5 myths about SS

[Truthmatters]

how does it help this country to ONLY help the wealthy?

 

[MeBelle]

how does it help this country to ONLY help the wealthy?

I dunno.
Ask our wealthy millionaire elected officials??

 

[Mac1958]

.

I'm a financial advisor and I do pro bono SS presentations and counseling for low-income residents locally. Social Security can be tweaked relatively easily...

... Increase the retirement age a bit (remember that life expectancy when Social Security was 63 when SS came into law, it's now 78, see a problem there?). Currently non-disabled people can begin receiving their Social Security benefits at 62. Demographics are rapidly changing. Do a bit of research. Do the math.

... Increase the Social Security payroll cap ($110,000 for 2012) - that would make a significant difference by itself

... Do a bit of both, this ain't freakin' rocket science

Social Security is not the problem. Medicare is. Anyone who doesn't see what's coming down the road with the Baby Boomer population aging into Medicare as we speak either isn't paying attention or is too busy playing silly partisan games to care.

.

 

[DaGoose]

This is the 4th post since the thread was started 45 minutes ago. Why is it still labelled "Old"?

Its a liesmatters thread....

her hack shit gets old fast.

So what you're saying is that the Mods play favorites?

 

[DaGoose]

.

I'm a financial advisor and I do pro bono SS presentations and counseling for low-income residents locally. Social Security can be tweaked relatively easily...

... Increase the retirement age a bit (remember that life expectancy when Social Security was 63 when SS came into law, it's now 78, see a problem there?). Currently non-disabled people can begin receiving their Social Security benefits at 62. Demographics are rapidly changing. Do a bit of research. Do the math.

... Increase the Social Security payroll cap ($110,000 for 2012) - that would make a significant difference by itself

... Do a bit of both, this ain't freakin' rocket science

Social Security is not the problem. Medicare is. Anyone who doesn't see what's coming down the road with the Baby Boomer population aging into Medicare as we speak either isn't paying attention or is too busy playing silly partisan games to care.

.

What about reducing the SS benefit payout on a sliding scale and reducing, if not eliminating SSI?

BTW....I agree with you on the Medicare thing....

 

[Truthmatters]

Its a liesmatters thread....

her hack shit gets old fast.

So what you're saying is that the Mods play favorites?

You have no idea how bad it has been for me here

 

[Mac1958]

What about reducing the SS benefit payout on a sliding scale and reducing, if not eliminating SSI?

No way in hell we'll see reduction in benefits, at least not in SS/SSI. Politically impossible.

Medicare can be dealt with, but it would require political cooperation, which is evidently not allowed currently. Examples of small tactics that would have to work together...

... Look to the Medicare Advantage program, a partnership of the federal government and private insurance, as a starting model. It's still too costly, but insurance companies are getting more efficient, and there are many $0 monthly premium plans that offer FAR more than standard Medicare. Very few people know, or will admit, that.

... Value-based Insurance Design (VBID), which concentrates on health, wellness & preventive care, and coordinates care much more efficiently to avoid redundancies in the care process. Serious potential for actual and significant cost reductions without necessary reductions in outcomes.

... Improvements in medical software programs that automatically create other efficiencies and cost-reductions (several examples, and I'm too lazy to list 'em). These systems are on the way soon, if the federal government will stay the hell out of the way.

There are other smaller tactics that would go into the mix. Problem is, the tactics come from both sides of the aisle, and our "leaders" are currently too busy preening for the TV cameras with their heads up their ass to actually work with each other and present a comprehensive proposal, which is what this is going to take.

Instead, don't be surprised to see our "leaders" resort to crisis management in a few years when it will be too late. It's their specialty.

.

 

[healthmyths]

5 myths about Social Security - 1 - retirement savings - MSN Money

And if nothing is done before 2037 the Government still has to find the money from somewhere to pay back the IOU's and as your link states that will cause problems long before 2037.

If nothing is done BEFORE 2037, in 2037, assuming ( big assumption) that the current rate of people paying in stays the same and the number drawing benefits does not increase more then projected, only 75 percent of the money needed to pay for benefits will be available.

The program is in jeopardy and no one seems to want to do anything about it. And no we can't just keep changing when people are eligible to draw their money.

