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.
Social Security, or is it?
- Thread starter Killer Joe
- Start date
T
TheCasualOblivion
Guest
Under the current system, are you expecting to collect social security when you get old? A lot of people in their 20's I've spoken to have not had any expectation of that for some years now, and have been complaining about putting money into something they aren't going to get anything out of long before Bush started talking about SS.
The real argument over SS is not the argument that has been happening in public. The argument is over whether goverment will continue to have complete power over the system. Those who believe that government should have the power have been fighting SS reform tooth and nail.
The real argument over SS is not the argument that has been happening in public. The argument is over whether goverment will continue to have complete power over the system. Those who believe that government should have the power have been fighting SS reform tooth and nail.
There have been many articles in my papers (and probably other media, like Time and Newsweek) that do comparisons between the various "fixes" of Social Security. From what I've read, I don't think Bush's plan is the best and I'm not even sure it's better than doing nothing.
However, to address CO's statement in the first paragraph, that goes to show how uneducated or misinformed, take your pick depending on the person
, "young" people are. If nothing is done, Social Security is going to be there for them, it's just not going to pay the amount of benefits that is currently being paid out (and adjusted every year). It's just going to be less.
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).
However, to address CO's statement in the first paragraph, that goes to show how uneducated or misinformed, take your pick depending on the person
, "young" people are. If nothing is done, Social Security is going to be there for them, it's just not going to pay the amount of benefits that is currently being paid out (and adjusted every year). It's just going to be less.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).
Killer Joe
New member
brought forth by the Bush administration. Cripe! How many more "Boogieman" topics can these guys think up?
~Be afraid of Gays
~Be afraid of People's rights to privacy
~Be afraid of terrorist actions
~Be afraid of those who believe in evolution
~Be afraid of Social Security going bust
~Watch your neighbor is next........
...oh wait, that's already in the works.
~Be afraid of Gays
~Be afraid of People's rights to privacy
~Be afraid of terrorist actions
~Be afraid of those who believe in evolution
~Be afraid of Social Security going bust
~Watch your neighbor is next........
...oh wait, that's already in the works.
E
EricBess
Guest
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.
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 think that there are a lot of people in unfortunate circumstances that were brought on through no fault of their own and I don't have a problem with tax money helping support such people. But I also think that people relying on it isn't necessarily a good thing. People should try to be as independent as possible instead of expecting society to give them what they need.
Personally, I think that if older citizens need help, it is their family that should help them out where possible first, then the government...
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 think that there are a lot of people in unfortunate circumstances that were brought on through no fault of their own and I don't have a problem with tax money helping support such people. But I also think that people relying on it isn't necessarily a good thing. People should try to be as independent as possible instead of expecting society to give them what they need.
Personally, I think that if older citizens need help, it is their family that should help them out where possible first, then the government...
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 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 helpfulEricBess said:
). I think it might be tied with the nation's GNP growth but not sure.It is the basic idea which shouldn't be needed by the government - people should be doing that on their own anywaysEricBess said:
. 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".I agree, they should but it is hard. Mostly because we're in a society of credit and material possessions now.Oversoul said:
Most companies have 401K plans and such but there's a twofold problem from what I understand (again, always the disclaimerTomB said:
). 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.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.
T
TheCasualOblivion
Guest
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:
Before Bush became president, Clinton and the democrats talked about "saving" and reforming Social Security themselves. Nowadays, they just argue that its great and nothing should be done to it. Even if they do argue in favor of reforming it, not one single plan for changing things has come from their camp since Bush started this whole mess. They do that a lot these days, since their official policy is "we hate Bush" and they don't really bother to offer alternatives besides "Bush sucks."
Just a quick note, it wasn't meant to be a "retirement plan" either, in the sense that you can live solely on SS when you retire. It was just meant to supplement your retirement - keep you out of "poverty" (however "poverty" may be defined).
I don't think the Democrats are arguing that it's "great". They're just arguing that Bush's plan is not the way to go. But while I do agree that they're not presenting much of a plan themselves right now, it's because they're not "really in power". For instance, in the Clinton years, did the Republicans offer an alternative plan or just harp on the Democrat's plan?
I don't think the Democrats are arguing that it's "great". They're just arguing that Bush's plan is not the way to go. But while I do agree that they're not presenting much of a plan themselves right now, it's because they're not "really in power". For instance, in the Clinton years, did the Republicans offer an alternative plan or just harp on the Democrat's plan?
Killer Joe
New member
But you didn't hear that from Me, sonny boy.
Okay, so you're saying that SS is supposed to be a supplemental to our retirment? Well, that sounds reasonable. So as long as we're saving for our own retirement (10%ish?) then we should be doing okay? Right?
Then what's all the hallabaloo about changing it? Don't change it, let it go bust; but it doesn't matter cause we've all saved 10% of our life's earnings to support our retirment (not to mention that our kids should be responsible for us, too.)
Cripe, I'm glad I have a great retirment plan already and maybe I'll use my SS money to buy 24th Edition Magic Cards
Okay, so you're saying that SS is supposed to be a supplemental to our retirment? Well, that sounds reasonable. So as long as we're saving for our own retirement (10%ish?) then we should be doing okay? Right?
Then what's all the hallabaloo about changing it? Don't change it, let it go bust; but it doesn't matter cause we've all saved 10% of our life's earnings to support our retirment (not to mention that our kids should be responsible for us, too.)
Cripe, I'm glad I have a great retirment plan already and maybe I'll use my SS money to buy 24th Edition Magic Cards
That's the ideal, but of course the majority of people aren't doing it. Hence the over-reliance on SS and the great urge to fix it.
