Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
 

Post 27 Jan 2011, 9:56 am

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110127/ap_on_re_us/us_social_security

Considering that Social Security is "officially" going to run out of money in 2037, is it the time to pay out what people have paid in and cease the program? I would absolutely love the money that I paid in, and really invest it. Not only will I get a better return than the Feds, but it will reduce the Feds responsibility "having" to care for me.

To those who think the average person cannot handle the investments, or will foolishly waste it: Your belief in the ability of man is a sad view of what people can do. There are those who do not do the right thing financially. Punishing society by taxing and taking money to pay for a failing program to help a few people that should be cared for by family or charity in the first place is a recipe for disaster. That disaster is coming in 27 years.

What reason can be given showing the "equality" to all under this program. Other that being put in prison for non-payment, why should anyone pay the Social Security tax?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 27 Jan 2011, 1:42 pm

Not everyone who loses their job does so through their own failings. That's why.
 

Post 27 Jan 2011, 3:07 pm

Very true. Everyone who does not save the portion of their money that Social Security is taking is foolish on their own account.

If we stopped Social Security, and gave everyone who paid into the system the monies back, plus the monies that would be paid in the future would be at the disposal of the specific people. If these specific people lose their job, they still have the monies that have been paid in as a retirement that they can do with at their choice.

What is going to happen WHEN Social Security cannot sustain the red ink? Do I get my money back? How would the US Federal Government respond to an investment company that ran out of money? Do you think that would go as well as this Social Security Ponzi scheme?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 27 Jan 2011, 4:16 pm

The outlook has grown bleaker as the nation struggles to recover from its worst economic crisis since Social Security was enacted during the Great Depression. In the short term, Social Security is suffering from a weak economy that has payroll taxes lagging and applications for benefits rising. In the long term, Social Security will be strained by the growing number of baby boomers retiring and applying for benefits


Green, aren't you simply proposing that the US go back to the way things were before Social Security was enacted. Back then everyone took care of their own retirements...
How was that going for most people?
What was the original reason for Social Security?
And answer one question: Why, if Social Security was eliminated, would anything be different? Why wouldn't the same situation occur now that occurred before and prompted the country to adopt Social security.
What factors are so different that there would be a different out come? One factor, people are living longer lives...but other than that... people could invest their own money anyway they wanted. In fact a lot of people were active investors in the stock market until 1929...

You want to pay for social security and health care? Cut the military budget by 20%. You know, things like the new landing craft that the marines have no use for...
 

Post 28 Jan 2011, 12:04 pm

YES! I am proposing that. I am for cutting both the defense and social programs. I don't want fraud in ANY government program.

If you want to have a Social Security program, then keep taking the money from me, and leave it in an account, that is specific to me. When I reach retirement age, then give me my money back. It should be a trust account, that requires auditing, and statements sent out to participants (involuntary participants). That would mean not everyone would get the same amount, however. Certainly cannot have people responsible for their own earnings and savings, though.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 29 Jan 2011, 2:09 pm

Green Arrow wrote:YES! I am proposing that. I am for cutting both the defense and social programs. I don't want fraud in ANY government program.
The only way to guarantee that is to have zero government. I don't think you've become a libertarian now have you?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 29 Jan 2011, 2:13 pm

Green Arrow wrote:Very true. Everyone who does not save the portion of their money that Social Security is taking is foolish on their own account.
Perhaps. Assuming that they are able to. If they are not, but prefer to feed themselves and their kids, are they still being foolish?

If we stopped Social Security, and gave everyone who paid into the system the monies back, plus the monies that would be paid in the future would be at the disposal of the specific people. If these specific people lose their job, they still have the monies that have been paid in as a retirement that they can do with at their choice.
Yes. Just like things were before Social Security was started. Why did it come in in the first place, GA?

What is going to happen WHEN Social Security cannot sustain the red ink? Do I get my money back? How would the US Federal Government respond to an investment company that ran out of money? Do you think that would go as well as this Social Security Ponzi scheme?
You assume that it will. It doesn't have to. They could raise the retirement age, reduce the payments, increase contributions, or underwrite it. It seems that you are always about 30 years from it going bust. That's because of the way these systems work. But you can't predict that far ahead with any accuracy, because people who will be paying in have yet to be born.
 

Post 29 Jan 2011, 6:43 pm

danivon wrote:
Green Arrow wrote:YES! I am proposing that. I am for cutting both the defense and social programs. I don't want fraud in ANY government program.
The only way to guarantee that is to have zero government. I don't think you've become a libertarian now have you?


You are closer to the truth than you think.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 31 Jan 2011, 2:00 am

Been spending too long talking to Pigsy? That stuff'll rot yer brains!

Mind you I should have continued: "but the only way to have zero fraud in commerce is to have no commerce, and the only way to have no fraud in charities and churches is to have none of either. Fraud is a human problem, and the key thing about it is to put measures in place to discourage it and punish it, but not to expect you can completely eliminate it, any more than you can eliminate all burglary."
 

Post 31 Jan 2011, 9:59 am

Certainly you cannot just say that "Fraud is a human problem", and not have some frustration with it. Yes, it is a human problem. It is called sin. We all have it, and we all have to fight against it daily. Some of us fight harder than others.

As for the government taking money for the purpose of retirement, should they just keep everyone's money and give us what we NEED (not want), when we need it?

