Get rid of social security?

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by Ignorant, Sep 11, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ignorant

    Ignorant New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2011
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    sorry but I'm an ignorant, I'm getting on this forum to learn more. Anyways I was wondering if getting rid of social security is good? or at least privatize it since it is taking so much out of our budget.
     
  2. jackson33

    jackson33 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,445
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ignorant, if you come around again, odds are you won't, I'd be happy to offer a longer opinion. I am one that feels SS and ALL Health care belongs in the private sector or at least the choice which to trust. Briefly, SS was originally a choice, think three Texas Counties chose the private sector and are doing quite well, receiving considerably more in monthly benefits, while maintaining a decent surplus for future retirees.

    As for getting rid of either, it's the obligation that needs to be considered and unlikely any politician would advocate simply abolishing either program, while Congress could privatize the programs, much as they did with Fannie (without controls).

    There is still a little time left to do something, since many feel SS has years to go (I disagree), but HC is already in trouble, draining the Federal coffers.
     
  3. Ignorant

    Ignorant New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2011
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    what do you mean odds are I won't come again? and it's not nice calling some one ignorant. I want your full response. I now truly believe that we need to somehow privatize it because we cannot keep up with the cost of paying for it. Sooner or later we're going to run out of fund to pay for it
     
  4. protectionist

    protectionist Banned

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    13,898
    Likes Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I've been paying into Social Security for 49 years. Now at 65 years of age I am receiving it, and especially with the bad economy it is a necessity for me (and lots of other seniors).
    Anybody who would eliminate it or privatize it (risk of elimination), fair warning to you. You will be tarred and feathered and set out to sea on a small raft. When the hot sun starts to burn the tar all over you, you'll jump in the water only to be consumed by sharks.
    Don't even think about it.

    PS - young people don't vote much (too busy with sex & drugs). Old people vote in droves. Last time I voted, among about 40 people in the voting hall, I think I was the youngest one there (I'm 65).
     
  5. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The SSI and Medicare trust funds were traded for T-Bills, to be paid by future income tax reveneu.

    As more of us baby boomers leave employment for retirement, payroll and income tax reveneu drops, while the demand for it increases.

    When the government can't borrow more money, your sea of grey will demand even more tax money. Then, the young will vote, giving politicians the support they need to delay. (*)(*)(*)(*) the young off enough, and they will vote to discontinue something they will never receive.


    SSI initially covered those over 65, when the average lifespan was 62, and when 62 was really old.

    Lifespan is now 75 (and lifespan for a 60 year old is 81), and 62 isn't old at all. I have no interest in retiring in 4 years, and no need to.

    SSI should return to the safety net it was intended to be, not a retirement plan. Delay the onset to 75 over the next 18 years. Every 2 years, delay onset by 1 year. Afterwords, adjust the onset date to the lifespan age.

    Currently SSI gets 45 years of contributions (20 - 65) and pays out for 16 years (65 - 81) - not even a 3:1 ratio. Delayed to 75, contributions increase to 55 years, and payout drops to 6 years - 9:1 ratio.
     
  6. jackson33

    jackson33 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,445
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ignorant; I'm also new on this forum, but in 8 years of posting on forums, MAYBE one in ten of new posters I've replied to, have responded, there was nothing personal intended.

    Mathematically speaking, in a few years two people working will be supporting every person on SS, along with the cost of administrating the program. As said, I am also one that feels SS should be privatized, but not necessarily the other programs involved, IMO already too far gone (abused) to cover, namely "disability"... It's also my opinion that this could easily be worked out with private institutions, simply by granting US Bonds (which is where Government Money has been placed) to these institutions, all SS Receipts going to them via State Governments. Your idea?

    protectionist; Young man, it's been our generation that made the mess, for the most part KNOWING the Federal Government had not been investing our money, we allowed the mess to evolve, kicking the mess/problem down the road for our kids/grand kids is simply not going to work. Additionally, years older than you I contributed to SS from 1950 to 2002, all early years the maximum, as in many later years and as a self employed person most those years, BOTH the employee and employer parts. By 2009, I had received everything I put into the system, including interest, which was never earned by Government, yet they keep on sending me about $1300.00+ every month, that I never sent them. I accept it as welfare and like those on welfare, it's difficult to just say no.

    Well I VOTE TOO, and have never intentionally voted for an advocate for Social Justice or that the individual was not responsible for there own actions/problems. IMO it's those that have voted in this manner, that got us to this point and should be at least considering the solutions. Yes, there are millions of you "Baby Boomers" entering the SS/Medicare programs and might well vote to maintain the "Status Quo", even add NEW PROGRAMS or loosen qualifications, as in Obama, but they will be voting to end the way of life, you and I have or should have enjoyed.
     