If people were happy with a decrease in benefits this whole argument would be moot. But not sure what that works out to be (when SS can only pay something like 77% of what it does now in whatever year - 2042?)
If people were happy with a decrease in benefits this whole argument would be moot. But not sure what that works out to be (when SS can only pay something like 77% of what it does now in whatever year - 2042?)
E
EricBess
Guest
Well, one thing I certainly agree on is that people should be considering their retirement to begin with...If Bush's plan (again, I should really research details ) is effectively a "forced 401K" (at least, in principle), then people should be responsible for their own retirement and not expect to depend on the Government for anything.
I also agree that people who have put money into SS should get money out, but regardless of whether the amount goes up or down, the fact of the matter is that today's workers are giving money to yesterday's workers and tomorrow's workers will be paying for todays. In other words, the money I put into SS isn't there anymore. It's already been spent. It's a spiral because the only way for me to get money out is for someone to put more money in.
I think that the loan mentioned to get Bush's plan up and running is probably in part to address this issue.
I'm certainly not opposed to using tax money to keep people from absolute poverty. In fact, if people who are otherwise fairly thrifty run into financial problems outside their control, I'm not opposed to helping them maintain something akin to their current lifestyle (within reason, of course).
I think the real problem is that if the government takes the stand that no one will live in poverty, too many people will take advantage of that. We already see how the wellfare system encourages vagrants to stay vagrants.
) is effectively a "forced 401K" (at least, in principle), then people should be responsible for their own retirement and not expect to depend on the Government for anything.I also agree that people who have put money into SS should get money out, but regardless of whether the amount goes up or down, the fact of the matter is that today's workers are giving money to yesterday's workers and tomorrow's workers will be paying for todays. In other words, the money I put into SS isn't there anymore. It's already been spent. It's a spiral because the only way for me to get money out is for someone to put more money in.
I think that the loan mentioned to get Bush's plan up and running is probably in part to address this issue.
I'm certainly not opposed to using tax money to keep people from absolute poverty. In fact, if people who are otherwise fairly thrifty run into financial problems outside their control, I'm not opposed to helping them maintain something akin to their current lifestyle (within reason, of course).
I think the real problem is that if the government takes the stand that no one will live in poverty, too many people will take advantage of that. We already see how the wellfare system encourages vagrants to stay vagrants.
D
DarthFerret
Guest
Granted on the welfare issue. But I think one of the items to take into consideration is the "trickle-down" effect that any plan (including the status quo) has not only on future SS benefits, but on Medicaid, Medicare, Welfare, Food Stamps, WiC, and other government funded "help-plans". Then an overall effect could be deduced and a reasonable solution that is both cost-effective and implimentable.
Once this is done, there should be a fairly clear-cut and bi-partisan solution, or even a determination that there is a problem.
This is just my humble uneducated opinion, but it is fairly well thought out.
Once this is done, there should be a fairly clear-cut and bi-partisan solution, or even a determination that there is a problem.
This is just my humble uneducated opinion, but it is fairly well thought out.
Like all programs, I think controlling fraud would help a good deal. Even now, you get lots of people "cheating" the system to get fraudulant benefits, especially SS and Medicare/caid. Cut that down and make the perps more responsible for their actions and there's more money to go around.
M
mythosx
Guest
hmm...
Well many great points here. Here's the basic rundown on SS. It was there to take care of people who had retired. Apparently before SS. People main retirement plan was to have lots and lots o babies. Social Security is meant to manage retirement for the masses. Bush's plan is to have everyone govern their own retirement accounts. That way it would not get abused by the government and be put into things such as military budgets and what not. This gives the idea that SS is actually some sort of mass savings account put into by the working public. But in reality, it isn't. You are actually paying for the people who are retired now and you will be paid when you retired by the working public. That's how it started and that's what it is. The progession they are talking about not being paid enough is the slide of the baby boomers and baby busters totally screwing with the scale.
Well many great points here. Here's the basic rundown on SS. It was there to take care of people who had retired. Apparently before SS. People main retirement plan was to have lots and lots o babies. Social Security is meant to manage retirement for the masses. Bush's plan is to have everyone govern their own retirement accounts. That way it would not get abused by the government and be put into things such as military budgets and what not. This gives the idea that SS is actually some sort of mass savings account put into by the working public. But in reality, it isn't. You are actually paying for the people who are retired now and you will be paid when you retired by the working public. That's how it started and that's what it is. The progession they are talking about not being paid enough is the slide of the baby boomers and baby busters totally screwing with the scale.
I've been paying into SS for about two decades and I really hope it's there when I hit 70 (or whatever age they say I'll be eligible for it), however I do have my own plan: I'm going to keep working for as long as I can no matter how old I am. 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).
However, considering that we're already in trillions of dollars of debt (that's 12 zeros, folks) does it really matter? I get paid by the government already and every paycheck I get puts us further and further behind...
-Ferret
"I guess working for large corportations wasn't so bad..."
However, considering that we're already in trillions of dollars of debt (that's 12 zeros, folks) does it really matter? I get paid by the government already and every paycheck I get puts us further and further behind...
-Ferret
"I guess working for large corportations wasn't so bad..."
D
DarthFerret
Guest
The debt was in the trillions about 5-6 years ago. It has been reduced and if you look at the overall numbers, yes we owe a lot to other countries, but they also owe us money too. It is some kind of wierd accountant game that you have to have a PHD in mathematics and acounting to even get an inkling of understanding (if even then) of what the books for America look like. "Oh what a tangled web we weave..."