It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are you for or against Social Security Reform?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 11:54 AM
link   
I've been hearing alot about the "social security crisis" lately. Now, I've heard all my life that it is going broke and there won't be anything left for us when we retire. (I'm 32, so its a way off). During the Gore/Bush alot was made of it, and I was a supporter of allowing me to invest my earings into what I wanted.

Now, some years later, I see the how the stock market can devistate you overnight, and I'm not so sure I want to mess with it. I like getting my earning statement that tells me, if I had to, I could collect $1600 a month in benefits. Its not much,but I'm only 32 and have only been paying into it for a little over 10 years.

I think I would rather leave it alone and let it grow. If I play my cards right with an IRA, I should be fine. While the prosepct of being wealthy when I retire is nice, I dont want to endanger what I have guaranteed.

If reform does actually happen, if its voluntary, I wont mind. If I have the choice to invest or not, or perhaps, invest only a portion, that would be good. I hope that I am not going to be forced into becoming a stock broker and gambling my golden years away.

It seems to me, that there are forces at work that are trying to scare us into thinking that reform is the only way to save it. I think, if we got 80 billion here, and 350 million there, then why cant they throw some the way of SS and help it out? It shouldnt be a big deal. Then again, I dont know much about this, so maybe thats not possible.

I'm interested to hear what you guys think about this situation, and what you plan on doing..




posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 12:03 PM
link   
"According to the trustees of the Social Security Administration, the most authoritative source available, the system should be able to pay full benefits until 2042, when the Trust Fund runs dry. The trustees, acting in a fiduciary capacity, are appropriately pessimistic in their intermediate projection. In their more optimistic scenario, the system remains solvent indefinitely.

Even ifthe Trust Fund runs out in 2042, the system will not go bankrupt, because it will still be able to pay benefits higher in inflation-adjusted terms than the benefits currently awarded retirees. They will be lower than scheduled because benefits are indexed to wages, and are scheduled to go up as the nation's productivity rises.

The Bush administration claims the relevant day of reckoning is not 2042 but 2018, when the system begins to pay out more in benefits than it takes in through payroll taxes. But at that point, the government bonds the Trust Fund holds will begin to play their intended role, providing debt-service payments from the Treasury to finance some benefits.

These funds have accumulated out of surplus payroll taxes that workers (chiefly Baby Boomers) have been paying since 1983, when Congress, acting on the recommendations of the Greenspan Commission, raised payroll taxes.

The oft-repeated notion that these bonds don't count because they are not "real" assets borders on specious. The bonds held by the Trust Fund are real assets from the perspective of the Social Security program, because they are real liabilities for the Treasury. Finance textbooks tell us that the interest rate on Treasury bonds is "risk-free" because there is no credible danger of default.

Whether these funds have actually contributed anything to national savings, or whether they have been "raided" to finance the Reagan-Bush deficits is a separate, and hotly debated, issue. But servicing that debt should not call into question the benefits promised by Social Security."

www.syracuse.com.../base/opinion-1/1105781740273260.xml?syroppoe



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 12:20 PM
link   
So, basicly more of the same. "We're Broke!!"----"We're FINE !!!" I am totaly lost. Why cant the government put more money into it, if thats what it needs? Wouldnt that $350 million come in handy, or perhaps, the $80 billion and counting in Iraq help out? I'm not saying use THAT money, but, if we got money for all that, why not none for SS? Don't our citizens come first?



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 12:40 PM
link   
gee, according to the article that I posted above, the money is there, in the form of treasury bonds.....which are susposedly no-risk things...what are they telling us they plan on defaulting on the bonds?
hey, just because they blew the money, why should the baby boomers who were FORCED to give them this money in good trust be the ones to pay?



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   
dawnstar--

i guess my point is one side says its broke, one side says its fine. you gotta admit, its a bit confusing. i read somewhere that the repbulicans have long wanted to dismantle SS. now that they have the majority, they think its time to move.

tell me this cant be true. noone can be that stupid, could they?



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 01:53 PM
link   
I agree that Social security needs to be fixed, or tweaked. IIRC there is going ot be a suplus until somehwere in the Middle of the next or following decade, then Social security is still going ot be paying out at about 80% until 2042.