Since you are a lefty, perhaps you could tell us what the left plans to do about Social Security? The right has presented several plans over the years and all have been ignored.

What has the right presented besides "partial privitization"? That would have only reduced the money being paid into it even more (worsening the situation) and face it, we all know how the stock market has been doing. Diverting SS money into investments would have proved disasterous.

Total ignorance of the "stock market"..hyperbolic, anecdotal statements about the "stock market'! That's been the MAJOR problem you dumb fu...!

A) "privatization" WAS NOT and would NOT affect ANYONE on SS today!
B) Anyone UNDER 55 would have the choice
1) Continue as is with payments to SS as is
2) Or individual INDIVIDUAL gets to DIRECT .. much like trillions of dollars are
in current 401Ks.. where their payments go!
a) Either ALL as any logical rational person under age 40 into the "stock market"
b) All into local banks CDs,etc.
c) or part banks/stock market as person grows older towards more secure!

C) FACTS NOT hyperbole!
Person age 25 entering workforce with salary of $30,000 using "self directed"
SS would have at Age 65 @3% appreciation $685,104!
Or using historical growth rate of "stock market" of 10% $6,581,271!
Stock market growth over last 40 years @ 10%
Total return includes two components: price appreciation and yield.
The 53x return for the Dow is a 10 percent annualized return.
Approximately 6.6 percent came from price appreciation.
The rest came from dividend yield.
Dividends on dividends | Osbon Blog

 

[Quantum Windbag]

5 myths about Social Security - 1 - retirement savings - MSN Money

Complete and utter fail.

Myth No. 1: Social Security won't exist when I retire.
Those who want to dismantle Social Security often suggest it's about to collapse into rubble. That false assessment is one of the reasons so many people are convinced the system won't be there when they need it.
It's true that Social Security's finances need fixing. Without changes, the system will be able to pay only 75% of promised benefits after 2037.

WTF? There is nothing wrong with it, but it can't pay out all the benefits unless we fix it? If you took a car into the mechanic complaining it wasn't working, and he told you it is fine as long as you don't go over 22mph would you think it was fixed?

 

[merrill]

By Doug Orr

The opponents of Social Security will stop at nothing in their long crusade to destroy the most efficient retirement system in the world. Opponents have taken two tracks to attack Social Security.

The first is to claim the system as it is will fail, and the second is to claim that privatization is a better way to provide for retirement security. The first claim was the favorite from 1935 to about 2001.Then the privatization claim became the vogue. Now the first is back on the table.

With corporations routinely defaulting on their pension promises, more and more workers must rely on their individual wealth to make up the difference. The stock market collapse at the turn of the millennium wiped out much of the financial wealth of middle class Americans, and the collapse of the housing bubble has wiped out much of their remaining wealth.

Making any cuts to Social Security now, either by raising the retirement age or cutting benefits, would have a huge impact on their remaining retirement income and are not necessary to “save the system.” In fact, to make the most of the modifications currently being proposed by Obama's commission would be the height of folly.

More info not rhetoric:
Social Security Q&A | Dollars & Sense

 

[merrill]

What impact would the conversion to private accounts have on the national debt?

The government would have to borrow an additional $4 trillion over the next 20 years to make up the money that would be drained out of the system by private accounts.

Social Security privatization would raise the size of the government’s deficit by another $300 billion per year for the next 20 years.

This does not seem to bother Republicans, as long as they are in power. In fact, by the time the second Bush left office, the national debt had grown to $12.1 trillion. Over half of that amount had been created by Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy.

Another 30% of the national debt had been created by the tax cuts for the wealthy under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Fully 81% of the national debt was created by just these three Republican Presidents.

Social Security Q&A | Dollars & Sense

 

[Sunshine]

> > __________________
> > History Lesson on Your Social Security Card
> >
> > Just in case some of you didn't know this.

