privatize social security?
I’m sure there will be plenty of debate on this issue over the next few years. I personally don’t think it is a good idea to upset the apple cart and start pulling money from S.S. so that people can invest themselves. You wanna see S.S. go bankrupt, that’s the fastest way to do it. But lets say that instead of cutting back on benefits for wealthy retirees and upping the retirement age, they decide that it is time we young folk (less than 55) start to fend for ourselves for our old age. What happens to the 30 years I have been paying into this S.S. plan at a tax rate of 15.3% (I’m self-employed)of my yearly gross? Do I get that back in a lump sum with interest? Or do I get the shaft and find I am S.O.L? If I can get that back, I might consider this plan, but I don’t believe this is what they have in mind…
Does anyone understand the particulars on this issue?
Mike
Does anyone understand the particulars on this issue?
No one knows because they haven't been released.
My questions/concerns are:
1) The money I've heard will have to be put up to start these accounts. Reid said something like 2 billion or 2 trillion?
2) If some opt for the private accounts, then where's the money for the rest of people coming from? It seems to me if you're going to have private acounts, then everybody has to have them.
3) I question Bush's figures about 2 workers to every retiree - I've never heard that figure before.
4) Reid's says overall benefits will come down by 40%. Is this accurate?
5) How are these accounts going to be managed? How much will managers charge in fees & how will we control it? What if the market tanks? What kind of risk should people opting for this be allowed to take? A young person should go w/ a growth fund, but that has more risk.
6) What kind of returns will these funds realistically return? Of course, that's the $1 million question because they're funds, not a quarantee.
The whole thing sounds a little suspicious to me. Imagine if SS never existed. I seriously doubt if a Republican would ever put forth a plan like this because it entails some big government managed program & that's bad - right?
Too many questions for this boy.
Mr Soul
No one knows because they haven't been released.
My questions/concerns are:
1) The money I've heard will have to be put up to start these accounts. Reid said something like 2 billion or 2 trillion?
2) If some opt for the private accounts, then where's the money for the rest of people coming from? It seems to me if you're going to have private acounts, then everybody has to have them.
3) I question Bush's figures about 2 workers to every retiree - I've never heard that figure before.
4) Reid's says overall benefits will come down by 40%. Is this accurate?
5) How are these accounts going to be managed? How much will managers charge in fees & how will we control it? What if the market tanks? What kind of risk should people opting for this be allowed to take? A young person should go w/ a growth fund, but that has more risk.
6) What kind of returns will these funds realistically return? Of course, that's the $1 million question because they're funds, not a quarantee.
The whole thing sounds a little suspicious to me. Imagine if SS never existed. I seriously doubt if a Republican would ever put forth a plan like this because it entails some big government managed program & that's bad - right?
Too many questions for this boy.
Mr Soul
| Quote (DrGuitar @ Feb. 02 2005,22:26) |
| What happens to the 30 years I have been paying into this S.S. plan at a tax rate of 15.3% (I'm self-employed)of my yearly gross? |
Doc, you needed to Incorporate along time ago.
I did almost 12 years ago. You still need to look into this. Saved me tons of money.
As with most political issues these days, both sides of the argument have stats that support their case. W and his thugs cite stats which prove this thing is unsustainable by any means beyond 2042. Dems and other opponents put the date much further out, and also insist that minor alterations to the existing equation will make it sustainable for the forseeable future.
Who do you believe ? For me, neither at face value. Both sides have ideological agendas and their statements are at least partially reactionary against the other.
Like most people, I don’t have the knowledge or skill to analyse the financial data and come to my own conclusion.
However, I do think you’d be a fool to think that Dubya’s plan is intended to benefit the regular guy though. It’s completely against his core conservative ideology for the govt to assist with welfare. This is an attempt to twist the system for the benefit of the stockbroker class. If he could get away with it he really would just revoke the whole new deal. He has to do it on the sly and trick regular people into thinking this change is for their benefit.
Dems of course are ideologically in favor of the concept of welfare. However thats not completely what drives thier resistance to W’s plan right now. They will oppose anything he suggests because he is the hated uber-conservative. So get ready for some serious hyperbole, distraction (ooh look at michael jackson) and very little straight talk from either side.
wait, wait, wait… no crisis, say you Dems? But your fearless leader thought differently when HE was making the calls, no???
President Clinton: “And Above All, To My Fellow Baby Boomers, Let Me Say That None Of Us Wants Our Own Retirement To Be A Burden To Our Children And To Their Efforts To Raise Our Grandchildren. It Would Be Unconscionable If We Failed To Act, And Act Now, As One Nation Renewing The Ties That Bind Us Across The Generations.” (President Bill Clinton, Remarks To A National Forum On Social Security, Kansas City, MO, 4/7/98)
Personally I prefer vidalias…what? Oh. State of the UNION!
