Social Security Reform

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
100meters wrote:

How bout just leaving it alone, it doesn’t really need much fixing.

Even in the event that you were right about the mathematics of it, it doesn’t take into account the greater evil of Social Security. It makes children and small men out of our society. It breeds dependency amongst the populace. In doing so it propagates demagoguery within the entire political process. In accepting it we allow ourselves to become a willing slave class. But hey, if that works for you…

I’m willing to forgo all my Social Security payouts right now AND still pay my social security taxes until I die if that meant that I could bring about its end while paying out those we have still promised to pay. I’d hate for us to not keep a promise.

mike

I agree completely. We have become a nation of happy serfs, waiting for government to run everything. It never dawns on people that, for ex with SS, they’d have had a lot more money if they could have invested it. FDR tried to get that through but his lib buddies demagogued it out.

Ever read ‘The Report from Iron Mountain’? A nation of serfs…

[/quote]

We’re generally agreed, but I shudder to credit FDR with much. The man finally tipped us over the edge to socialism. I love when at a time we are fighting a dictator overseas, FDR is a 4 term president. We are fighting National Socialism in Germany while FDR institutes price controls, the TVA, the NRA, ect. Or perhaps while Hitler has jews in concentration camps, FDR decides to put Japanese-Americans in internment camps. The best thing that ever happened in his presidency was his death. He is a fine example of the evils of socialism. He instituted programs that made the citizens dependant upon him, then ran for president nonstop. The citizens voted for their demagogue with the gov’t handouts. Had he not died we would have kept him as president for the rest of his natural life.

mike

[quote]100meters wrote:

How bout just leaving it alone, it doesn’t really need much fixing.[/quote]

Funny stuff.

I want it phased out, slowly. Obviously the biggest crossroads will be the baby-boom generation. As they get older, they’ll vote to increase MY taxes to pay for THERE Social Security. This is all fine and dandy; we fucked the system up by wasting money away nation building, we have to suck it up and pay for it (as a nation, not a generation).

On the other hand, it’s still has many kinks that really aren’t going to fix themselves. I honestly don’t believe I have enough knowledge of economics and of the social security system to really come up with a viable plan. However, I would like to see it phased out, especially for the richer portion of society.

I want it phased out, slowly. Obviously the biggest crossroads will be the baby-boom generation. As they get older, they’ll vote to increase MY taxes to pay for THERE Social Security. This is all fine and dandy; we fucked the system up by wasting money away nation building, we have to suck it up and pay for it (as a nation, not a generation).

On the other hand, it’s still has many kinks that really aren’t going to fix themselves. I honestly don’t believe I have enough knowledge of economics and of the social security system to really come up with a viable plan. However, I would like to see it phased out, especially for the richer portion of society.

Perhaps the government could start giving out free investing advice instead of social security one day? A government controlled investing firm for the poor, perhaps.

I think SS should be completely dismantled and everyone should be given a rebate on pending taxes or a complete refund of what they already paid in. People who have been receiving benefits will have those means subtracted from their total recompensation. Those that have drawn over their total contributions owe back to the system. What’s fair is fair.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
… As they get older, they’ll vote to increase MY taxes to pay for THERE Social Security. …[/quote]

Perhaps it is only fair. They paid for your education.

[quote]100meters wrote:
rainjack wrote:
100meters wrote:
Ignorance? You apparently are ignorant of the fact that these boomers are calculated into the projections for S.S… You know the ones that say S.S. is totally fine until at least '42(or '52 depending on your source) or perhaps forever if economy doesn’t drop to the dire levels used to predict the future shortcomings.

Again, instead of making shit up just say you don’t like it.

Instead of saying it is just fine, and nothing needs to be done - just admit you favor more taxes, and having politicians raid it like a candy store.

SS is broke. As in out of money.

As you know it is factually fine, as in totally fine for a long time, maybe even forever. [/quote]

Mathematics. And logic.
(1) You cannot continue to spend more than you earn.
(2) If you attempt this, you either have to rob someone or declare bankruptcy.
(3) More and more people will be collecting while fewer and fewer pay in.
(4) Since robbery has its own limits, the system must declare bankruptcy.

And this is the sytem you call ‘fine’. You, 100 meters, are plain fucking nuts.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Perhaps the government could start giving out free investing advice instead of social security one day? A government controlled investing firm for the poor, perhaps.[/quote]

The government is the last agency one should trust for investment information. If they were really good at that SS wouldn’t be an issue to begin with. Just look at the Fed for examples of poor decision making. Every time they adjust rates they either create a bubble or a recession (the business cycle).

The private sector is the only sane means for investment opportunity because good investors are rewarded and bad investors go bankrupt. Poor investment by the government just results in either more taxing, borrowing, or printing of money to make up for investment shortfall.

The fallacy in thinking that government can handle this type of task lies in thinking that government possesses perfect knowledge of the market. It doesn’t – no one does – which is why entrepreneurs make a profit on good investments.

