Seniors SS Pay Shrinks

[Denny Crane]

I got no problem with anything you wrote.

I just wonder how it'll all work if we screw up by living to 100 instead of 84. It's underfunded as it is now with the current longevity calculations. It's going to be totally fucked if people live an extra ten or twenty years more than planned.

Here's why I always thought privatization of some % of it always made sense.

First of all, you should be able to leave the leftovers to your family or charity or donate it to the govt. when you die. You literally pay into the system, you have a right to something out.

Second, there are "unsophisticated" people out there who only have SS to retire on. Poor choices, bad investments, no will to save, etc. For the amount people pay in, they should be able to retire reasonably. $1400 / mo is poor people. It violates the whole point of SS. Let them retire in dignity, or work until they're as old as George Burns and want to work.

Third, there's only one non-fascist option for investing the surpluses under the current scheme, and that's in T-Bills. T-Bills are the safest investment in the world, so they say (not sure it's going to be true for much longer). The govt. as trustees of the trust fund have a fiduciary obligation to protect peoples' savings.

To allow govt. to invest in companies is a horrible idea. I hate that we own Chrysler and GM and AIG, it is fascist. If govt. were to invest SS surpluses in the stock market, they'd be buying outright and quickly all of our largest companies. Allowing govt. to dictate who is CEO based upon political winds is not good business, and you know that is exactly what it already is and always will be (govt. owned companies).

Fourth, this would properly fund the program so it's no longer a ponzi scheme. You are in control of your own retirement funds, and those funds are real, and you contributed them. It becomes irrelevant if you live to 62 or 162.

Fifth, it really is cheaper to bailout the few who fail at managing their own retirement than it is to tax young kids 80% to pay baby boomers money they're rightly owed. And it is going to come to that kind of tax rate just for SS, nevermind debt interest being piled up.

/soapbox

 

[yakbladder]

Denny, I honestly think you're losing it. I'm not really sure where to begin...

First of all, you should be able to leave the leftovers to your family or charity or donate it to the govt. when you die. You literally pay into the system, you have a right to something out.

No, you don't. That's right, you heard me, you don't. All of you full bore capitalists (who wouldn't even be alive on this Earth if we had a true capitalist system) are withering in pain right now like you've just been exposed to the seventh layer of Hell. You all think you should be able to spend your money how you want it because you earned it g-damnt and so no one else should get it no matter how poor or underprivileged they are. The system was made to help prevent the elderly from experiencing poverty. Get it? You pay into welfare, you don't get a cut of that either. You pay into our national defense, the government doesn't ship you a free bazooka on your birthday. And I can guarantee the govt. spends more on defense than is necessary for defense of the nation from attacks. Stop being such greedy ducks and let the one class of people who need it - poor elderly - have it. And for the rest of the money put it towards the future SS that isn't even fully funded. Or reduce the deficit you wail about so much. (Never mind that the deficit never seemed to bother your hero Dick Cheney)

Second, there are "unsophisticated" people out there who only have SS to retire on. Poor choices, bad investments, no will to save, etc. For the amount people pay in, they should be able to retire reasonably. $1400 / mo is poor people. It violates the whole point of SS. Let them retire in dignity, or work until they're as old as George Burns and want to work.

"Unsophisticated"? So the only options are poor choices, bad investments, or no will to save? How about if there was some catastrophe that sucked out their money? How about a medical issue - oh, no wait, that never happens in America, right? How about people who just weren't able to save enough because they had to make payments towards things like food and health care. Whoops! There I go again - there aren't such people because we have a perfect health care system!

Third, there's only one non-fascist option for investing the surpluses under the current scheme, and that's in T-Bills. T-Bills are the safest investment in the world, so they say (not sure it's going to be true for much longer). The govt. as trustees of the trust fund have a fiduciary obligation to protect peoples' savings.

To allow govt. to invest in companies is a horrible idea. I hate that we own Chrysler and GM and AIG, it is fascist. If govt. were to invest SS surpluses in the stock market, they'd be buying outright and quickly all of our largest companies. Allowing govt. to dictate who is CEO based upon political winds is not good business, and you know that is exactly what it already is and always will be (govt. owned companies).

Did you just listen to Rush one day and go "Gee, I'm going to start using fascist in everything I say about the administration." Apparently now you are the fascist dictator of the board telling every one there is only ONE option? How ironic..

Fifth, it really is cheaper to bailout the few who fail at managing their own retirement than it is to tax young kids 80% to pay baby boomers money they're rightly owed.

Uhh..yes, it is cheaper.

How about we enact some sort of SS reform that actually has a means test? And then the rest of you who don't need SS can thank your lucky stars or deity or Rin Tin Tin poster that you were able to live in a nation that allowed you to make enough money where you didn't need to take SS.

</soapbox>

 

[Denny Crane]

"unsophisticated" means not skilled at investing, nothing more.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sophisticatedinvestor.asp

What Does Sophisticated Investor Mean?
A type of investor who is deemed to have sufficient investing experience and knowledge to weigh the risks and merits of an investment opportunity.

Social Security is NOT a welfare program, and never was. Our money is entrusted to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund. You can study up on it here, as a start: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html

I don't like nor do I listen to Rush Limbaugh.

I don't mind paying a reasonable rate of taxes for a reasonable amount of government. This includes the military and it includes welfare type programs. The government is there for the benefit of all the people, not just people who think like I do, or those who think like you do.

Means test away. HALF the people have to be means tested away for taxes just to pay for it to only reach 40% by 2060. You know that Bill Gates will get $1400/month from what's due him, right? I fail to see your logic in means testing to save paying a few % of the people what's due them; it's simply too small a drop in the bucket.

And read this:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/29/news/economy/fixing_social_security.fortune/index.htm

 

[yakbladder]

Social Security is NOT a welfare program, and never was. Our money is entrusted to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund. You can study up on it here, as a start: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html

How do you define a welfare program?

 

[barfo]

HALF the people have to be means tested away for taxes just to pay for it to only reach 40% by 2060.

Having a lot of trouble parsing that.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

How do you define a welfare program?

A welfare program is not an entitlement. It is not a compact between govt. and the people. It is simply a hand out from the general treasury to help less fortunate people.

I don't oppose welfare programs, but I do oppose having 150 or more different ones with the oddity of their rules and the bureaucracies that go along with them. Just write the people who need the money a check. You could just look at their last year's tax return and write them a check for the difference between what they made and 150% of the poverty level (or whatever arbitrary amount) and nobody would be poor. It would cost a lot less than all those programs, too.

Social Security is a contract between the people and government. They ding our paychecks and put the money in a Trust Fund. The money is watched over by trustees who are authorized to pay benefits to everyone who paid in and who qualifies (reach minimum age, disability, etc.). In return for contributing for 45 years, everyone is entitled to their fair share of the trust fund.

Similarly, the GI Bill is a contract. If you serve, the government pays you $X for college. No means testing or anything.

 

[Denny Crane]

Having a lot of trouble parsing that.

barfo

Do the math. To pay for SS, our kids will be taxed at 80%. If you cut half the benefits, our kids will only need to be taxed 40%.

You can cut benefits across the board in half. You can remove half the people who receive benefits. Some combination works, too. Not the promise of social security, though.