5 myths about SS

.

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.

.

If I may.

Life expectancy is rising due to children surviving at birth, not because people are suddenly living 2 decades longer. You need to look at life expectancy of people at age 65. When you look at that, you see that in 1900, men lived on average 11.5 years after the age of 65. Today, they live about 16 years past 65, or about 4.5 years longer. Big deal. If you raise the retirement age even a couple years, you will wipe out any and all gains that medical advances have given us. Are you really suggesting you want workers to have the same retirement length as those in 1900?

Life Expectancy

As to raising the cap, the problem with that is that the payments are fixed and based on what you pay in. If you raise the cap, yes, you will get more money, but then people will be paying in and getting less back than what they paid in. How is that fair? It isn't. However, companies never draw from SS, so you can raise THEIR cap, while leaving the employer portion in place. This would maintain the fairness of workers paying in, while fully funding the program.


Interesting, thanks for posting that link. I may steal it. Aw hell, I'm sure I'll steal it.

Regarding raising the age, that would be my less favored approach, definitely. I think of the many people I've met who simply don't have the capacity (financially, intellectually, emotionally and some combination therein) to make it past 62 or 65 without receiving benefits. I don't like the idea of leaving future people like that out in the cold.

Raising the cap makes more sense to me. I get the "fairness" argument, but I think like anything else, fairness can only work in moderation when you have two opposing views to consider. I'd put it in the same category as means testing, such as with Medicare Part B. Is it 100% fair to make wealthier people pay more for Part B? Officially no, but fairness has to work across the board. In other words, I get both sides, but I'm just not willing to leave people in the streets for principle.

My guess is that the first thing we'll see is a rise in the cap, just a guess.

.
 
Lets try some simple math, even a union head should be able to grasp this.

They are worthless. You have to borrow money to make the payments. Its that simple. I would rag on your side about the SS tax cut, but I know you oppose.

Actually, that's not true. We don't have to borrow the money if we don't want to. We could pay for them with taxes.

Good point raise taxes.

I agree

Right after we make an honest effort at eliminating waste. estimated by the GAO as 300 to 400 billion a year. They recently refused to comment on the last audit as the figures provided by government were of such lousy accounting standards the data could not be trusted.

Why is it your first response in light of this information is to screw the AVG American with higher taxes.

It's not my first response. If you had read my earlier post you would have seen that. I was merely correcting you and pointing out we don't need to borrow to cover the payments.

And I agree, there does need to be a thorough audit done to eliminate as much waste as we can. There's no reason to make massive changes without knowing exactly what those changes need to be.
 
.

Again, Social Security is a relatively easy fix if both cartoonish parties will pull their heads out and work together, just a teeny, tiny, little bit. Other than that, the whole issue is not much more than the standard partisan hot air.

Medicare can be largely fixed too, but that would require a comprehensive and intelligent package crafted by reasonable, civil, mature, intellectually honest professional politicians who patriotically choose to put country before party by utilizing the best ideas from each "side" and including them in the package (and there are plenty of good ideas). It would also probably require mature, civil, intellectually honest public discourse from both "sides" to promote this critical cooperation.

In other words, I don't expect Medicare to be fixed. Bone-headed crisis management on the way, gang, bank on it. It's the way we do things now.

.

Don't expect these neo-cons to consider your post. They don't want rational discussion. They just want to throw sound bites and barbs. Kinda like their POTUS candidates.


The party is causing itself great damage with its absolutist, black & white, binary approach to everything. It's a shame, because I agree with them on some issues...

.
 
.

Again, Social Security is a relatively easy fix if both cartoonish parties will pull their heads out and work together, just a teeny, tiny, little bit. Other than that, the whole issue is not much more than the standard partisan hot air.

Medicare can be largely fixed too, but that would require a comprehensive and intelligent package crafted by reasonable, civil, mature, intellectually honest professional politicians who patriotically choose to put country before party by utilizing the best ideas from each "side" and including them in the package (and there are plenty of good ideas). It would also probably require mature, civil, intellectually honest public discourse from both "sides" to promote this critical cooperation.

