standard retirement age is 59 1/2 - Seven years before Social Security's full benefit age. This is the age at which you can withdraw from your retirement accounts without penalty.

Social Security was supposed to be insurance against outliving your expected life-span, NOT a retirement plan.

 

Can you describe the type of jobs you are referring to?

What do these people do now?

 

Because a better solution would be what Obama is proposing to do. Raise taxes on the super rich. Why deprive seniors 65 and over of Social Security and/or Medicare ?
Just so that that mutibillionaires can have $billionaire year net salaries ? Why would that be a priority ?

 

The government jobs come with their own retirement plans. Much better than a 401k, far better than SSI. I don't know about where you live, but police and fire do very well, with 90% of highest years earnings when they retire after 30 years, ~50. They work from 20 - 50, collect retirement for the next 30 years, even if they get another job, many do.

As far as the private sector jobs, they are more physically demanding than desk jobs. But, unable to work by 50? I find that hard to believe. Even if it was, a small amount of education in 30 years, or even a bit of initiative, allows people to move in to less taxing work.

Here is the 10 most dangerous jobs, the worst has a loss rate of 116 per 100K (and pays less than $30K a year), hardly the 38% mentioned in a prior post, even if they worked that job for 45 years.

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2011/pf/jobs/1108/gallery.dangerous_jobs/index.html

Logging has to be rough work, obviously Bill was able to keep at it till 70.

As far as your link. No one is saying you can't retire at 65, or 35 if you have the income to support it. What I am saying is if SSI & Medicare are safety nets, then set them at an age where they are so, not something that pays out to 54M people with 140M tax payers.

 

SSI and Medicare cost $1.4T last year, and will increase as baby boomer's like me retire.

Last December when the Bush tax cut was being voted on, the total increase in tax revenue if all were reinstated were supposed to be $370B, those with incomes over $250K, revenue was only $70B. About 5% of the combined SSI and Medicare cost.

As far as why deprive 65 years olds, wrong question. Why give welfare based purely on age, not need? If someone truly can't work at 60, put them on SSI & Medicare.

But, to give it to someone that is fully capable of supporting themselves. Sounds like someone is buying votes with tax dollars.

 

Raising the income taxes on the wealthy does not fund Social Security. Social Security is exclusively funded by FICA/Payroll taxes.

The cap on FICA/Payroll taxes for Social Security can be lifted and that would provide some additional funds but it only applies to earned income and not capital gains. Since most high income earners receive the majority of their income from investments it doesn't add all that much to Social Security. It certainly isn't enough to bail out Social Security over the long run.

Even if we could increase FICA/Payroll taxes to make Social Security financially viable based upon today's benefits is still paying for a program that provides poverty level income and that is not being addressed.

A better system would ensure a safety net while allowing individuals to actually earn retirement income through the combined FICA/Payroll contributions (i.e. privatization). As the Gaveston Plan shows participants receive 150% or more in retirement income from a privatized Social Security program.

I continue to wonder why there are those that oppose more income for retirees when compared to the paltry benefits provided by Social Security. Privatization isn't about the wealthy receiving more income it's about the poor and middle class receiving more income during retirement. The wealthy don't really benefit at all.

 

By almost all estimates eliminating the cap on SS contributions would be enough to ensure the viability of the fund into the foreseeable future.

Almost all municipal and state retirement plans pay more than SS but also gather their contributions from a stable high income work force. Very few, if any municipal or state employees make the minimum wage or face periodic unemployment and large downward changes in income.

Also, almost all municipal and state retirement plans are vastly underfunded.

Really? It seems to me that many of the highest income earners are those who manage investments for the private sector, you are suggesting that all the public retirement funds be placed in their hands. This will be a windfall for all these already wealthy investment managers. The wealthy could benefit enormously in other ways too. If the SS funds are directed into the equity and bond markets their value will rise and create another windfall for wealthy investors.

Privatizing SS would direct excess SS funds into the hands of speculators to gamble with in speculative markets. There would be few guarantees that your retirement money would be there when you need it.

 

Construction and manufacturing employ million of people in jobs that require a lot of physical labor where commonplace minor injuries and ailments often accumulate to disable workers. Just standing on a concrete floor for 8 hours a day lifting and moving things around is enough to create knee and back problems after a few decades.

In the past these jobs paid good wages that allowed workers in these jobs to accumulate enough to afford early retirement but that is no longer true except for the few who still work in unionized jobs.

These days many of them are on disability or welfare while waiting to reach the age when they can collect retirement. Many work at low wages in jobs that they can physically still do, like security guards and night watchmen.

Yes, you would if you never actually worked in any of these jobs. Besides that, many are in places with few other opportunities for people who are not geniuses.

That 38% came from SS. 38% of contributors to SS die before they reach retirement age. It is not about the 10 most dangerous jobs, it is about living in the US.

Nice anecdote. Is there any mention of the hundreds of other people he worked with over the years who had to quit from injury or illness, or were killed on the job?
Seventy year old loggers are so rare that it is news when they are killed, consider that.

 

I say kill SS AND Medicare once the last person who is presently over 30 dies.

There is already food stamps, welfare, medicaid...that's enough.

You have almost 50 working years to save up enough for retirement. If you cannot do that in that time...too bad. You will just have to do with food stamps/welfare/medicaid (imo).

Americans have to start taking more responsibility for themselves and their lives.

