OnClose, I understand that you don't like the idea of being forced to contribute. I am fundamentally opposed to being forced to do anything! I understand where you are coming from. But I have greatly moderated my views over the years when it comes to Social Security, because the system, for its maximum efficiency and effectiveness, depends on very wide participation, the wider the better. I've come to accept that. And I've also learned that it is not a bad deal for any of us, regardless of our means. I don't need social security, but nevertheless it benefits me in many ways. Keep an open mind and study the system, I think you will conclude as I have.
Maybe I am late on this, but Rick Perry called SS a Ponzi scheme on the Wednesday night debate... this seemed to get a lot of people upset. Thoughts? He seems like he might be good at getting people upset...
This is most certainly true for anyone under 30 years of age... So if you are under 30, you have two options: 1 - Live it up while you can 2 - Try to build diversified cashflow that could last years If you choose 2, then make sure you can protect your money when everyone else is scraping for pennies... You will have a big target on your back if successful...
... and democrats will lie on the floor kicking and screaming before they will allow you to have a privatized choice! If you privatize, it means that their ponzi scheme thingy will fail sooner and then they won't be in power any longer!! What Social Security accomplishes is that it keeps money that should be invested in various markets, money that could work to expand the economy, tied up in a flow-through process, straight from a paycheck to somebody else's grandma. Of course first it has to flow to the Federal Government's sticky little fingers first, administrators need to be paid and the Legislators like to dip into it bigtime...
You already have the privatized choice, assuming you are not minimum wage. It is called 401K , 403b, Roth, Traditional IRA, etc.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I do know quite a bit about SS. As I said, regardless of whatever principles or theory it was based on, it hasn't adapted to changing life expectancies, changing demographics, etc. In addition, it didn't start out offering benefits for the disabled, SSI (it's from a different fund, I know, but has grown into major another welfare-dependency program), etc. Look at billboard signs or late-night TV commercials, and you'll see lawyers promising they can get people the SSI or SS Disability "they deserve." And often they do. It's common for people to be "awarded" for bi-polar disorder or a host of other modern psych issues which may or may not be valid. As for the .gov sites and their reports, they have an agenda to defend every bit as much as Wall Street. In a past life as a military officer, I saw my share of "number massaging," and saw it working around Federal agencies as well. The idea that the public servant is a more pure and honest type is simply a myth. Some say the trustee reports are overly conservative, but they've actually been a bit too optimistic since the early 80s. At least they're better than Medicare, though. When it began, it was expected to cost $3 billion by 1992 ($12 billion if adjusted for inflation) . The actual 1992 cost was $110 billion â off by almost a factor of 10! Have a nice weekend. It was certainly quite a trading day...
The federal gov't requests permission to dip into the mythical "trust fund" every two years. Every time voters send back Congresspeople who deliver unbalanced budgets, they give that permission.
If the concept of SS is so good , how come all the countries have problems with similar pension systems ? Personally, I think it's theft , the generation that voted this got a freeride at the expense of the following generations. If you die fairly early you won't see much of what you paid in. And what governments are doing now with pushing the retirement age further is increase the odds that you'll die befire you get anything. According to some estimates, in Europe for example, people should retire at 70 not 60 or 65, to keep the system working. Instead of a pension system , people could contribute to a mandatory standardized retirement plan, that converts into an annuity at retirement, so you should get the same benefits you mention (mortality credits), you could also opt for a lump sum under some conditions. What about people who can't save enough ? They would be asked to work longer then go on welfare, you would expand welfare for the poorest , to make sure everybody gets something just under what is considered a living wage. And you would increase tax if necessary on the richest (estate tax for ex.) to fund this.
The "dipping in" as you colorfully describe it takes an indirect route since the Trust is protected by law and congress can't spend the money in the Trust for anything other than Social Security. They can't legally dip into it directly. When the Trust has a surplus as it has had since the eighties, the Treasury sells the Trust special interest bearing bonds. The sale proceeds are then available to congress to fund its war machine. Whatever our thoughts on the wisdom of endless wars may be, we can all agree that war is a marvelous mechanism for transferring wealth from the public to the private sector, and that surely has to do with its amazing popularity among capitalists and those too old to be cannon fodder. Sadly, their is now no money left in the public sector to pay the Social Security Trust what it will be owed as it redeems its bonds. (I think it would be appropriate to refer to them as "special war bonds". ) More borrowing by the Treasury i'm afraid. And this time around the Treasury won't be able to borrow from the Trust, as there won't be surplus contributions again for quite a few years. It is now clear to me why just getting on with the necessary 2 cent per dollar increase in the contribution rate, while it will fix social security just fine, is not going to be enough by itself to keep the congress happy. The problem for congress is that they have, in their enthusiasm for wars, dug themselves a monstrous financial hole that they won't be able to dig out of if they have to redeem those special war bonds in the Trust at the rate projected by the actuaries, even with the 2 cent increase in contribution rate. They must find a gimmick that will slow down the rate at which the Trust needs to redeem its bonds. So far this gimmick has surfaced in the form of raising the retirement age and possibly raising the salary cap with out a commensurate increase in payout to those at the top. -- What harm is there in a little stealing now and them, especially if it's not likely to be noticed by the voters.-- Who knows really what the final form of the gimmick will take, but obviously congress and the Treasury must be desperate to find a way to slow the rate at which those war bonds will have to be redeemed, because every dollar owed to the Trust will have to be borrowed. Oh woe is me!