02-03-2005, 12:55 PM | #51 | ||
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: USA
|
This is a con. I'm not sure why so many people are wanting to do this, but it doesn't sound like anyone other than Uncle Sam is really going to make any money off of it.
|
||
02-03-2005, 01:04 PM | #52 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
Tekneek: Amen. This is really about trying to find a way to avoid paying back the treasury bills that the SS trust fund has accumulated. So in effect I, and millions of other middle-class Americans, have been paying too much in payroll taxes for the past twenty years so that I could subsidize the general budget. Now when it comes time to pay me back they want to change the system.
|
02-03-2005, 01:04 PM | #53 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Here's my "solution" to Social Security:
1. Continue benefits for anyone who lived through the Great Depression. Let's be gracious and say that's anyone born in 1940 or earlier. Fund these benefits through the current tax setup, but lower this percentage as necessary until it ends up at 0% when the last person dies. 2. Instead of limiting 401ks to $13,000/year (or so), drive it to 30%. I.e. you can now put up to 30% of your annual income in a 401k (same goes for 403bs, which are the non-profit versions of 401ks). 3. Instead of limiting IRAs to $3000/year (or so), drive it to 30%, in conjunction with 401ks (this is to address people who work for small businesses, when many small businesses can't afford to offer 401ks). So, bottom-line, you can put any combination of up to 30% of your annual income in a 401k/403b and an IRA. 4. Spend time fixing Medicare/Medicaid. |
02-03-2005, 02:48 PM | #54 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Fresno, CA
|
Quote:
It is the "spin" applied to "pieces" of the proposal that produced those "facts". A lot of those are just pure fabrication, as the details of the proposed plan aren't there yet. The President says the accounts will be able to be passed on by inheritance. He is not going to opt for a plan where they are not. That would be pretty much moronic, and could be the death blow to his plans. This is part of his "ownership society" plan...I don't think government ownership of such accounts would fly. So I don't buy your bloggers take on it. The three percent that keeps being thrown around. As I understand that part of the plan. You're actual social security benefit will be reduced by the amount earned by you're private account up to that 3% cap. You are still getting the full amount of your private account. It is just that the Social Security benefit you receive will be lower than if you didn't have the personal account. Overall you are still better off than with just Social Security alone, well assuming that the RoI of your total investment in the Private account exceeded the 3% cap. If it doesn't, then you are simply stuck with the same amount you would normally have received in Social Security. The blogger makes it seem like that money is simply stolen by the government. As for your assertion that the whole thing is just a scheme to skip paying out benefits to all of us currently paying in. That is just ludicrous. No one anywhere is talking about cutting off the benefits of anyone involved in the system now. If you are paying into Social Sec now, you will get your appropriate share of benefits paid back to you. I've read the blogger's site that advocates that opinion, and he is a lot more partisan than intelligent. |
|
02-03-2005, 03:02 PM | #55 | |
High School JV
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Massachusetts
|
Quote:
Unfortunately, I don't think this is at all how the President's plan will work, at least not as it's understood by economists and congresspeople on both sides of the aisle. A big reason for the President's push for privatizing social security is that the current administration wants to be able to use the trust fund to pay down the defecit without having to worry about being the ones who brought back elderly poverty. That's why each and every deficit number from the current administration is calculated as if the trust fund counts against the deficit. With privatization, they can raid the trust fund and then blame the wave of elderly poverty on the market. There are a billion and one bad things about the plan as it's been outlined in any number of documents (including the leaked proposal from the Republican Congressional retreat). Since there are also a billion and one things more important and critical to the country than fixing an unbroken social security program, hopefully this will die a swift death and the government can move onto more pressing issues. |
|
02-03-2005, 03:18 PM | #56 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Fresno, CA
|
Quote:
Yes elderly poverty, that is what this is all about. The evil Republicans are at it again. They want to steal all the money from the soon to be elderly and repay the Government's debt. That makes sense. I don't want to go over my quota for rolleyes for this thread, but I think I got my point across. As for the "meat" of the above assertion. The revenue generated by Social Security is used to pay Social Security's obligations to retirees. Anything left over has pretty much always been used to reduce deficit spending. T-bills are issued to Social Security Trust and later redeemed. So what you describe is business as usual for the Government, and not some "scheme" dreamed up by this administration. |
|
02-03-2005, 05:16 PM | #57 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
Glen: First, the story in the Washington Post that mentioned annuities and which my info was based on has been changed to remove annuities. I'll be generous and say that the Post story was wrong and Bush never intended to base the new system on annuities.
As to the 3%, what really needs investigating is whether or not you are guaranteed a minimum return. What if my account only makes 2%? Will SS cover the difference or will I be SOL? So far nothing has been said on that. I also think that having the first 3% go to the government is going to severely reduce suport for the program, but maybe I'm wrong. I completely disagree that this isn't about the trust fund bonds. The 2018-2020 date that keeps getting thrown around is the date when the trust fund bonds will need to start being repaid. Several supporters of privatization have used that date as when SS goes broke. It will only go broke if the plan is to default on billions in T-bonds. Also, the White House is now being very clear that the privatization plan will do nothing to alleviate the solvency problem over the next 75 years. The breifer yesterday admitted to benefit cuts being necessary to bring SS into solvency. While I can't say with certainty that benefits will be eliminated, I do know that big supporters of privatization, CATO and Stephon Moore, would love to eliminate the program all together. But the best piece of eveidence is still the info on Lindsay Graham's plan. That shows that the current legislation will result in less money after privatization than before. |
02-03-2005, 09:52 PM | #58 | |||
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Fresno, CA
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Actually from where I sit, the White House isn't being very clear at all about that. I think they have been pretty much ignoring that aspect of the issue. It seems to me that any crisis is likely very far off in the distance, but that is no reason not to improve the program now. Last edited by Glengoyne : 02-03-2005 at 10:08 PM. |
|||
02-04-2005, 05:25 AM | #59 | |
H.S. Freshman Team
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
Good solution. I'd add one thing: 3.5: Stop raiding my paycheck for SS and let me invest the money myself. Also, I think the pres's proposal is no change for anyone born before 1950. |
|
02-04-2005, 12:14 PM | #60 | |
College Prospect
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
|
Did you guys know - even if you make a assload of cash from investing your "SS money" under Bush's plan, you only get to keep set amount and anything over that you lose to the government. great plan.
Quote:
|
|
02-04-2005, 12:54 PM | #61 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Fresno, CA
|
Quote:
The above charge is a disengenuous argument against reform of the system. Last edited by Glengoyne : 02-04-2005 at 12:55 PM. |
|
02-04-2005, 02:13 PM | #62 |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
The 5k is gravy is exactly right. It's a potential benefit over the top. It's money that instead of rotting in a government coffer, was earned by growth in private business economy.
If the 3% is not met by the private sector stocks and bonds, chances are good, the goverment isn't going to have the money to meet the balance under the current SS plan anyway. It's voluntary anyway. That way Republicans can use it and Democrats don't have to. And when the economy booms, the Democrats can bitch about the rich getting richer and when the economy collapses, the Democrats can yell in glee and push for communism, or whatever their platform is these days. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|