Romney: Wants Means Testing for Social Security

Regardless of how much assets you have or how much other income you have once you officially retire, every penny you put into the system you should have available to draw. The interest that would and should be on that pot of your money, belongs to the FedGov to pay for those who do not have other income once retired. This includes you later into retirement if your income drys up. That is your debt to society. It should be a minimum standards safety net, not a primary means of support.

Just my opinion.

Originally posted by Grimpachi

Two founders left from different political parties that have founded a nonpartisan organization that did the study.

It sounds pretty solid.

I agree, the problem is you called them right wing, and now you are calling them solid, which is it?

And to link ONE groups means testing and saying this is what Romney will do is less than disingenuous, it's outright dishonest.

I think means testing is a great idea, so far Romney has not shown his implementation will be a bad one. So for now we can chalk this up to a Win for Romney with later reassessment needed.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


The group that is solid is the non partial group not the republicans.

Means testing for the elderly does not sound like a win.

Does paying into a program all your life so someone can tell you sorry you make to much you can’t be paid back sound good to you.

It is class warfare. Anyway good morning occam

Originally posted by pajoly

With all due respect, SS is not an investment and never has been. Were it so, we'd get back what we put in, plus earned interest less costs for administering the program -- no more, no less. Were it so, the money put in would actually be invested in something. It is not. In fact, it is not even put into escrow but rather is treated as part of the general federal funds. The government issues IOUs to the "fund," meaning it has to invent money to pay back the SS deductions government steals and uses for general funds. This attack on what was the fund began decades ago and cannot be put at the feet of Obama or Bush or any of their immediate predecessors.

What it IS is part of the social contract whereby we collectively made a moral decision that people who have worked there whole lives should not be left to rot once their income earning years are over. It was meant to supplement pensions and only provide a base level of support to keep people from eating dog food and living in the streets when they get old. Unfortunately, businesses decided that since SS was put in place, they no longer need to offer pensions and now unless one is a public sector worker, there are virtually no more pensions. This means SS has morphed into the sole method of financial life support for the vast majority of retirees.

Historically, people received many times more than they put in. This year, in fact though, is the FIRST year that people are expected get back LESS than the total they put in to the system.

The electorate needs to demand -- as Al Gore unsuccessfully pushed -- that SS receipts go into a "lock box" that CANNOT be used by government except to pay out to beneficiaries, thus removing the accounting gimick that has been used for decades.

edit on 24-9-2012 by pajoly because: (no reason given)

Social security is invested in US treasury bonds and always has been. Social Security Investment Portfolio

The only thing that has changed with social security is that it was incorporated into the governments budget rather than continue being an off balance sheet entity. The way it has been run has not changed since it's inception.

The problem with all our programs is that people simply make too litlle money as a whole. If wages had kept with inflation for the last 50 years then SS would be fully funded. It really is that simple. Just one more additional costs of letting the elite have all they want. That's why they need to pay more taxes.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

The group that is solid is the non partial group not the republicans.

Means testing for the elderly does not sound like a win.

Does paying into a program all your life so someone can tell you sorry you make to much you can’t be paid back sound good to you.

It is class warfare. Anyway good morning occam

edit on 25-9-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

I agree, it's warfare on the rich. If anything it is simply unfair to the rich. If you are 70 and making $2mil a year, do you really need SS? I don't think so. The fact is SS has never been a program where you get back what you put in, currently the elderly are getting back LESS than they put in. It's a safety net, not an investment. The fact is everyone right now would be better off taking the money and putting it in a low yield savings account. In fact, they'd be better off in a 0 yield account as of right now.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


0 yield lol I don’t know if I would go that far. You see I am not completely against means testing nor am I sold on it either. I do believe it is class warfare I also know something needs to be done about the system but keep in mind they have been saying that for about two decades that I can remember.

If SS hadn’t of been raided for pork barrel projects by both sides for so long who knows what it would look like those figures haven’t been released. Probably for good reason the country hang them.
We need to look at history and what is going on in other parts of the world and take lessons from what has worked and is working we also need to look at what has failed.

In the past 30 years the gap between the middle class and the rich has widened in this country more than any other country in the free world. It used to be a CEO made 20 even 50 times more than the median worker and as a whole the entire country thrived now that gap has widened to 100or more. Something has gone horribly wrong.