I do not belive "investing" that money neesd to be done at all, but an adjustment of Taxes and rates with an increase in benifits to account for inflation.

Sadly Wall St. is salivating at Bush's plan to eventually remove Social Security as a feberally funded program.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 02:07 PM
link   
i cant see where the government would force us to gamble our future. i prefer to leave it as a nest egg. i know its there, i have a 401k that does allright, plus i plan opening an IRA soon. but if my 401 flops out tommorow (which weve all seen happen) i want some sort of guaranteed income. Ive paid for years and will keep doing so, but i dont want to gamble with it.

why dont they just add a 1% sales tax on everything. that would generate enough income to help it.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by spliff4020
So, basicly more of the same. "We're Broke!!"----"We're FINE !!!" I am totaly lost. Why cant the government put more money into it, if thats what it needs? Wouldnt that $350 million come in handy, or perhaps, the $80 billion and counting in Iraq help out? I'm not saying use THAT money, but, if we got money for all that, why not none for SS? Don't our citizens come first?


FYI -- THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE ANY OF ITS OWN MONEY!!!!

Anymoney the goverment has is money it has taken from the citizens in the form of taxes.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 03:29 PM
link   
The problem with Social Security is two fold:

1) When the program was first initiated it was intended to suppliment people's retirement savings, not be the sole source of your retirement funds. That is why you will see Social Security actually refered to as "SSI" in many places. It is actually called Supplimentary Security Income. Too many people today see Social Security as their only source of retirement income and don't bother to save themselves.

2) The entire program is flawed by design. Money being paid into the system today is going to pay retierement for people that are currently retiered. Any money you put in today is not going into some big savings account and waiting for you to withdraw from it. So if the population of the U.S. continues to always grow generation over generation then this works. Problem is the population has spiked with the baby boomers and now has decreased and is decreasing. That means to keep benefits being paid out you either increase taxes or decrease payouts.

Did any of you ever get the form from the government that shows what you have paid into the system and what you will get at retirement? I did. I did the math on it and I was getting like 1.5% rate of return on the money. I literally could have put that same amount into a totally crappy interest bearing checking account and done better for most of the years.

I say make people responsible for their own retirement again. Let me invest where I see fit and if I risk it all on lousy investments then let me live in the street.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 03:32 PM
link   
A couple of things here:

1) The government has plenty of money, which does not all come from taxes.

2) Social Security needs to be eliminated because I can't think of one person in the federal government that I would trust to loan 100 bucks to, let alone to take my money and save it FOR me.

3) Wall Street SHOULD be salivating for Bush's plan. It's OUR money that will be either saved for retirement (which would create tons of new IRA type accounts privately) or spent in the market place.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
A couple of things here:

1) The government has plenty of money, which does not all come from taxes.

What money would that be? Granted there is some from sale of things like land and rental fees but those are a tiny fraction of the federal budget.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 04:05 PM
link   
I guess tariffs might be considered taxes, but I mis-spoke. I meant that all are not income tax (which is what I thought you were saying).

My mistake.

I have actually been trying to find out where the government gets it's money, and in what percentages from those many sources for some time now.

It seems impossible.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Im just afraid the US might run into the same problems half of Europe is having with SS...Like it was said earlier...SS should just be a supplement....people should have savings, 401k, pension if possible...a bunch of things...not all of their eggs in 1 basket...and if the govt does privatize SS...wouldnt that just make the economy immensely stronger?....maybe Im wrong...but just on the surface...it seems so...



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Totally against.

Private social security is a joke. It is going to become the biggest fraud's in history.

The government needs to keep control over these things, because they have to uphold the responsibility. Privatize it and you get the Social Security firms skipping country and you are screwed.

Plus long drawn out court cases when they dont pay what they should, etc etc.

This is a bad idea. Bush is an idiot. He should just stick to going through the motions, and pretend like he has a clue about how to wage war.

Bush if your reading this, dissapear to the unnoficial white house you made for yourself with the armadillos for four more years, and hope that there isnt equal idiots running in 2008 that you and Kerry were.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ritual
Totally against.

Private social security is a joke. It is going to become the biggest fraud's in history.