 

NONSENSE ! You have no idea of what it is like to be 65 years old. I am 65 right now, I haven't smoked since 1969, don't drink much, get some exercise fairly reguarly, and cautiously watch what I eat, reading labels for saturated fats, sodium, etc. I also take vitamins and high blood pressure medication.
For my age, I'm in fairly good shape. Above average you might even say. Nevertheless, I fall asleep watching TV, and find the need to take naps for a couple of hours, during the day. This only came about over the past couple of years, and my doctor says it is a normal symptom of aging.
Know many employers who are willing to let you go nap 2 hours each afternoon ? When you get to be 65, you'll have a more clear idea of why Social Security is appropriate for older folks. Hindsight beats foresight every time.

 

Because they are not opposing "more income" as you call it. They are opposing the quite real possibility of NO income (and they're right) In short, the idea of privitization of Social Security, sucks.

 

Because age IS need. See post # 90.

 

Since a safety net can be provided for the rare individuals that would theoretically receive less income though privatization this is an invalid argument.

As the Social Security Adminstration indicated in it's review of the Galveston Plan which exclusively invests in low return guarenteed investments such as annunities and government bonds there were a theoretically those that would have a lower retirement income that they would through Social Security. The SSA didn't actually have any cases where that had happened but it could in theory if a person was enployed at minimum wage their entire life. In reality the Galveston Plan provided 150% or more income for all retirees and it even had flaws at the time that have since been remedied. Privatization pays more, it's that simple.

Since a safety net could and should be included in a privatized Social Security program the only argument against privatization is that people should have less income as opposed to more income by retaining our current program. The success of 401K's and Roth IRA's has shown that privatization with certain considerations and constraints would be highly successful for the American People. Even the 2008 Recession didn't adversely effect 401K's and Roth IRA's that were age adjusted and that had a diversified investment portfolio. The 2001-2010 review of 401K's reflected an average 8% return on investment so fears of even economic recessions are unfounded related to privatization.

 

Where is OSHA?

I'm curious, why people continue to do physical labor instead of getting training for a less strenuous employment that usually pays more?

I see, they doing jobs that compete with automation, illegals, and China laborers.

I thought they were already doing low wage work.

I put in 4 years in the military, then worked as an assembler in manufacturing. Five years ago I worked for my son, wiring attics for internet. I replaced the engine, transmission and differential in my car, by myself, in the last 3 years (I'm 61). The work was hard, but not physically damanging.

I Worked my way up into engineering, then in to management, by drive and self education (no degree). Much of that self education done by listening to business books on tape - I paid $4 each, but I'm expect the library would have a good selection.

I am surrounded by people working desk jobs that no brighter than the assemblers I worked with.

If there aren't jobs, move to where they are.

Is this the total percent that don't make SSI age, or the percent that die due to the rigors of their employment? Can you provide a link?

 

Sorry boss, I'm 61.

You are the exception to what I see. Most likely, the sleepiness is the blood pressure meds - my wife has the same problem. (Wonder why your doctor didn't mention that.) When we were walking regularly, we shed weight, and she didn't need those meads.

I'm on our rural road repair committee, and spent two mornings cleaning up pot holes and putting down 8 tons of cold patch - the youngster of the group was 56, the oldest 83. We will put down another 8 tons before the winter rains.

My co-worker on the east coast is 67, shot up in Vietnam (still in the Marine reserves). Last year shrapnel worked it way into the knee they hadn't replaced. So they replaced it. He drives several hours a day visiting customers. Off hours he works on his farm. He heats his home with 8 cords, that he fells, cuts, stacks and carries. Last year he was asked, and accepted a professorship at an ivy league college (our company approved).

As I said before, my dad is 87. Not as spry as he once was, yet he doesn't need afternoon naps.

 

Would the government need to pay out of general revenues for this safety net?

 

No, it would not be necessary as there are many options for funding a safety net. One proposal I've made related to providing a safety net would be lifting the cap on the Social Security portion of FICA/Payroll taxes and dedicating these funds to privatized investments. Lifting the cap isn't enough to make up for projected shortfalls in Social Security but it would provide ample funding for secured investments that would provide a safety net. It is just one of many possible solutions that would provide a safety net and one that I would endorse.

Remember a fact. We're only talking about a small percentage of individuals that wouldn't break the $7K/yr minimum payment Social Security threshold. Even then with their privatized investments they would very probably have $5K or more in retirement income from their investments. All the safety net has to cover is the difference between what their investments pay and the minimum Social Security retirement benefit.

The problem isn't with providing a safety net. The problem relates to converting a pay as you go welfare program to a privatized government mandated program. It is the transition that is going to be costly but it has been calculated that the transitional costs will be less than continuing Social Security as it currently exists. Making the transition relates to short term pain for long term gain. The other option is long term pain with no gain. It is a hard choice to make.

By analogy it's like a person deciding to have a operation to remove a brain tumor instead of choosing to live with the tumor that causes constant headaches. The operation is initially more expensive than the medications but by refusing the operation the person will continue to suffer and eventually the brain tumor is going to have to be removed because it will kill them and it will cost more for that operation in the future.

 

The government is paying out of general revenues for SSI and Medicare now!

The trust fund was transferred to general revenues via T-Bills. Now that there is a shortfall in payroll tax, T-Bills are being cashed in. What happens when they run out? Taxes go up, the deficit goes up, or the payout goes down, the start age goes up - the politicians pick which.

 

This post is saying that "privatization pays more" but that is relative to our current levels of extreme UNDERtaxation (of the rich). But what justifies that UNDERtaxation, when higher rates of Social Security would/could be attained just by restoring the normal top bracket taxation of the past ? Why should the top bracket tax be so low ?

 

Glad to see so many oldies but good shapies. I'll still stick with 62 and 65 for ages for Social Security and Medicare. Why not ? So some billionaires can avoid paying taxes ? Give us a break.