Dont cut SS--expand it

[chemgator]

What if all of the SS investing in T-bills is what is keeping our currency afloat? Doesn't the currency have to take a hit if we pull all of that money out of it, just like the stock market will jump if we put all that money into it?

At any rate, SS is the least damaging of the social programs in that you aren't paying anyone to be lazy, which is often what happens with welfare programs. The people who take money from SS are the ones who put money in for 40+ years, so it's not like they are taking money for nothing. Yes, it needs to be reformed (delayed retirement, etc.) to keep it cash-neutral, but I don't see any great need to get rid of it. It is far more important to fight ridiculous spending like extended unemployment benefits, because the net effect is to persuade able-bodied people to not work.

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by jdrgator

Not really. When you are talking redistribution, well it comes in many flavors for which we are all only choosing the ones we like and don't like.

Fact is, SS has been very successful and wildly popular across the political aisle because it's a good program that helps people. Does it need some tweaking to keep it solvent? Yes. Might it need a bigger fix then many might care to admit? Perhaps. But you'd be better off to stop kidding yourself with this quaint little untruth that it's a ponzi scheme. I know it's fashionable to call it such among a small quarter of the right side of the aisle, but other than some superficial similarities, it's not true.

When will people accept reality?

Please define successful and popular! Of course people getting more than they paid in is popular and considered successful. But at whose expense? Your kids!!!!!!

And of course it needs tweaking. To redistribute more of your kids money to those getting closer or in retirement.

Please sit down and explain to your kids why the FICA tax rate and max taxable has ONLY INCREASED SINCE INCEPTION! And why we need to do it again or in other words "TWEAK" it again...

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html

[Swampmaster]

cut SS or medicare--don't get reelected which is all that congress cares about. no big cuts will be made

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by jdrgator

Don't think it's really that either, but aren't we just really just splitting hairs between ponzi and pyramids?

Even folks from the CATO Institute, The Economist, and Reason recognize that aside from the more superficial structural characteristics, it's neither of them.

jdr let me ask you a question.

Does SS need new investors (current and future workers) to sustain benefits to old investors (retirees)?

Or can the $2.6 trillion trust fund handle obligations to the $800 billion plus and growing yearly expenditures?

[Matthanuf06]

Originally Posted by QGator2414

When will people accept reality?

Please define successful and popular! Of course people getting more than they paid in is popular and considered successful. But at whose expense? Your kids!!!!!!

And of course it needs tweaking. To redistribute more of your kids money to those getting closer or in retirement.

Please sit down and explain to your kids why the FICA tax rate and max taxable has ONLY INCREASED SINCE INCEPTION! And why we need to do it again or in other words "TWEAK" it again...

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html

Technically you aren't getting paid back more in real terms.

[Matthanuf06]

Originally Posted by chemgator

What if all of the SS investing in T-bills is what is keeping our currency afloat? Doesn't the currency have to take a hit if we pull all of that money out of it, just like the stock market will jump if we put all that money into it?

At any rate, SS is the least damaging of the social programs in that you aren't paying anyone to be lazy, which is often what happens with welfare programs. The people who take money from SS are the ones who put money in for 40+ years, so it's not like they are taking money for nothing. Yes, it needs to be reformed (delayed retirement, etc.) to keep it cash-neutral, but I don't see any great need to get rid of it. It is far more important to fight ridiculous spending like extended unemployment benefits, because the net effect is to persuade able-bodied people to not work.

It's the most damaging due to opportunity cost. If you properly invest it would be the largest stimulus this nation has ever seen. Retirees would all have potentially 10x the amount they'd get from SS.

[Matthanuf06]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

There are two main answers to objections about relying on the market. The first is that over time it is the only game in town and certainly far superior to whatever tax revenues can guarantee. The second is if it tanks, we're all screwed anyway.

In any case, you can "socialize" the risk by having a common fund that is conservatively diversified and guarantees whatever potion of the benefit constitutes a minimum humane stipend. Anything above and beyond that can be left as the province of individual judgments, with some basic litmus tests for soundness being stipulated.

Exactly. Treat it like a pension fund with a conservative return expectation and a low payout. Then since its backed by the govt it's essentially fool proof.

From the standpoint of the citizens there is not one good argument against it. The government wouldn't want it because then their gravy train of receiving a loan from us at 1% over 50 years would end.

[108]

Originally Posted by Matthanuf06

Exactly. Treat it like a pension fund with a conservative return expectation and a low payout. Then since its backed by the govt it's essentially fool proof.

the problem i see is in the unexpected

people keep saying that no one expected the 08 financial crash, which i find hard to believe

it would have to really be "full proof", as there are a bunch of piranhas out there, including our Government, either trying to loot it themselves, or look the other way while others loot it

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by Matthanuf06

Technically you aren't getting paid back more in real terms.

A woefully mismanaged insurance plan that would bankrupt any insurance company...

However you want to define it there is no getting around promises were made that cannot be kept without redistributing other peoples money...

[Matthanuf06]

Originally Posted by 108

the problem i see is in the unexpected

people keep saying that no one expected the 08 financial crash, which i find hard to believe

it would have to really be "full proof", as there are a bunch of piranhas out there, including our Government, either trying to loot it themselves, or look the other way while others loot it

I mentioned previously the Dow would have to drop to 2000 to match what SS will provide a current retiree. It is THAT bad of a deal. Even if you were took everything out at the market low during the financial crash you'd still be 3x better off than SS.

And your response would be what if it was worse, what if the Dow dropped down to like 500? Well we'd be a third world country at that point so SS wouldn't be in play anyways.