In a report issued, Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, estimated that CEOs at 350 large companies made 231 times more than average workers in their industries in 2011. The AFL-CIO - using different methodology that compared CEO pay at S&P 500 companies with the average pay of all workers in the country - set the gap at 380 times.

In the 1980s, CEOs were, on average, making only 50 times more than workers. While CEOs' pay soared since then, the return to shareholders has plummeted since the '80s, noting that from 1980 to 1985, the average annual return to shareholders posted by Standard & Poor's 500 companies was 9%, a figure that dropped to negative 0.4% in the past five years.

Those numers are from 2010 I cant link the report because it is one I have stored it is from the Wisconson sentianal. It is just hard for me to say the best course of action would be to start limiting social security for the nation but it makes absolutely no sense why the people that make 380 times more than the average worker would ever need social security. It makes me wonder can those people opt out of drawing it and would they. If they wouldn’t voluntarily that would be one greedy sob wouldn’t you think.

What makes me nervous about means testing for SS is the direction that always seems to come about when belts are tightened. I am sure if it was implemented tomorrow that the levels that would be set would be more than adequate and rational. No one would have a problem with it but in 10 to 15 years when the government is looking to make cuts where do you think they look. Once those cuts are made I guarantee the cycle will repeat. It is in our history.

Anyway it is some food for thought. To be honest with you I don’t think the answer to fixing the country lays in cutting social safety nets I think the answer lye in returning to rational pay scales maybe not 1930s but certainly the 80s weren’t bad.

One thing I always have a chuckle about. Have you noticed that the military and many in Washington have complained about spending cuts? The funny thing is nothing ever really gets cut from the military. We just didn’t give them as big of a raise as they wanted but they still got a raise.

I think during Clinton they may have cut spending once because they offered me a 30k bonus to get out instead of re-enlist. Hey I took it and a year later they gave me a 20k resign bonus because they downsized too much. You have no idea how much the military wastes. If they do not send their phis Cal budget each year and that goes for each unit then those budgets get cut. We used to fire 40k missiles once a year for supposed target practice. We were just trying to burn through our budget.

I think I will get some sleep my eye are all fogged

later Occam

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

0 yield lol I don’t know if I would go that far. You see I am not completely against means testing nor am I sold on it either. I do believe it is class warfare I also know something needs to be done about the system but keep in mind they have been saying that for about two decades that I can remember.

I agree, and they have done nothing, which is why today, this year, people starting on SS will get LESS than they put in. That is proof something is very wrong. When my money is better off in a 0% interest checking account why would I want to "invest" in SS?

If SS hadn’t of been raided for pork barrel projects by both sides for so long who knows what it would look like those figures haven’t been released. Probably for good reason the country hang them.
We need to look at history and what is going on in other parts of the world and take lessons from what has worked and is working we also need to look at what has failed.

Yes, both sides share a lot of blame. A look at some statistics will show that regardless we would have issues. When SS was implemented we had 16 people paying into the system for every 1 person drawing money. Now we have something like 3 people paying for every 1 drawing. Soon it will be 2 people paying for every 1 drawing. The percent paid into SS I think has quadrupled (400%). In order to keep paying we need to increase the percent paid in signifigantly once again, by an additional 50%. Even then people will STILL get less back than they paid in.

In the past 30 years the gap between the middle class and the rich has widened in this country more than any other country in the free world. It used to be a CEO made 20 even 50 times more than the median worker and as a whole the entire country thrived now that gap has widened to 100or more. Something has gone horribly wrong.

In a report issued, Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, estimated that CEOs at 350 large companies made 231 times more than average workers in their industries in 2011. The AFL-CIO - using different methodology that compared CEO pay at S&P 500 companies with the average pay of all workers in the country - set the gap at 380 times.

In the 1980s, CEOs were, on average, making only 50 times more than workers. While CEOs' pay soared since then, the return to shareholders has plummeted since the '80s, noting that from 1980 to 1985, the average annual return to shareholders posted by Standard & Poor's 500 companies was 9%, a figure that dropped to negative 0.4% in the past five years.

You know, I dont really care about the gap so much as how has the quality of life changed for the average person. I am quite honestly completely fine with a HUGE gap (technically if the tax code was enforced properly it would mean a higher percent of the nations money gets paid in taxes) so long as the quality of life went up. Currently I fear for the life of my children should I ever have any. Something needs to be done NOW. Record debt is not the answer.