Social Security, the easy way to fix it...

Discussion in 'Social Security' started by Darkbane, Jun 13, 2015.

  1. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,310
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The entire financial advisory industry disagrees with you, but that doesn't mean anything to you, eh?
     
  2. maat

    maat Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2010
    Messages:
    6,911
    Likes Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Everyone was saying things were great before the housing crash. What do you expect these people will say? Do you really think they are going to yell fire in the auditorium?
    I'm expressing common sense. It makes no sense to throw away so much disposable income to a lower producing ins. Who's going to cover the costs of the baby boomer? We have far fewer payers per relievers than ever. This has been a growing problem for years. It is not fair to future Americans to absorb these extreme costs.
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2017
  3. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,310
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    My financial advisor and those he knows were all warning about the housing trap as it heated up. Maybe you don't know what a "financial advisor" is.


    That has been said for a long time by the right. It hasn't proven true. SS was a good program for me. I didn't lose any value. But your problem is that you don't understand the importance of diversifying not only within a security class, but across security classes. Fixed assets and strategic insurance provide important foundational support for a financial plan. Putting all your assets in variable positions is stupid because it is very risky.
     
  4. maat

    maat Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2010
    Messages:
    6,911
    Likes Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    You don't need to lecture me on investments. You present this as if SS is doing this. It is not. It takes in the money and spends it. When it started it had more payers than receivers and was taking in more than it paid out. That is not the case now or for quite awhile. When it needs to pay out more than it takes in, it raises the employment taxes or borrows from future Americans. It is this simple. The only reason it survives is by guns/government force. This will not be enough in the coming decades.
     
  5. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,310
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Apparently I do need to lecture you on investments. As you said yourself, Treasuries are safer than corporate bonds. That means SS provides you with one needed, fixed and guaranteed asset and fall-back position. It provides a measure of diversity you wouldn't otherwise have. What the government does with the money is irrelevant. There is no connection or relevancy. And it will last until Republicans find a way to destroy it because they can't stand an effective program created by a Democrat.
     
  6. maat

    maat Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2010
    Messages:
    6,911
    Likes Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    It is more likely the coming generations will revolt from over taxation trying to pay for congresses SS slush fund.
     
  7. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    More and more excuses for not saving??

    Saving and how one lives is not about government?

    People only pay 6.2%.

    You complain about paying 6.2% yet people get retirement income until the day they die...do you want the retirement income for free?

    Once again...it simply is not possible to expect all Americans to create private retirement accounts, and not wise to have trillion$ sitting in cash and equities/bonds, and on top of this require government to GUARANTEE a retirement income no matter how the investments work out...
     
  8. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please explain why the withholding amounts cannot be changed today in order to have income equalling pay outs?
     
    Kode likes this.
  9. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Think about implementing private accounts today; first, it will remain a requirement that all workers and businesses continue to pay the 12.4% FICA withholding for decades to come, and second, in parallel, those who want private accounts will need to pay whatever contributions they select. So...for the next 15-20 years or longer, younger workers/businesses will be paying 12.4% plus 10-15% (private account investment) so if you're complaining about paying 12.4% today how much are you going to complain about paying 29.4% of your income? In fact...for most people and business...this is not financially feasible.

    Since private accounts will mostly effect younger workers, why don't they just have their own retirement portfolios? Well...one reason is millions of them won't do it and when they are older will find themselves with no retirement income if there is no SS program. Therefore, any idea of private SS accounts will need to be a government mandate for all workers...
     
  10. maat

    maat Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2010
    Messages:
    6,911
    Likes Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm sure they could. Perhaps you would like to pay in twice as much as the previous generation. Are you seriously not seeing the absurdity in your statement?
     
  11. maat

    maat Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2010
    Messages:
    6,911
    Likes Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    It would involve a transition based on age. Sure, it would not be easy, but replacing such a monstrosity can't be easy.
     
  12. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,310
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not necessary. It has been shown that if the cap on taxable earnings were to be eliminated, that alone would solve the whole problem.
     