> > It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to
your family and friends. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it
doesn'tmatter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts.
> >
> > Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and
> > card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly
everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it
anyway and the message, NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION, was removed.
> >
> > Our Social Security
> > Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
> > Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
> >
> > 1.) That participation in the Program would be
> > Completely voluntary,
> > > > No longer Voluntary
> >
> >
> > 2.) That the participants would only have to pay
> > 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
> > Incomes into the Program,
> >
> > Now 7.65%
> > on the first $90,000> >
> >
> > 3.) That the money the participants elected to put
> > into the Program would be deductible from
> > their income for tax purposes each year,
> >
> > No longer tax deductible
> >
> >
> > 4.) That the money the participants put into the
> > independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the
> > general operating fund, and therefore, would
> > only be used to fund the Social Security
> > Retirement Program, and no other
> > Government program, and,
> >
> > Under Johnson the money was moved to
> > The General Fund and Spent> >
> >
> > 5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed
> > as income.
> >
> > Under Clinton & Gore> > Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed
> >
> > Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
> > now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then find that
> > we are being taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government
> > to 'put away' -- you may be interested in the following:
> >
> >
> > Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
> > independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the
> > general fund so that Congress could spend it?
> >
> > A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
> > controlled House and Senate.> >
> > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
--------- --
> >
> > Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
> > deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
> >
> > A: The Democratic Party.> >
> > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
--------- -
> >
> > Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
> > Security annuities?
> >
> > A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
> > 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the
> > Senate, while he was Vice President of the US
> >
> > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
--------- -
> >
> > Q: Which Political Party decided to start
> > giving annuity payments to immigrants?
> >
> > A: That's right!
> > Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
> > Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
> > began to receive Social Security payments!
> > The Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
> > even though they never paid a dime into it!
> >
> > ------------ -- ------------ --------- ----- ------------ ---------
> > ---------
> >
> > Then, after violating the original contract (FICA),
> > the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take
> > your Social Security away!

> > And, the worst part about it is... uninformed citizens believe it!

 

[AmericaFirst88]

Why doesn't the government just print more money and use that for social security? Seemed to work nicely for the corporations...

 

[merrill]

Until 1984, the trust fund was “pay-as-you-go,” meaning current benefits were paid using current tax revenues. In 1984, Congress raised payroll taxes to prepare for the retirement of the baby boom generation.

As a result, the Social Security trust fund, which holds government bonds as assets, has been growing. When the baby boomers retire, these bonds will be sold to help pay their retirement benefits.

If the trust fund went to zero, Social Security would simply revert to pay-as-you-go. It would continue to pay benefits using (then-current) tax revenues, and in doing so, it would be able to cover about 70% of promised benefit levels.

According to analysis by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a 70% benefit level then would actually be higher than 2005 benefit levels in constant dollars (because of wage adjustments). In other words, retirees would be taking home more in real terms than today’s retirees do.

The system won’t be bankrupt in any sense. On this point, President Bush was “consciously misrepresenting the truth with the intent to deceive.” That is what the dictionary defines as lying.

Social Security Q&A | Dollars & Sense

 

[DaGoose]

Until 1984, the trust fund was “pay-as-you-go,” meaning current benefits were paid using current tax revenues. In 1984, Congress raised payroll taxes to prepare for the retirement of the baby boom generation.

As a result, the Social Security trust fund, which holds government bonds as assets, has been growing. When the baby boomers retire, these bonds will be sold to help pay their retirement benefits.

If the trust fund went to zero, Social Security would simply revert to pay-as-you-go. It would continue to pay benefits using (then-current) tax revenues, and in doing so, it would be able to cover about 70% of promised benefit levels.

According to analysis by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a 70% benefit level then would actually be higher than 2005 benefit levels in constant dollars (because of wage adjustments). In other words, retirees would be taking home more in real terms than today’s retirees do.

The system won’t be bankrupt in any sense. On this point, President Bush was “consciously misrepresenting the truth with the intent to deceive.” That is what the dictionary defines as lying.

Social Security Q&A | Dollars & Sense

And that's the point everyone fails to grasp. In order to maintain 100% funding and current benefit levels then action is required. Otherwise benefit levels may go down. And 70% in a worse case scenario is better than nothing.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why doesn't the government just print more money and use that for social security? Seemed to work nicely for the corporations...

Corporations printed more money?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Until 1984, the trust fund was “pay-as-you-go,” meaning current benefits were paid using current tax revenues. In 1984, Congress raised payroll taxes to prepare for the retirement of the baby boom generation.