Sorry…
TG
The right wants to undo the New Deal - it’s as simple as that guys. I posted an article here awhile ago that explained all that.
Democrat’s are NOT in favor of welfare but they believe that everyone doesn’t have the same deal & they believe the government can help people.
Here’s a link that discusses Bush’s plan -
Bush’s Social Security plan akin to a loan.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| WASHINGTON - Under the White House Social Security plan, workers who opt to divert some of their payroll taxes into individual accounts would ultimately get to keep only the investment returns that exceed the rate of return that the money would have accrued in the traditional system. The mechanism, detailed by a senior administration official before President Bush’s State of the Union address, would hold down the cost of Bush’s plan to introduce personal accounts to the Social Security system. But it could come as a surprise to lawmakers and voters who have thought of these accounts as akin to an individual retirement account or a 401(k) that they could use fully upon retirement. If a worker sets aside $1,000 a year for 40 years, and earns 4 percent annually on investments, the account would grow to $99,800 in today’s dollars, but the government would keep $78,700 – or about 80 percent of the account. The remainder, $21,100, would be the worker’s. With a 4.6 percent average gain over inflation, the government keeps more than 70 percent. With the CBO’s 3.3 percent rate, the worker is left with nothing but the guaranteed benefit. |
I am not sure I am 100% on board with the proposal as it stands…but I do buy into the personal account idea
Fundamental differences:
The left: " SS is our plan, its our money. Give it to us and we’ll decide how to manage it"
The right:" You invested your money for your retirement, let’s let you have a say how its managed"
Mike- that article is saying that “in addition to the guaranteed benefit”— which is all we would get under the current plan-- the contributor would get the $21,000 and change. Its solid math…you can invest the same you are now, and only get the guaranteed benefit (like a fixed interest bank account) when you retire
or
Put it somewhere wher you can have some say in how its managed, and when its done, you have a higher return and you have contributed more to the system in general.
Are there details to be worked out…absolutely.
Is the idea fundamentally sound.Yes.
Kymarcus–‘a benefit to the stockbroker class’-nope-
we’re all in the SS boat…and its sinking! Despite all the rhetoric from the Dems (except Clinton who said the same in his term) there are fewer workers per retiree…
I am not sure I am 100% on board with the proposal as it stands...but I do buy into the personal account idea
Exactly but Bush's plan doesn't appear to be a real personal account. Read the article I posted - it's complicated.
Hey Pastor B - I'm not so sure about sound?
If instead, workers decide to stay in the traditional system, they would receive the benefit that Social Security could pay out of payroll taxes still flowing into the system, the official said. Which option would be best is still unclear because the White House has yet to propose how severely guaranteed benefits would be cut for those with individual accounts.
Exactly but Bush's plan doesn't appear to be a real personal account. Read the article I posted - it's complicated.
Hey Pastor B - I'm not so sure about sound?
If instead, workers decide to stay in the traditional system, they would receive the benefit that Social Security could pay out of payroll taxes still flowing into the system, the official said. Which option would be best is still unclear because the White House has yet to propose how severely guaranteed benefits would be cut for those with individual accounts.
I did.
Life is complicated man…let’s see what the details really are before we jump in bed with Hillary C and her ilk…
god her pukey smug face last night was irritating.
god her pukey smug face last night was irritating.
Funny - I feel exactly the same about Bush when I see him.
Funny - I feel exactly the same about Bush when I see him.
| Quote (pastorbrian @ Feb. 03 2005,11:33) |
| Fundamental differences: The left: " SS is our plan, its our money. Give it to us and we'll decide how to manage it" The right:" You invested your money for your retirement, let's let you have a say how its managed" Mike- that article is saying that "in addition to the guaranteed benefit"--- which is all we would get under the current plan-- the contributor would get the $21,000 and change. Its solid math...you can invest the same you are now, and only get the guaranteed benefit (like a fixed interest bank account) when you retire or Put it somewhere wher you can have some say in how its managed, and when its done, you have a higher return and you have contributed more to the system in general. Are there details to be worked out...absolutely. Is the idea fundamentally sound.Yes. Kymarcus--'a benefit to the stockbroker class'-nope- we're all in the SS boat...and its sinking! Despite all the rhetoric from the Dems (except Clinton who said the same in his term) there are fewer workers per retiree... |
Well, the fewer workers argument was made by Bush, but think about this: if there were 16 per retiree in 1950 and 8 per today, but productivity had increase by 200 %, then it's a wash. Productivity has gone up more than that. Also, the amount going in may be used more or less effectively. The point being that the fact you cite is not enough by itself to draw any conclusions.