If perfect knowledge of the market were possible competition would be unfeasible (because everyone would know where to allocate funds perfectly) and profits wouldn’t happen; it would be a zero-sum result every time. This, of course, is impossible because scarcity causes much of the uncertainty in the market which is what drives prices and profits.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
I want it phased out, slowly. Obviously the biggest crossroads will be the baby-boom generation. As they get older, they’ll vote to increase MY taxes to pay for THERE Social Security. This is all fine and dandy; we fucked the system up by wasting money away nation building, we have to suck it up and pay for it (as a nation, not a generation).

On the other hand, it’s still has many kinks that really aren’t going to fix themselves. I honestly don’t believe I have enough knowledge of economics and of the social security system to really come up with a viable plan. However, I would like to see it phased out, especially for the richer portion of society.[/quote]

Your generation doesn’t vote. Mine does, so we vote to screw you. I personally do not (reprehensible) but it is true that we have doomed you guys to a life of serfdom, all so we could get prescription drugs cheaper and little motorized chairs to drive around provided by Medicare.

I agree about making it means tested. My wife gets more in dividends per year than most people earn. Sending a check to us, money stolen by legal looters to get our votes, is very unnecessary and also immoral and despicable.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/23/retirement/2005_trusteesreport/index.htm

We will be upside down with SS by 2017. That means either cutting benefits, or raising taxes.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/23/retirement/2005_trusteesreport/index.htm

We will be upside down with SS by 2017. That means either cutting benefits, or raising taxes.

[/quote]

And it will be 100% out of money when my kids are in their 40’s. That may be fine w/ 100meters but not me.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
I want it phased out, slowly. Obviously the biggest crossroads will be the baby-boom generation. As they get older, they’ll vote to increase MY taxes to pay for THERE Social Security. This is all fine and dandy; we fucked the system up by wasting money away nation building, we have to suck it up and pay for it (as a nation, not a generation).

On the other hand, it’s still has many kinks that really aren’t going to fix themselves. I honestly don’t believe I have enough knowledge of economics and of the social security system to really come up with a viable plan. However, I would like to see it phased out, especially for the richer portion of society.

Your generation doesn’t vote. Mine does, so we vote to screw you. I personally do not (reprehensible) but it is true that we have doomed you guys to a life of serfdom, all so we could get prescription drugs cheaper and little motorized chairs to drive around provided by Medicare.

I agree about making it means tested. My wife gets more in dividends per year than most people earn. Sending a check to us, money stolen by legal looters to get our votes, is very unnecessary and also immoral and despicable.

[/quote]

For once, I agree with you completely…
This is a rare coming together of the left and right. We all agree that social security is screwed…

[quote]100meters wrote:

It’s factually not broken, hence needs very little fixing. You could just say you’re opposed to S.S. , but it sounds stupid to say it’s broken when the exact opposite is true.[/quote]

Actually factually it is - mathematically, between an exploding number of people making claims on the system plus an ever-increasing life expectancy, the system as is can’t sustain itself.

For all the talk on the Left of “sustainability”, Social Security gets conveniently left out of the analysis.

Either eligibility age goes up (as it should, bringing SS in line with its original purpose) or taxes must go up to cover the escalating costs - and it’s a fight either way. You don’t have to be a hyper-greedy capitalist - well, like your pal Soros - to complain about the increased costs: hard-working, middle class Americans don’t much care for the additional tax bite required to make sure retirees have 25+ years of traveling the world.

And further to your nonsense - I actually don’t hate SS, but if I had my druthers it would operate at the state level. I have no problem with a safety net for old people that need the help - but it should be a system built on need rather than assumed to be a system of comfy retirement largesse for our silver-haired set.

That said, the system is unsustainable and thus broken - hard choices will have to be made, and there is tension between the generations on the issue. Better to whistle past the problem, per the Left, or be hard-headed pragmatic progressives and fix it for the long haul?

I vote the latter.

[quote]100meters wrote:

Privatizing would do nothing to help the solvency of S.S.(that’s according to libs like Bush) and would factually increase the debt. And at the economic rates used to predict the end of S.S. one would not want to be invested in the stock market.

Better to just leave it. Its fine all by itself.
[/quote]

You seriously need to learn the math. The solvency of Social Security is not really up for debate. It is failing, and failing miserably.

The reason it would supposedly increase the debt is only because they can no longer use it to hide the actual debt. It will not really increase the debt. This is the argument used by the lemmings for political reasons.

In fact the reverse is true. People will still be paying in, because only a portion of what is paid in will be going toward their retirement. Another portion will still be going toward Social Security, helping make it solvent, and still covering the people who are receiving it.

In other words people will still be paying in to a system they will never get money out of. That will FACTUALLY pay down the actual debt, because new Social Security debt is not being created.

And think about this. All the conservatives will go for the new plan, not quite as many liberals, because it will be voluntary. If it is a bad plan, it will only hurt the people who chose the voluntary plan, meaning conservatives.

And realize that it is not just a stock plan. Just like an IRA, you will be able to invest in Bonds, and cash instruments (CD’s,Savings accounts, money market funds). One thing this will do is push more of the debt instruments out of China’s hands into American hands. (Bonds again.)

And as far as how good the stock market is, it averaged 12% a year over the last century. Hold for 10 years, and you are practically guaranteed a profit. Social Security investing will last more then that.

