Killer Joe
New member
Okay, I know something (not much, though) about this SS thing lately. But someone enlighten me as to why Bush's SS plan is good for us.
They SHOULD. I'm not sure why most don't, but it's pretty common...Spiderman said:The misinformation though should actually be a good prod for those young people to start saving and not rely on SS when they retire (which they shouldn't anyway as that's not SS's purpose to begin with).
I don't know about "less and less". The amount adjusted is dependent on a separate formula from another government agency (of which both names I forget right now which is obviously not helpful ). I think it might be tied with the nation's GNP growth but not sure.EricBess said:I don't pretend to know all the details, but the generalities are that, as Spidey said, the amount is adjusted each year and it is typically less and less that is given to each person. At the same time, cost of living continues to increase.
It is the basic idea which shouldn't be needed by the government - people should be doing that on their own anyways . The thing is about Bush's plan from what I understand is that a massive loan is needed to get things started - apparently it's not just a change from putting 100% into SS to 96% to SS and 4% to a private account. But not sure of the details of that. But another thing is that (again from what I understand) the private accounts are still subject to government allocation up to the amount that they would have earned in SS. Any extra amount over that the individual gets. So if SS needs $1000, your "private account" up to $1000 is still subject to SS's "whims" (kinda cavalier but not sure what the proper term is). If your account has $1500, you get the extra $500. Not sure what happens when there's a shortfall in the account though. But the basic line seems to be that the money is not necessarily "yours" even though it's in a "private account".EricBess said:Again, I don't know all of the details of Bush's plan, but it seems to me that the basic idea is to have people save money for themself instead of relying on government money when they get older.
I agree, they should but it is hard. Mostly because we're in a society of credit and material possessions now.Oversoul said:They SHOULD. I'm not sure why most don't, but it's pretty common...
Most companies have 401K plans and such but there's a twofold problem from what I understand (again, always the disclaimer ). First, I've seen numerous studies that in general, the majority of people do NOT participate in such plans (gleaned from the Business section of the paper which has various financial columns). Second, and you said it yourself, the keyword is "minimum". The mininum may not and probably is not enough to keep them in the living standard they are accustomed to when they retire (it may be enough with SS, who knows ) Even I don't do it yet, but the financial experts say 10% is always the "magic number" and if you can increase it past that (I think it's up to 12 or 13% of your salary now?) it's obviously better. But of course again, people can't or won't do that for a variety of reasons: bills, wanting stuff now, etc.TomB said:I disagree...most companies these days make it easy to invest in 401k plans, and all the young guys I work with have signed up for a least a minimal contribution. And EB (and Spidey), I think it's only fair that people that have paid monies INTO Social Security be able to count on getting money back OUT of SS when they retire...
I think that this is a great statement right here, and defines the argument. People who believe in small government, lower taxes, and people taking more responsibility for themselves, who tend to be republican, find something very wrong with the current system, especially since the mathematics of the system seem to be wearing out. a "tax" for which the government does what it pleases. These are dirty words to these people, and they probably believe that Social Security would be better off it was what it said it was, a retirement plan and not a tax, even if this costs more in the short term. On the other hand, there are those who believe goverment is a good thing and should provide for society, and these people tend to be Democrats. These people approve of the current system, are fighting to keep it intact, and I must admit I'm not the best person to argue on their behalf.Spiderman said:The want of getting your money out of SS of what you put into it is a nice but common misunderstanding. SS isn't about YOU in the future, it's about retirees NOW. You are paying for the current retirees benefits and that's the way it always has been. It isn't a "private account" or 401K for which you bank your money and hope it's there in the future. It's the safety net for the entire US retiree generation. In other words, you're paying into a "pool of money" and the current retirees take it out (along with death/survivor and disability benefits, but that's something else).
Basically, it's a "tax" for which the government does what it pleases. Just like you can't tell the government not to give your tax money to a art grant for something you don't like or support a program you don't like, you can't expect to get back your money that you put in.
I wonder if this could lead to bigger problems in the future...Ferret said:I think that our country is filled w/ too many ideas so that people can get away with not working and still make money (lotto, casinos, welfare, politics).