  13. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Were it only that simple.
    Warren Buffett, for example earns and pays FICA taxes on his $100,000 a year income or $12,400 for Social Security.
    Also, the excess revenue obtained, and spent, results in an interest obligation which I believe currently is about 3.37% of additional debt on the excess accumulation having been spent.
    It makes little sense to call a problem solved when you simply have replaced it with another problem needing to be solved in the future.
    We frequently see government promoting its social spending actions being justified and necessary for the benefit of our young while the reality is that we're simply compounding the problems in terms of the costs they and each successive generation will have to bear.
    Government has created a mindset that while hyper-inflation would be catastrophic, a gradual constant inflation can be sustained indefinitely, but the reality is that bubbles eventually burst.
     
  14. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,310
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So you're claiming that he has earnings of $100,000/yr AND he collects his full SS benefit at the same time? If so, the SSA is violating their own rules.


    Yes, we know the solution to all this is a mystery to the right, and so they push for just eliminating all government expenditures except for military. And then with no resolution to the overriding economic problems of jobs paying low wages and with income disparity continuing, the solution is again to cut, cut, cut. Austerity promises only poverty and economic destruction. It promises Third World status for the most powerful country in the world. This is the consequence of right wing proposals. And you're worried about debt that can be solved with proper tax policy. It makes little sense to offer a "solution" to a problem when you simply have replaced it with another far worse problem needing to be solved in the future.
     
  15. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Where did you dream up 'twice'? I don't care about the previous generation and how much they paid? I only care about paying for myself and helping to pay for others less fortunate. Baby-boomers are a bump to the SS system but eventually that bump ends as they die off and things are more manageable. Your representatives and presidents need to look at the FICA rates every year and adjust accordingly. Meanwhile, you have no clue how to fix SS and private accounts are not a fix...
     
  16. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's not easy...it's impossible!!!
     
  17. maat

    maat Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2010
    Messages:
    6,911
    Likes Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Maybe, but the alternative is that it will eventually cause our bankruptcy.
     
  18. maat

    maat Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2010
    Messages:
    6,911
    Likes Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, the ole transform it into a full blown redistribution scheme. IMO, this should have to pass the Supreme Court.
     
  19. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What I said was Warren Buffett is paid a salary of $100,000 each year which is less than the current cutoff of $118,500, while his wealth increased $12 billion last year. I don't know if he collects a SS benefit or not although by law he is entitled to and no rules would be violated by him or the SSA as best I can tell. And there are many others who have great wealth and draw small salaries, Mark Zuckerberg for example $1/year.


    Can you present a 'real' solution?
     
  20. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,310
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    LOL!!! On what basis?
     
  21. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,310
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's why we need tax reform for dividends and realized capital gains. Hell, we need tax reform for everything.


    Of course! Roll back tax law to what it was before Reagan changed it. Or, since this recession is the worst since the G.D. and it continues for all but the top 5% or so, roll back tax law to 1950. Then take the revenue to fund many large infrastructure projects. Fund the transition of our electric system to alternative energy. This will create a huge number of good paying jobs which will increase competition for workers and lift wages without changing the minimum wage. It will increase demand and more hiring to meet that demand. It will generate a large increase in income tax revenue. Then the national debt can be paid down. Government has to act as the catalyst for job creation and economy boosting. Once it gets going the government can step out of the picture as it did after the G.D.

    You cannot cut your way to prosperity.
     
  22. maat

    maat Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2010
    Messages:
    6,911
    Likes Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    On the bases it was not a redistribution program when it passed the first time.
     
  23. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree that we need tax reform, but that's probably the limit of our agreement.


    Substantiate your claims.


    Nor, it seems we have proven, can you spend your way to prosperity.
     
  24. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,310
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As I've posted several times before with links to valid studies, every unemployment benefit dollar put in the hands of an unemployed person creates $1.51 in economic growth. Now, would you rather just hand money out to people, or give them a job doing needed work for pay?


    Substantiate your claim. You are saying it is impossible to spend your way to prosperity, but that's how it was done after the G.D.
     
  25. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,310
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And you think the S.C. has something to do with it. LOL!!!!!
     

Share This Page