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.

 

Social Security is not "Insurance"

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Reply to post by St Udio
 


Right. And because there's a chance that trying something different might not work out as well as one would like we should give up and allow the gov to continue running this pozi scheme and throwing away billions.

Hell, there's a chance I won't get to nail a swimsuit model today so I may as well just lay here on my face and wait to die. Wouldnt want to waste effort trying something different.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 




posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by St Udio
 


Pick any decently managed fund and look at a growth chart 1980 to present. None of them are averaging less than 5% annual return. Just buying into the DOW would do better than 5%.
DOW 100 year chart

As for the companies getting greedy, it is likely, but the same thing happened with this stimulus package, the same thing happened with the bank bailout money, the same thing happens with tax breaks and rebates. That is a separate issue. "Ideally" lowering the cost of payroll frees up funds for more employees. Minimum wage is a prime example. Raising minimum wage often results in job losses, because those at the bottom of the totem pole are expendable.

The only true "stimulus" in my opinion would be an easing of debt for the individuals in the nation, and then stricter regulations on obtaining new consumer credit. Check out my other thread, "Suggestions for $2T stimulus for all the possibilities that the government overlooked! Instead they decided to fund bad business plans (GM and Cash for Clunkers) and they decided to give money to banks, and then pay the banks interest on reserves! How stupid is that!?!? Here banks, take this free money, so that you can free up your lending, but let us also pay you interest if you decide to not lend the money! How did they expect that plan to stimulate anything?



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


so, the "Do Something Even If Its Wrong" tactic is what should be done...

sounds like the Øbamacare thing pushed thru the legislature,
They did something & now they are regretting what they wrought

OK lets hear the standard... 'Appoint a Blue Ribbon Panel...' to probe the
possible alternatives to the SS system.

I do agree that SS reform is needed, but i'm also saying that SS contributions by business
will only be gobbled up and be of little benefit to the workers or the federal treasury



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Reply to post by St Udio
 


Knowing something is wrong is different from "IF" and assuming corruption.

If we all acted upon "IF" and assumptions of corruption we wouldnt have a government at all to take our property from us. Not that we need to speculate and assume rampant gov corruption. It's documented everyday.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


we're not adressing business management, or business ethics... we are talking about the costs
of social security to individuals and employers... its return... its 'correctness' as being a means
that few lower incomed or even middle class payroll workers concern themselves with...

they are too focused on day-to-day living, month-to-month rent and utility expenses...
and retirement in modest luxury is a distant theme they can only address IF they ever hit the Lottery




thanks guys......
edit on 28-12-2010 by St Udio because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by St Udio
 



Next... its a rose colored glasses worldview to think that companies/corporations that
were suddenlt relieved of paying each employees 7.5% social security contribution...
that the mamagement & board would redirect those funds for hiring people->

they would most likely award themselves bonuses, then increase the wage disparity
even more than the CEO raking in 450 times more than a blue collar line worker.


You brought up the business management and business ethics. I stated that relieving 7.5% of payroll costs could work to stimulate hiring and lower unemployment, you were the one that spun it around and began discussing business management and business ethics.

The OP is addressing the issue of fixing Social Security and the political backlash for the incoming electees if they try to do anything new. I think your posts serve as prime examples of why politicians cannot get anything done. No solution will be perfect, and no solution will be without growing pains. On the other hand, the status quo is sinking quickly and is unsustainable. So, do we go down with the ship? Do we bail water until we die of exhaustion? Or, do we try some new techniques that might improve the situation, albeit with sacrifices and growing pains?

I vote for solutions! If we fail, we fail, we were sinking anyway! If we succeed, then kudos for us! The one thing that I cannot endorse as a citizen, as a leader, or as a human being is to do nothing for fear of temporary discomfort or political backlash. That scenario is unacceptable. If Social Security were a living entity, would you let it die, rather than take drastic life-saving measures knowing they might cause you some headaches?



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 





Wouldn't it be interesting to see, the " op-ed out " filing for social security. If your in a job that offers a retirement program, why would you need the SS to begin with?


For two reasons. Every single company I worked for is long gone. Second you have to work for a company at least ten if not twenty years before you are Vested. The company will make sure you are laid off long before you ever get to that point. The only ones who have any hope of seeing a pension are teachers government workers and maybe upper management.

That is why SS is critical. Most people put in 30% of their salary for 40 to 50 years. Do you really think the baby boomers CARE what type of twist the government puts on their words?

This is the original Act and this is what they expect. Politicians are the ones who could not keep their hands out of the till and now they will pay for their theft:

The Social Security Act of 1935. This statute provided for a federal program of old-age retirement benefits... Only employees in industrial and commercial occupations were eligible for protection under the Social Security Act of 1935.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


With new IRAs and 401K plans the "pension" is a dinosaur. As you say, it is mostly for government workers (like me), and some unions (railroad, teachers, etc.).