If the Feds are so altruistic, we should be thankful they are there. We could all just wait on our porches for our welfare and social security checks while watching Oprah, Judge Judy and Springer. After all, if these government programs are so good, shouldn't we ALL be on them? What happens then?

This is why I feel that we need to have our monies that are taken by the Feds in a specific account for the specific "contributor". That way, we would have the money when we choose to retire, and your retirement is based on what you earn.

http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 31 Jan 2011, 2:17 pm

Green Arrow wrote:Certainly you cannot just say that "Fraud is a human problem", and not have some frustration with it. Yes, it is a human problem. It is called sin. We all have it, and we all have to fight against it daily. Some of us fight harder than others.
If you read my first post on the other thread on welfare, you will see that I am indeed unhappy about it.

And as for fighting, some are more capable of fighting it than others. I still am unsure whether you really understand what 'addiction' means.

As for the government taking money for the purpose of retirement, should they just keep everyone's money and give us what we NEED (not want), when we need it?

If the Feds are so altruistic, we should be thankful they are there. We could all just wait on our porches for our welfare and social security checks while watching Oprah, Judge Judy and Springer. After all, if these government programs are so good, shouldn't we ALL be on them? What happens then?
I'm not aware of US welfare being massively generous, to be honest. What's the usual weekly pension payment for a couple on Social Security, for example?

This is why I feel that we need to have our monies that are taken by the Feds in a specific account for the specific "contributor". That way, we would have the money when we choose to retire, and your retirement is based on what you earn.
In the UK we have two kinds of state pension: Basic, and Second. Everyone who works contributes towards the Basic pension, and your entitlement is worked out according to how many years you put in (you can get credit for years for other reasons, such as if you are disabled or bear a child). Still, that amount is pooled. We currently have a minimum level that anyone over 65 will get through all benefits including basic pension, which is reduced if they have private income.

The Second pension, (which used to be called 'State Earnings Related Pension) is optional. You can choose to put money into a private pension - employer scheme or personal - and you may a bit less in National Insurance. Or you can put into the Second pension. Actually, the element of 'choice' is not so obvious, as a company pension will usually be your best bet and will either be opted in or opted out of the Second pension.

Essentially, the Basic State Pension is more socialised, but is (at the moment) worth more if you pay in 40 years' of contributions. The State Second Pension is personalised, and not compulsory, and many people don't use it. I didn't until last year, because my company pension was opted out, but they changed schemes and as part of the deal we opted in (so that we retain some spouse benefits that the new scheme won't provide).

Perhaps reforms in this direction would be welcome in the USA? You don't need to go all von Mises.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3239
Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am

Post 01 Feb 2011, 9:31 am

danivon wrote:I'm not aware of US welfare being massively generous, to be honest. What's the usual weekly pension payment for a couple on Social Security, for example?

I believe it varies by person. I just went to the SSA website and used their estimator to calculate my personal benefits. You enter in your name, SSN, DoB and mother's maiden name as well as, last year's salalry. Assuming I continue to make a comparable salary, if I start to collect at age 67, I will get $1,746 a month. However, if I wait unti age 70, I will get $2,218 a month.
danivon wrote:In the UK we have two kinds of state pension: Basic, and Second. Everyone who works contributes towards the Basic pension, and your entitlement is worked out according to how many years you put in (you can get credit for years for other reasons, such as if you are disabled or bear a child). Still, that amount is pooled. We currently have a minimum level that anyone over 65 will get through all benefits including basic pension, which is reduced if they have private income.
The Second pension, (which used to be called 'State Earnings Related Pension) is optional. You can choose to put money into a private pension - employer scheme or personal - and you may a bit less in National Insurance. Or you can put into the Second pension. Actually, the element of 'choice' is not so obvious, as a company pension will usually be your best bet and will either be opted in or opted out of the Second pension.

This sounds a little like the Bush/Republican privatization plan. Contrary to what opponents say it is not a take all your social security money and invest it. Most proposals I have seen have been to place a percentage of the payroll tax an individual pays (usually 2-4%) into a private account and allow the person to direct the investment of it. Some proposals allow unlimited investment choices while other proposals limit the investment into government back securities, i.e. bonds.

danivon wrote:Perhaps reforms in this direction would be welcome in the USA? You don't need to go all von Mises.

Since it is acutally the Democrats that oppose the plan, I don't think the problems is anybody "going all von Mises". :wink:
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 01 Feb 2011, 2:01 pm

Archduke - the State Second Pension is not held in an account that you can invest yourself. It's just individualised. It also doesn't result in a 'fund' with which to buy an annuity, but a weekly pension amount based on contributions.

Are those amounts adjusted for inflation (ie: the 2011 equivalents of your pension) or the actual amounts you can expect? How long to go before you get there?
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3239
Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am

Post 02 Feb 2011, 8:32 am

I am not sure but I believe those are the actual amounts and I am currently 42. However, I believe the numbers can increase if I make significantly more money and by the automatic COLA's. There is an automatic yearly increase based on the rate of inflation (assuming there is inflation).
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 02 Feb 2011, 4:27 pm

Hmm. So despite what GA says, you do get more if you put more in, and less if you put less in.

$1600 now is worth quite a lot. $1600 in 2035 is not worth that much. If inflation is level at only 2%, it would be worth less than $1000. 4% inflation would make it worth little more than $600

That's not really the lap of luxury.