As a result, the Social Security trust fund, which holds government bonds as assets, has been growing. When the baby boomers retire, these bonds will be sold to help pay their retirement benefits.

If the trust fund went to zero, Social Security would simply revert to pay-as-you-go. It would continue to pay benefits using (then-current) tax revenues, and in doing so, it would be able to cover about 70% of promised benefit levels.

According to analysis by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a 70% benefit level then would actually be higher than 2005 benefit levels in constant dollars (because of wage adjustments). In other words, retirees would be taking home more in real terms than today’s retirees do.

The system won’t be bankrupt in any sense. On this point, President Bush was “consciously misrepresenting the truth with the intent to deceive.” That is what the dictionary defines as lying.

Social Security Q&A | Dollars & Sense

And that's the point everyone fails to grasp. In order to maintain 100% funding and current benefit levels then action is required. Otherwise benefit levels may go down. And 70% in a worse case scenario is better than nothing.

Thankfully, Obama is cutting funding into Social Security

 

[merrill]

Think when at retirement Wall Street is down again and your 401 k is in the hole. That $1,000 or more per month from Social Security Insurance will be very very very nice.

Medicare will also be sweet instead of no medicare insurance.

Millions upon millions have lost both due to Wall Street scams and republicans destroying the economy. Don't be stupid ... BEWARE.

Meanwhile:

Every sale of stock on the stock market includes the disclaimer: “the return on this investment is not guaranteed and may be negative” for good reason.

During the 20th century, there were several periods lasting more than ten years when the return on stocks was negative.

After the Dow Jones stock index went down by over 75% between 1929 and 1933, the Dow did not return to its 1929 level until 1953.

In claiming that the rate of return on a stock investment is guaranteed to be greater than the return on any other asset, Pres. Bush was lying.

If an investment-firm broker made this claim to his clients, he would be arrested and charged with stock fraud. Michael Milken went to jail for several years for making just this type of promise about financial investments.

Social Security Q&A | Dollars & Sense

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Think when at retirement Wall Street is down again and your 401 k is in the hole. That $1,000 or more per month from Social Security Insurance will be very very very nice.

Medicare will also be sweet instead of no medicare insurance.

Millions upon millions have lost both due to Wall Street scams and republicans destroying the economy. Don't be stupid ... BEWARE.

Meanwhile:

Every sale of stock on the stock market includes the disclaimer: “the return on this investment is not guaranteed and may be negative” for good reason.

During the 20th century, there were several periods lasting more than ten years when the return on stocks was negative.

After the Dow Jones stock index went down by over 75% between 1929 and 1933, the Dow did not return to its 1929 level until 1953.

In claiming that the rate of return on a stock investment is guaranteed to be greater than the return on any other asset, Pres. Bush was lying.

If an investment-firm broker made this claim to his clients, he would be arrested and charged with stock fraud. Michael Milken went to jail for several years for making just this type of promise about financial investments.

Social Security Q&A | Dollars & Sense

I learned not to take advice from idiots.

 

[CausingPAIN]

5 myths about Social Security - 1 - retirement savings - MSN Money

And if nothing is done before 2037 the Government still has to find the money from somewhere to pay back the IOU's and as your link states that will cause problems long before 2037.

If nothing is done BEFORE 2037, in 2037, assuming ( big assumption) that the current rate of people paying in stays the same and the number drawing benefits does not increase more then projected, only 75 percent of the money needed to pay for benefits will be available.

The program is in jeopardy and no one seems to want to do anything about it. And no we can't just keep changing when people are eligible to draw their money.

Since you are a lefty, perhaps you could tell us what the left plans to do about Social Security? The right has presented several plans over the years and all have been ignored.

What has the right presented besides "partial privitization"? That would have only reduced the money being paid into it even more (worsening the situation) and face it, we all know how the stock market has been doing. Diverting SS money into investments would have proved disasterous.

So that like taking the profit and keeping the business going? So if we lose some profit , but the cash drawers keep filling up, like thats good. A lot can happen till the year 2037 or whatever number it is today. As did we not just charge like 3T of the future funds to like get Osama, on what do we have a triple black VISA or something? Great, SS is a part of needed retirement and should pay out a better amount. Gee… Killing it off and shit, I’ll need to get me a BigFoot to drive over all the bump in the roads.