There is great portability in retirement plans these days, and it would be very easy to begin transitioning away from Social Security.

The hiccup comes when you begin to lose that income stream, but people are still retiring and expecting benefits. It would have to be about a 30 year transition plan with benefits tapering off gradually.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


The government will not pay for any theft without US feeling it.

If a companies prices/taxes/premiums go up the consumer feels it.
Not the company.
The company just raises the price of the goods
They just pass it on to the consumer.

Do you suppose we keep going on the way we are and everyone get punished by the US economy collapsing?

We will be the ones paying for it in the event of further destruction to the system..

The big wigs will be fine.

We have to fix things now before it becomes unable to be fixed...
edit on 28-12-2010 by thecinic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 





The hiccup comes when you begin to lose that income stream, but people are still retiring and expecting benefits. It would have to be about a 30 year transition plan with benefits tapering off gradually.


I agree.

There are a couple other problems.

Baby boomers are now retiring. Unfortunately the Banksters decided to "Shear the Sheep" and the wealth they sheared off the sheep was the equity in the homes of baby boomers and also the wealth in their savings funds. Therefore SS has become even more critical because that nice comfortable retirement the baby boomer though they had has suddenly become a rapid decent into poverty.

Corporations do not hire those over 45 years of age for anything but part time or minimum wage jobs. That 22% (real) unemployment rate means many who had not planned on retiring yet are finding they have to retire. This is going to put additional burdens onto SS

When the USDA and FDA start going after and closing down the 2.1 million independent farmers, most over the age of 55, your going to see even more problems.

There is of course a final problem. In 2008 the money supply was $831 billion by the end of 2009 it was $2026 billion. Sooner or later this means prices are going to skyrocket. If the SS is not increased the actual "value" will be half or less depending on how much more money the banks "print" and flood the market place with.

In other words the Federal government does not have to do a thing it expect have the Fed print money until the dollar looks like THIS



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded


Courage begins with a commitment to see things as they are, rather than how we wish they were. When it comes to Social Security, we must understand that the system does not represent an old age pension, an “insurance” program, or even a forced savings program. It simply represents an enormous transfer payment, with younger workers paying taxes to fund benefits. There is no Social Security trust fund, and you don’t have an “account.” Whether you win or lose the Social Security lottery is a function of when you happened to be born and how long you live to collect benefits. Of course young people today have every reason to believe they will never collect those benefits.



First ... SS is an agreement between generations... The SS statement says as much.

Second, unless you have some sort of hybrid insurance/security... Then what you have described is exactly insurance...

No account... May not be there when you need it, especially when there are large aggregates of risk/claims vs money in the pool.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
If you hold a gun to my head and demand that I contribute to something I disagree with, is that freedom or tyranny?

As my knees knock and I contribute to the black hole known as social security, I am acting as a good serf/slave or I could decide not to contribute and then end up as a member of the prison system. Wow, now THAT is freedom as our FF intended, no?

I'm sure all of the men who gave their lives to free the colonies would love this system of taxation with BS representation shrouded in a "democratic" fleece to keep the ill informed placated while said ill informed are sheared on a regular basis.

Many of our FF died on their feet and apparently did so that we could now live on our knees. Imagine telling a man who lost everything he had and gave everything he had to free this nation that now it's time to just live on our knees and appreciate the scraps we get from the District of Criminals. Oh yeah, those men would certainly be proud of their sacrifices.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 



There is of course a final problem. In 2008 the money supply was $831 billion by the end of 2009 it was $2026 billion. Sooner or later this means prices are going to skyrocket. If the SS is not increased the actual "value" will be half or less depending on how much more money the banks "print" and flood the market place with.


That is another major problem with pensions and social security. That is another great reason to privatize the investments. Private investments are more fluid and they can adjust with inflation, pensions don't do that.

I'm sure we could spend a whole other thread ranting about the quantitative easing and blank check the Fed seems to have, but for this thread, I believe you have just shown another very important reason that we must transition from the ponzi scheme to a real investment account for future retirees!



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Great thread and good debate, with so much gusto placed into other aspects of security when this is applied to the security that really matters it is looking good.

Here in Australia we have a superannuation scheme. It is well regulated with many different companies available to select who manages your retirement funds. Employers pay 7-15% of your income, individuals can also contribute. The savings are diversified and managed by the superannuation company. A loss to overall savings happened during the GFC and other stock market crashes. With a drop about 1 in 7 years on average the money is relativity safe and continues to grow in the long term. It does take some pressure of the government when people enter retirement and allows for those that worked hard a few little luxuries.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join