  7. protectionist

    protectionist Banned

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    13,898
    Likes Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't get SSI, so I don't think too much about it, but those who need it should get it, and not be shorted in any way. In fact, their benefit amounts should be increased, as should the standard Social Security like I get, which is too little.

    Nobody is doing anything wrong to the young people today. When we were young, we paid into Social Security and our older generation received it. Today's young people aren't doing anything we didn't do. There's plenty of money in America for the young to get their share of Social Security when they get older. Last I heard, it is solvent to 2038, and could be longer and at higher rates, if we simply restored the top bracket taxation we've had over the past 94 years, before the last 30 years of UNDERtaxation. For most of that 94 years, top bracket taxes were never less than 70%, and were as high as 94%. There's no reason for the abnormally low rtes we have today, and all the reason in the world for restoration to the normal rates.

    As for the age the younger people get the benefit, keep it where it is.
     
  8. protectionist

    protectionist Banned

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    13,898
    Likes Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't see how voting to maintain the status quo equals ending the way of life you and I have or should have enjoyed. Sounds like a contradiction there, but I'll let you slide, since you called me "young man", which was pretty cool.

    If you are one of those people lucky enough to have savings, and don't need the $1300/month you're getting (my SS is only $781), well then, lucky you ! Maybe you're not astute enough to perceive that having savings in your older years isn't all a matter of money skills, and that luck does play a part, as does keeping moneymaking within the borders of good morality. I'm not suggesting you haven't, but lots of people haven't, and generally, it's easy to make a lot of money if one doesn't care how he obtains it.

    In any case, lots of people get older and they DO NEED that Social Security, and it's not their fault that they do, so lay off.
     
  9. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,758
    Likes Received:
    14,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think Social Security is pretty good program. The problem is that the taxes collected for it aren't put in a trust fund and never have been. They are simply spent by Congress. We can't afford SS because the money has been spent on other things. It isn't that the program is bad or unaffordable. The problem is that it has been managed incompetently by the Congress. If it had been done right in the first place, and if members of congress would not have developed their lust for spending, it would never have become a problem

    I read pretty good quote the other day that sums it up for me. Social Security isn't an entitlement. It is a paid service that was stolen from us by Congress.
     
  10. BuckNaked

    BuckNaked New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    12,335
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Pay back what was stolen and or give everybody their money back and then by all means stop it, but it was paid into with the promise it would be there. It was retirement insurance that was illegally looted.
     
     
     
    If every politician who participated in stealing the funds were held accountable prosecuted, and as all organized criminals had their assets including their retirement confiscated (since it was obtained under false criminal unethical pretence) there would be plenty of money to not only cover the costs but it would keep it going for another 500 years or so. F(*)(*)(*)ing criminals in Washington should pay for their theft, and misappropriation of funds to send a message and stop this criminal behavior from happening again.
     
  11. jackson33

    jackson33 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,445
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    48
    protectionist; As SS/Medicare/Prescription drugs/Welfare increase in cost they are and will continue to take more revenues to cover, at some point taking more and more from the countries wealth as taxes by necessity, increase. While whatever standard of living you enjoyed, that same inflation adjusted income will not provide an equal one in the future.

    My Dad, while living in a retirement community, always called folks younger than him, youngsters, since your somewhat younger than myself, "young man" seems appropriate.

    I'm not sure how SS payments are figured, but it has something to do with contributions and quarters (3 month periods) worked, then reduced by divorce obligations (10 years of marriage) or other obligations, having a spouse or dependent children that can qualify for survivors benefits. I didn't miss many quarters, none after age 17 and have no future obligations to consider, 2 X wives that had passed on and all my 7 kids have long SS records of their own. By traditional standards, my savings are little more than the average home investment today, but I have a very low threshold for living comfortably, as a recluse loner.

    Don't you think letting people know, what is or going to be available might not be there when they retire or become disabled, or doing something, is more advisable than doing nothing "the status quo"?


    fmw; Then wouldn't privatizing it, which has a back up system, be better than Government.

     
    Buck; To be fare they say, the money was replaced with Federal Bonds, apparently no interest, 50 year bonds, but that's what some suggest. Whatever the figure for future obligations or the years covered, with real bonds issued to a corporate structure, future obligations could be covered without many problems, IMO...
     
  12. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    SSI pays out more than it collects, per person, that is why the trust fund is shrinking.

    There is no cash in a lock box. The SSI collected today doesn't pay today's obligations. To get that, they tap the trust fund, which is in T-Bill's, the principle and interest paid in tax dollars (actually with borrowed money).

    Contributions have to be increased significantly for the baby boomers, money the youth will not get.

    As far as higher tax rates on the rich and all that claptrap - that ship has sailed, you got what you got. Even the Democrats aren't increasing taxes, Pelosi, and many Democrat, voted in support continuing the Bush tax cut on the rich. They know who gives them contributions.