The government needs to keep control over these things, because they have to uphold the responsibility. Privatize it and you get the Social Security firms skipping country and you are screwed.

Plus long drawn out court cases when they dont pay what they should, etc etc.

This is a bad idea. Bush is an idiot. He should just stick to going through the motions, and pretend like he has a clue about how to wage war.

Bush if your reading this, dissapear to the unnoficial white house you made for yourself with the armadillos for four more years, and hope that there isnt equal idiots running in 2008 that you and Kerry were.


I agree, you bet your last dollar, that it's NOT in your best intrest.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
I guess tariffs might be considered taxes, but I mis-spoke. I meant that all are not income tax (which is what I thought you were saying).

My mistake.

I have actually been trying to find out where the government gets it's money, and in what percentages from those many sources for some time now.

It seems impossible.


Remember, those tariffs drive up the price of goods that the consumer buys, in some cases it raises the price on common items over 50%


A penny saved is a penny earned.

To you all who would keep social security and all the other inefficient government social programs, remember that when you include the total fiscal impact that government has on your life, you are very close to giving half your pay to Uncle Sam. If we cut that in half, that would be like you getting a 25% raise to save for your own retirement. Wouldn’t that be nice?
?



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kahuna
I say make people responsible for their own retirement again. Let me invest where I see fit and if I risk it all on lousy investments then let me live in the street.

That's an interesting idea. But, you know some will be moaning they lost their $$. Some will be moaning some crook took their $$. Some will be moaning they couldn't save enough with their measly wages. And some lawyers will probably make $$ off these souls.


And asssuming somenew and better plan could be devised for the future? When does it go into effect? When would the cutoff age be?
What about all of the Americans in their 50s and older who will count on SSI, even if they have other income. Their extra income was meant to subsidize SSI, not replace it.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe

Originally posted by Kahuna
I say make people responsible for their own retirement again. Let me invest where I see fit and if I risk it all on lousy investments then let me live in the street.

That's an interesting idea. But, you know some will be moaning they lost their $$. Some will be moaning some crook took their $$. Some will be moaning they couldn't save enough with their measly wages. And some lawyers will probably make $$ off these souls.


And asssuming somenew and better plan could be devised for the future? When does it go into effect? When would the cutoff age be?
What about all of the Americans in their 50s and older who will count on SSI, even if they have other income. Their extra income was meant to subsidize SSI, not replace it.



Picture our nation is a car with no brakes traveling 100 mph toward a wall of impact high explosives.

The liberals are in the passenger seat saying there is no explosives, speed up. The Republicans are saying if we let off the gas and slow it down to 75 we will be OK. The Libertarians are in the back, getting ready to jump out; they realize there is no safe way out, your going to get hurt bailing out, but in the end you will probably survive.

Where do you want to be, speeding toward the explosives, slowing down a little, or getting hurt jumping out and healing your wounds after.

There is no longer a safe way out. We need to hit the pavement and then lick our wounds.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 10:49 PM
link   
I say they allow taxpayers the option of completely opting out of the Social Security System, and let them have what their investment in Social Security is worth at the time of withdrawal, and they could invest it in whatever way they chose. There'd be no penalty for "early withdrawal" from the Social Security system, unlike 401K plans and the like.

For those who would want to remain in the Social Security system, the government should revise the appropriated budget so that the system can continue, and offer options to people like investing a portion of their Social Security in stocks, mutual funds, etc.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 11:05 PM
link   
I think the previous poster is being a tad dramatic about the situation...

Lets be realistic here.

People say that government programs are inefficient, I say so what the internal combustion engine has a combustion efficiency of about 13% I dont recall hearing a hue and cry to abandon cars and return to more "efficient" biological forms of transportation (horse and buggy).

People say that Social Security is going to run down in the future if we dont keep "tuning it up", I say when was the last time anyone heard of anything that managed to function forever with out some form of maintenance?

I believe that social security is in need of a little preventative maintenance I however dont believe we need to take an ax to it.

I'm sorry but I dont want to go back to the good old days of the industrial revolution when taxes were low, government programs were nonexistant, big business thrived and people starved to death in the street!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join