Subject: Who Took My Money?

[togor]

This post is just plain wrong and borders on pure crap. Try using some other reference other than Brightfart or Fux News, The whole of the government operates with money that operates in a fungible manner with no differentiation as to source or outcome. It has been this way since before Social Security was conceived, regardless of various conspiracy theories about SS funding various social programs.

Occasionally some genius will play with some purported SS “account” to fix some sort of deficit financing plan, but, as I mentioned, all of the government comes out of the same kitty. There was an attempt in the early eighties to justify a massive increase in the SS tax by proposing an account to be use to fund Boomer benefits. This plan went by the wayside when OMB need to find a way to fund Reagan’s tax cuts and military spending. So, back to total fungible kitty as before.

As a sidebar, you will outdraw what you put into SS if you collect for as little as 2.5 to 3 years.

On the money but good luck getting Vernon to see reason on this point. He made enough in his job to set 15% aside, plus he had whatever family money there was, but not everyone has a high paying job or pot of family money. SS was made mandatory and not voluntary because it was realized that the people who will really need it are the ones least likely to save if given their druthers on the subject. And then there is the whole idea of privatization. Really? The Federal Government will amass taxes revenue that is then managed by some investment board? Who appoints the managers? The Federal government becomes a significant investor in some companies but not others? What happens if the investments go south? Taxpayers on the hook? What if the government needs funds for payouts and is selling into a tanked market? Can they borrow money from the treasury until their portfolio rebounds? The problems would be legion so the answer was: T-bills, T-bills, and more T-bills. It's easy to bitch and many do. Much harder to make suggestions that lead to genuine improvements.

[rayg]

"As a sidebar, you will outdraw what you put into SS if you collect for as little as 2.5 to 3 years."

Just curious and nothing more. What are those numbers based on? What beginning age is used in those figures when SS would be first taken out to the current SS retirement age for lets say at paying at the top deduction monthly payment for SS? . Example, starting at 18 yrs old to 67 yrs old? And how would that compare to what the Govn pays in SS benefit?Ray

I just edited my post to be a little clearer as to what I was asking, Ray

[Vern Humphrey]

"As a sidebar, you will outdraw what you put into SS if you collect for as little as 2.5 to 3 years."

Just curious and nothing more. But from what general age were SS is first being taken out to what retirement age are those numbers based on? Ray

The numbers are based on a fundamental economic misconception. They ignore the time value of money. As I pointed out, when you retire the first dollar you paid into Social Security would, if invested, be worth about $500. The people who ignore the time value of money count that dollar as simply one dollar, not five hundred.

People with economic blind spots also attack self-funded retirement systems with "what if the market collapses?" They fail to ask that same question about the current system -- what if the market collapses WITH THE PRESENT SYSTEM and half the people are out of work? How will the government pay the Social Security of retirees under THOSE circumstances?

In the system I outlined, the government serves to guarantee your Social Security. If you retire with less than anticipated, the government makes up the difference. This is better than the current system where the government makes up 100% of your Social Security.

[blackhawknj]

Then there are all the people who paid into SS for years and got little or nothing back. One friend, working steadily since he was 16, paid in all those years, collected for all of 6 months, what did his estate/survivors get...as his daughter told me, there's some drunk living off his money. All the people I know who died before retirement age ? As I once heard then-Senator Bill Bradley -D, NJ-tell a constituent at a public meeting.
"Social Security is not an IRA or a Keogh Plan or a fully funded pension plan, your SSAN does not identify a pool of money reserved exclusively for you, a savings account or an investment account. Social Security is an income transfer program and nothing more."

[togor]

My dad was one of those who did not collect a dime. Social Security was and remains a fairly popular and effective program for old age/disabled income. And yes it is truly socialized. Clearly it rubs some people the wrong way that this is the state of things in socialized America, but if need be a long drive can help them calm down. But on private roads only, not any of the socialized ones.

[blackhawknj]

Then there are all the young who object to being the cash cow and retirement fund for parents and grandparents whom they quite correctly perceive to be lazy, selfish, self centered, uncaring. The parents who didn't help their offspring pay for college, e.g.

[togor]

Then there are all the young who object to being the cash cow and retirement fund for parents and grandparents whom they quite correctly perceive to be lazy, selfish, self centered, uncaring. The parents who didn't help their offspring pay for college, e.g.

I haven't noticed that kind of talk. What I have noticed with parents of my contemporaries is that Medicare is really popular....with the kids. Something about not wanting the bank accounts to get cleaned out by mom or dad's medical bills.

[Vern Humphrey]

Then there are all the young who object to being the cash cow and retirement fund for parents and grandparents whom they quite correctly perceive to be lazy, selfish, self centered, uncaring. The parents who didn't help their offspring pay for college, e.g.

Well, UP UNTIL NOW, Social Security HAS been the cash cow, because it ran a surplus. Unfortunately, the government took the surplus, and left nothing but IOUs. And now Social Security has changed from a cash cow to a financial drain -- and under the rules, the young (those still working) must pay. Do they resent it? Hell, yes!! I resented it when I was paying in -- because I knew (and proved) that I could manage my retirement fund much better than the government.

Given the mess we're in now, the only way out that I see is to raise the FICA Tax until we're in surplus -- then return the surplus to those working, putting the money into their Personal Retirement Accounts, as I outlined above. It will take 30 to 40 years to straighten out the mess, but if we act now, kids in school today will have a much better retirement than we do.

[blackhawknj]

I note plenty of "elderly" don't like seeing their bank account cleaned out by medical bills.

[Allen]

Eliminate welfare, foreign aid and most pork barrel projects and put that money into SS. I believe we would have a surplus in no time.

Stop fighting islam and communism overseas, bring the troops home to fight islam and communism here. The money saved could also be placed in SS.

First and foremost though would be to reverse all the democrat decisions listed in Sid's original post otherwise no amount of money poured into it will bring it into positive territory.

[RED]

Those who say old folks collect way more SS than they paid in, forget the fact that when they contributed $1 to SS in 1955, that dollar would buy 4 lbs of hamburger, 5 gallons of gas, 3 boxes of .22 LR, and $12 would buy a mint condition 1903A3.

[dryheat]

Screw the old people.

[togor]

I note plenty of "elderly" don't like seeing their bank account cleaned out by medical bills.

Indeed, socialized medicine is another popular program among those who otherwise profess a hatred of socialism.

[blackhawknj]

Private insurance came about because people realized pooling their resources was a better way of coping with hazards and problems than trying to do it on their own.
However, private insurance involves carefully written policies that are legally binding on both parties-contracts- and private insurance is often carefully tailored to meet wants, needs and desires. And those who need more-bad drivers, e.g.-usually have to pay more.
If Social Security is an "insurance" program where's your policy? The government is the sole determinant of what you get, when you get it-if you get it.

[Vern Humphrey]

Private insurance came about because people realized pooling their resources was a better way of coping with hazards and problems than trying to do it on their own.
However, private insurance involves carefully written policies that are legally binding on both parties-contracts- and private insurance is often carefully tailored to meet wants, needs and desires. And those who need more-bad drivers, e.g.-usually have to pay more.
If Social Security is an "insurance" program where's your policy? The government is the sole determinant of what you get, when you get it-if you get it.

If Social Security is "an inter-generational contract" show me where I signed!

Despite that, legally Social Security IS old age insurance. You pay it through the FICA Tax -- and that stands for "Federal Insurance Contribution Act."