Think of this. What will happen to Social Security when the US declares bankruptcy? Nothing to the privatized portion, because that is not their money. It is out of their control. But not so for the non privatized portion. That will end on that day.

Just like a pension after a company closes down. That pension may not exist any more, but companies cannot touch 401K money, and that money is safe.

100meters,

Alan Greenspan didn’t think it was fine in 2005 – has it gotten better since? Or do you trust the folks at American Progress know their economics better than Alan Greenspan?

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/testimony/2005/20050315/

EXCERPT:

[i]However, by almost any measure, the required amount of saving that would be necessary is sufficiently large to raise serious questions about whether we will be able to meet the retirement commitments already made. Much has been made of shortfalls in our private defined-benefit plans, but the gross underfunding currently at $450 billion, although significant as a percentage of the $1.8 trillion in assets of private defined-benefit plans, is modest compared with the underfunding of our publically administered pensions.

At present, the Social Security trustees estimate the unfunded liability over the indefinite future to be $10.4 trillion. The shortfall in Medicare is calculated at several multiples of the one in Social Security. These numbers suggest that either very large tax increases will be required to meet the shortfalls or benefits will have to be pared back.[/i]

BTW, Ben Bernanke agreed with Alan Greenspan:

While he may be a Bush appointee, the Fed is an independent agency, and Bush is a lame duck; also given there are even odds at least that a Dem will be the next President, I don’t think he’s trying to carry any water on this…

I hate getting preachy, but if the traditional family model was held up on a shiny bright pedestal, maybe the offspring and grandchildren would step in to make sure Grandma was taken care of. That is, instead of buying the second car, satellite TV, “name-brand” clothes, and thinking SS will keep Grandma from eating cat food.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters,

Alan Greenspan didn’t think it was fine in 2005 – has it gotten better since? Or do you trust the folks at American Progress know their economics better than Alan Greenspan?

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/testimony/2005/20050315/

EXCERPT:

[i]However, by almost any measure, the required amount of saving that would be necessary is sufficiently large to raise serious questions about whether we will be able to meet the retirement commitments already made. Much has been made of shortfalls in our private defined-benefit plans, but the gross underfunding currently at $450 billion, although significant as a percentage of the $1.8 trillion in assets of private defined-benefit plans, is modest compared with the underfunding of our publically administered pensions.

At present, the Social Security trustees estimate the unfunded liability over the indefinite future to be $10.4 trillion. The shortfall in Medicare is calculated at several multiples of the one in Social Security. These numbers suggest that either very large tax increases will be required to meet the shortfalls or benefits will have to be pared back.[/i]

BTW, Ben Bernanke agreed with Alan Greenspan:

While he may be a Bush appointee, the Fed is an independent agency, and Bush is a lame duck; also given there are even odds at least that a Dem will be the next President, I don’t think he’s trying to carry any water on this…
[/quote]

I’m not sure what American Progress is (retirement group I assume), but fortunately for me, Greenspan was on MTP just recently and was asked just this question:

RUSSERT (9/23/07): Do you believe either political party has stepped up to the crisis we face with Social Security and Medicare in the coming years?

GREENSPAN: I do not.

RUSSERT: How big a crisis will that be?

GREENSPAN: Social Security is not a big crisis. We are approximately 2 percent points of payroll short over the very long run. It’s a significant closing of the gap, but it’s doable, and doable in any number of ways.

So I’m saying the exact same thing as someone who presumably knows more than American Progress.
Also note 10.4 trillion over an infinite timespan is meaningless (deliberately so)

In short:

Medicare: HUGE problem
Social Security: Not so much.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
100meters wrote:

It’s factually not broken, hence needs very little fixing. You could just say you’re opposed to S.S. , but it sounds stupid to say it’s broken when the exact opposite is true.

Actually factually it is - mathematically, between an exploding number of people making claims on the system plus an ever-increasing life expectancy, the system as is can’t sustain itself.

[/quote]

It is possible it may sustain itself, if not numerous easy things could be done. Like I said, really it’s fine.

[quote]100meters wrote:

It is possible it may sustain itself, if not numerous easy things could be done. Like I said, really it’s fine.[/quote]

No, it won’t sustain itself at the current variables - it’s a matter of math, not politics. But to change the math, it takes hard politics.

And you’ll pardon me if I don’t take your word for it - you haven’t exactly set the world on fire with your defense of it here.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
tedro wrote:
What are some T-Nationers proposals for Social Security Reform? I don’t simply want to hear “We need to abolish it” or “it is unfair and doesn’t work”. I want to hear some real ideas on how to fix it.

I would love for the government to just phase it out by paying those in retirement and giving others the choice to stay in and receive a benefit, or opt out and never receive any benefit or receive a reduced benefit, but the fact that the trust fund has zero money and about 60 trillion in iou’s makes this unlikely.

So, what are some other ideas that are actually feasible?

Opt out, as in don’t pay taxes for it either? [/quote]

Nope, none, nada. There is no reason why we shouldn’t be allowed to set up our own retirement as we please.