M
mythosx
Guest
DarthFerret said:
Ah debt what a funny concept.
Social Security, or is it?
- Thread starter Killer Joe
- Start date
Ah debt what a funny concept.
We're kinda veering off the subject but yeah, the US is getting deeper into debt. Unfortunately, that involves either raising taxes again (or at least back to their levels before the 2001 tax cut) and cutting expenses, neither of which looks like it's gonna happen.
T
train
Guest
Basically everyone needs to save 15% of their income into IRA, 401K, or other investments...
But beware that 401K purchases made within a company don't normally go with you when you leave, and are usually institutional shares, meaning they are bought cheaper than normal - so buy as many as you can while at your current place of employment... that's why 15% is so much more important... When you leave, if you leave, roll them over into a ROTH IRA so that there isn't any taxes on the interest earned...
But beware that 401K purchases made within a company don't normally go with you when you leave, and are usually institutional shares, meaning they are bought cheaper than normal - so buy as many as you can while at your current place of employment... that's why 15% is so much more important... When you leave, if you leave, roll them over into a ROTH IRA so that there isn't any taxes on the interest earned...
E
evan d
Guest
One of the biggest ways the SS has been destroyed was the way it was started. SS when it first began was that itgave out money in the great depression and it did not bring any in. Starting anything with red ink is not very smart and it sets a precedent for for debt.
I think the best way to fix socail security is to stop letting people join in and to let the other people who have purt in money to get that equal amount back out.
I think the best way to fix socail security is to stop letting people join in and to let the other people who have purt in money to get that equal amount back out.
D
DarthFerret
Guest
One of the things that a person needs to be careful of when investing in an untaxed or pretaxed retirement investment is that the government actually has regulations about how much of your income can be placed into that. (I believe the actual average number is 15% but I am not positive on that.) That is why most 401k's have limit caps as far as top end contributing percentage. If you happen to work for a fortune 500 company (as I do right now) they have even stricter regulations on 401k and also on Stock Options. As a Publicly Traded Company, each one has to post this information. I am not certain where you can go to aquire it, but it is published somewhere, maybe check out Forbes.com.
Either way, I do not think it is wise to rely wholly on SSI to retire on, and maybe it would be a good idea to pretend that it does not exist. (Hard to do when they insist on sending you SSI statements every 2 yrs or so
)
Either way, I do not think it is wise to rely wholly on SSI to retire on, and maybe it would be a good idea to pretend that it does not exist. (Hard to do when they insist on sending you SSI statements every 2 yrs or so
)That's actually false. Not sure where you got your information but according to the SSA web site, payroll taxes were collected starting in 1937 and monthly benefits were not were paid until 1940. If you retired between that period, you got a lump sum, but it was still taken out of the taxes being collected.evan d said:
E
evan d
Guest
Ok so I don't remeber exactly correct, but my point was that it is giving out more than it is bringing in.
That's still incorrect. Back then and currently (with help from the '80's reform law), SS is taking in MORE than it is paying out. The problem begins roughly in 15 years, when it is THEN that it is projected that it will start paying more than what it is taking in, thus starting the drain on the trust funds. But benefits will still pay 100%. It is roughly in 2042 that the trust funds will be drained and benefits will need to be cut in order that everyone who deserves SS can be paid something.
For my curiosity, again, why do you think that SS is giving out more than what it is taking in?
For my curiosity, again, why do you think that SS is giving out more than what it is taking in?
E
evan d
Guest
Publik shcolign ddi em wele.
Mostly because at 15, I can't comprehend how if something is working for 50+ that you could mess it up.
Which president started the messing up. I would garuntee that it is not the president who was in office at the time.
Mostly because at 15, I can't comprehend how if something is working for 50+ that you could mess it up.
Which president started the messing up. I would garuntee that it is not the president who was in office at the time.
D
DarthFerret
Guest
That may be part of the problem. Finding blame that is. If there was less time speant on finding a scapegoat, and more time on solving problems, the world would be a much safer place.
As I understand it, the main problem is that variables outside of Social Security's control have been changing, mainly the longer life expectancy and the changing demographics of the nation. In the 30's, there were a lot more people working than at the retirement age and life expectancy was less so benefits weren't paid out for long. Now, you have the baby boomer generation getting ready to retire and people live longer.
Those are the two main ones I personally think of. There's probably a couple of others.
I don't think the main problem right now is assigning blame - it's finding a solution that's not political suicide for those "in power" right now. Raising SS taxes, cutting benefits... neither of which are particularly palatable to the general public.
Those are the two main ones I personally think of. There's probably a couple of others.
I don't think the main problem right now is assigning blame - it's finding a solution that's not political suicide for those "in power" right now. Raising SS taxes, cutting benefits... neither of which are particularly palatable to the general public.
Oversoul
The Tentacled One
I think that what Darthferret is pointing out is that (in general, not just with this) people expend a lot of effort trying to find a scapegoat, when if all of those people worked on solving the problem instead, things could be much better.Spiderman said:
Of course, getting even one person to really stop worrying about blame altogether is a task. Getting a mob to do it would be quite a feat...
D
DarthFerret
Guest
Yes, Oversoul, that is what I was trying to get across. And I know the feasability of that notion is about as high as my chance of Ed MacMahon showing up on my doorstep with an oversized Casiers check. But hey, we can dream, right?
Well, I say no one is too blame - along w/ everyone. It's one of those ideas that was started so long ago (along w/ Federal Income Tax, welfare, the draft, religion) that has played out as well as it could to help people out, but since society has changed, the system needs to change w/ it. If SSI starts to actually cost more than it's taking in within the next four decades, perhaps we should get to work on an alternate version that could make things easier for those of us living to our nineties to enjoy.
One idea that I think is already in the works: make it where people are eligible only after they reach 20 years younger than the average life expectancy. If this means that people have to work harder, then so be it. Too many lazy people just sitting around taking up space anyway. Of course, there will be exceptions like people on disability or in other positions where it is absolutely impossible for them to work. This could help offset the fact that people are collecting the benefits longer than they used to.
However, I'm a big fan of President Bush's idea of allowing people to invest their money. It takes the money out of the hands of the government and more importantly, it invests it into the economy which is always a great idea.
-Ferret
"Leave it to a conservative to come up w/ a radical change to an outdated system..."
One idea that I think is already in the works: make it where people are eligible only after they reach 20 years younger than the average life expectancy. If this means that people have to work harder, then so be it. Too many lazy people just sitting around taking up space anyway. Of course, there will be exceptions like people on disability or in other positions where it is absolutely impossible for them to work. This could help offset the fact that people are collecting the benefits longer than they used to.
However, I'm a big fan of President Bush's idea of allowing people to invest their money. It takes the money out of the hands of the government and more importantly, it invests it into the economy which is always a great idea.
-Ferret
"Leave it to a conservative to come up w/ a radical change to an outdated system..."
Just to be sure, investing money is not a "new" idea. A couple of other countries are doing it with varying degrees of success (my paper did a comparison a while back with a "success" country and a "failure" country - I want to say Brazil and Canada/England but not positive).