I'm surprised that a Christian wouldn't think that working together as a community would be the better way to go. From a Christian perspective is our money - all of us - and hence it should be used to benefit all of us. I've never understood how Christians get to the "it's my money/property/stuff and I should be able to do with it whatever I want to do" sort of claim. Not exactly other-centered.
Then again it is just plain obvious to me who will benefit from this, and who won't; let's just say that the prostitutes, tax collectors, and lepers of our day are in for a screwing, and Rome will be able to build another temple to the Divine Abushtus..I mean, Augustus. I gather that this is not so obvious to others.
It's also the case that assessments about the health or otherwise of SS have so many assumptions built into them that the risk assessment is not as simple as saying "it's sinking" or "it's Ok" - rather we'd need to look at those assumptions, and try to quantify them. E.g., do you think that the world is going to end in a few years? then by all means, give me my money now! Do you think we stand a chance of being around in 100, and will have met the challenges to our environment, population, etc.? Then privatizing makes no sense. I smell a bit of millinarianism in Bush's ideas.
I mean this post kindly, pastor.
I think the situation is much much much more complex than either side says it is - I'm with ky on that one...
Wow- how unlike Tom to take a political argument and spin it into a “Christians are hypocrites” rant. (sarcasm)
it’s not an anti-communal stance Tom, and Yes- its far more complicated than I or we can grasp at this time because its not spelled out in detail.
I am all for dumping money into the collective pot and giving equally. And yes, My Christian ethic plays a role in that. Outside of that, I see a problem:
If SS is pragmatically a retirement savings account, why are we so fearful of individuals making decisions about it? So far…under the way the government has managed it (both dems and repubs) it is not solvent long term -debate about that is only +/- 4 or 5 years -everyone agrees changes need to be made. Its not a “my property debate”–its economic reality. Most people are counting on SS as abase for their retirement, so they see it essentially the same as a 401k or an IRA.
so…as I agree with the points about productivity and assumptions about healthy needing to be reassessed, I totally disagree about your view of the purpose behind it. Bush has stated over and over that the long term health of SS is why change is needed. Its not a scheme to get the money sooner, that won’t change unless they drop the retirement age, which would make things even worse!
He just wants the money promised to my generation to actually be there when I retire…appx. 2040-2042. And I mean the money for those who actually contribute.
PB
Onions would have made for a much spicier topic…
SS needs overhauled. That’s for sure. How to do it? Leave politics/government out of it and hire a business man to run it LIKE a business. Of course finding an honest business man to run it would be almost as hard as finding an honest politician these days…
TG
But that’s why I find that sort of argument so unChristian - money for those who contribute. It’s Christ in the poor and the poor in Christ Christians should see; it’s not a matter of making sure I get mine and you get yours. SS is not a retirement saving account, it’s a system that was born from the experience of the depression designed to protect the worst off among us from ruinous poverty. Not all Christians are hypocrites, but those who think about wealth in terms of private property, in self-regarding terms that is, are hypocrites. If Bush successfully paints this as reform, when it really is nothing more than a bit more money grabbing by the wealthiest in the world, and has the temerity to dress it up in Christian garb, I’m going to point out the hypocrisy, you bet. Calling oneself Christian does not make one’s actions Christian.
Same goes for Buddhists who do that as well, by the way! Equal time for hypocrites.
Oh, Tom I agree!! If we ALL acted as Christians are SUPPOSED to act, we would not NEED Social Security. Right? Unfortunately, that is not the case. I meant SS should be run more like a business with P&L in mind. The bungling of MANY administrations over the years has brought SS to where it is today. Every few years you hear…“That’s a great program! How are you gonna PAY for it?” “Oh we’ll use the SS surplus!” Surplus???
Run it like a business and keep the politico’s fingers outta the pie…
TG
Actually I love the spring garden onions in a little vinegar set upon the table at evening meal.
S.S. is labeled wrong in the first place, it started as a great program as Tom mentioned to protect everyone from the poverty levels achieved after the great depression. But stealing, and that’s what it is, from S.S. to pay for tax cuts, new programs, wars, etc, etc, is down right criminal in my book. If this was a private company running this and using your money in this manner, it would be on the 6:00 news and telling when the C.E.O. and corporate officers were going on trial. So let’s go back to any living presidents and staff that used our funds for these purposes and put them all on trial. Then let’s take 'em out back and beat the shat out of 'em.
Wife says I need to quit drinking 5 pots o coffee a day, making me hostile she said. I really don’t see what she’s talking about.