    Tax rates low, SSI & Medicare high, 40% of every dollar borrowed - something has to give. With less than 1/3 of the voters over 65, I doubt it will be tax rates.
     
  13. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,758
    Likes Received:
    14,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is no trust fund. No lock box. All that tax money has been spent by congress. That is why SS is in trouble.
     
  14. BuckNaked

    BuckNaked New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    12,335
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Stolen, misappropriated, embezzled for other projects it was not intended for.


    The difference between this and any other organized criminal scam is no one will be held accountable or forced to pay it back or for the damaged sustained by way of restitution.
     
  15. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,758
    Likes Received:
    14,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Absolutely. Privatizing almost everything the government does would be an improvement. I was just expressing some indingation at the Congress for messing up what could have been a good program.
     
  16. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    AARP is one of the largest advocates for Social Security and they have spread fear amoung their members. No one to my knowledge has proposed "ending" Social Security for anyone that is receiving it or is going to receive it in the next couple of decades.

    What has been acknowledge by virtually everyone is that Social Security is financially unsound and cannot sustain the current benefits. What is basically a government welfare program that averages poverty level benefits has already seen benefits reduced for future recipients. Full retirement ages have been raised and COLA increases have either been stopped or reduced for the future.

    What is being proposed by some is the adoption of a plan similar to the Galveston Plan for new entrants into the workforce. The Galveston Plan, which was initiated in the early 1980's when States were allowed to create their own Social Security plans and it typically provides 50% or more in retirement benefits than conventional Social Security.

    Basically this would be an option for "new enrollees" in Social Security and would not affect current enrollees. We really should question why anyone would be opposed to the future generations having a "Social Security" plan that pays 150% or more than the current Social Security plan that only averages about $13K/yr for retirees.

    Why would anyone oppose this option?
     
  17. Landru Guide Us

    Landru Guide Us Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    Messages:
    7,002
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Traded? You mean invested. Do you really expect that the SS fund should hold $3T in cash or pork bellies.

    Now, what's the safest investment on the planet? T-bills.

    It's bizarre how conservatives find investing the fund in the safest investment on the planet a bad thing.
     
  18. Landru Guide Us

    Landru Guide Us Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    Messages:
    7,002
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nonsense. The SS trust fund is the owner of $3T or so T-bills. It's the most solvent, safest fund on the planet. What is this weird Tea Party meme? It's pure weirdness.
     
  19. Landru Guide Us

    Landru Guide Us Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    Messages:
    7,002
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Jesus man. SS, like any fund, has to invest its cash. Do you really want SS to hold $3T in cash, without obtaining interest.

    Soooooo, where should the trust fund invest this huge amount of cash? Pork bellies? Iridium futures? That would be stupid. By law SS can invest only in T-bills, which it does? What is wrong with that? They are the safest investment on the planet.

    The Anti-SS meme is truly bizarre.
     
  20. submarinepainter

    submarinepainter Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    21,596
    Likes Received:
    1,528
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    then why was President Obama threatening not send out SS checks ? He either told a bold face lie when he said that or a bold face lie was told when he said SS was solvent??
     
  21. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ROTFL

    So payroll tax is added to the general fund to grow government, not to pay down the debt, or "invest in infrastructure which increases GDP". Now, when SSI and Medicare comes due, the answer is to raise taxes?

    You liberals crack me up...
     
  22. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ROTFL

    Do you really think payroll tax was invested in T-Bills because they are safe

    The cost to the tax payer would be less if the money had been left in a drawer. Better yet, deposit the money in banks as CD's, where the public, not gooberment, benefits.

    Instead, we are paying taxes to pay the T-Bill interest.
     
  23. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The borrowed funds have Treasury securities that must be paid for with general tax revenues. That creates a problem because current general expendatures are exceeding general tax revenues but the securities will have to be redeemed nonetheless.

    We must always remember one key fact. The redemption of the Treasury securities held in the SS Trust Fund is not a payment for Social Security. It is the payment of previous general expendatures authorized by Congress where borrowing was authorized.
     
    Iriemon and (deleted member) like this.
  24. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually if the government would have held the funds in American Gold Eagle coins, which is lawful money that is being coined by the US Mint since 1986, in the US Treasury then Social Security would have been far better off.
     
  25. liberalminority

    liberalminority Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    25,273
    Likes Received:
    1,633
    Trophy Points:
    113
    privatizing social security would ruin it for the poor because most of the benefits will be given to the higher income earners who can afford to invest more into it...also it would be vulnerable to the whims of the financial markets which have already failed us recently as seen.

    getting rid of it altogether would be devasting to the economy because it is the biggest safety net and closest thing the United States has to a socialist system for progress
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page