In other words, I don't expect Medicare to be fixed. Bone-headed crisis management on the way, gang, bank on it. It's the way we do things now.

.

Don't expect these neo-cons to consider your post. They don't want rational discussion. They just want to throw sound bites and barbs. Kinda like their POTUS candidates.


The party is causing itself great damage with its absolutist, black & white, binary approach to everything. It's a shame, because I agree with them on some issues...

.
Most issues are binary. It stems from thought and logic. Grey areas don''t exist in logic.

But you knew that, didn't you?
 
If I may.

Life expectancy is rising due to children surviving at birth, not because people are suddenly living 2 decades longer. You need to look at life expectancy of people at age 65. When you look at that, you see that in 1900, men lived on average 11.5 years after the age of 65. Today, they live about 16 years past 65, or about 4.5 years longer. Big deal. If you raise the retirement age even a couple years, you will wipe out any and all gains that medical advances have given us. Are you really suggesting you want workers to have the same retirement length as those in 1900?

Life Expectancy

As to raising the cap, the problem with that is that the payments are fixed and based on what you pay in. If you raise the cap, yes, you will get more money, but then people will be paying in and getting less back than what they paid in. How is that fair? It isn't. However, companies never draw from SS, so you can raise THEIR cap, while leaving the employer portion in place. This would maintain the fairness of workers paying in, while fully funding the program.

Got some links on that? In 1960 is asked to identify known people over 80, you'd be hard pressed to. Today? Easy. We see it in personal ways. By the time I was born, all 4 of my grandparents were dead, as were 3 of my uncles and 1 aunt.

My kids, born in the 80's had all 4 of their grandparents, one great grandparent died just before the birth of the first. All of their aunts and uncles were alive.

Now that's just anecdotal, but it's repeated throughout the country.

You mean other than the link I provided in my post?

Life Expectancy

Ok, look at born in 1920, most of parents to those over 50 and grandparents to those over 20. How many died in their 50's or 60's? That projection failed, big time. Those folks are livied more than a decade beyond on average. Many are still collecting on SSI. They are now in their 90's.
 
Actually, that's not true. We don't have to borrow the money if we don't want to. We could pay for them with taxes.

Good point raise taxes.

I agree

Right after we make an honest effort at eliminating waste. estimated by the GAO as 300 to 400 billion a year. They recently refused to comment on the last audit as the figures provided by government were of such lousy accounting standards the data could not be trusted.

Why is it your first response in light of this information is to screw the AVG American with higher taxes.

It's not my first response. If you had read my earlier post you would have seen that. I was merely correcting you and pointing out we don't need to borrow to cover the payments.

And I agree, there does need to be a thorough audit done to eliminate as much waste as we can. There's no reason to make massive changes without knowing exactly what those changes need to be.

Actually I am correct. All you did was provide a fantasy alternative. We must borrow.

I should remind you the last time the repubs put SS on the table the democrats became fleebaggers and ran across the street for a photo op. Everything was on the table to include tax increases.

Here is another fact. If SS had been reformed, there would be hard cash in every americans account that had a SS number.

What have you got now?
 
Good point raise taxes.

I agree

Right after we make an honest effort at eliminating waste. estimated by the GAO as 300 to 400 billion a year. They recently refused to comment on the last audit as the figures provided by government were of such lousy accounting standards the data could not be trusted.

Why is it your first response in light of this information is to screw the AVG American with higher taxes.

It's not my first response. If you had read my earlier post you would have seen that. I was merely correcting you and pointing out we don't need to borrow to cover the payments.

And I agree, there does need to be a thorough audit done to eliminate as much waste as we can. There's no reason to make massive changes without knowing exactly what those changes need to be.

Actually I am correct. All you did was provide a fantasy alternative. We must borrow.

I should remind you the last time the repubs put SS on the table the democrats became fleebaggers and ran across the street for a photo op. Everything was on the table to include tax increases.

Here is another fact. If SS had been reformed, there would be hard cash in every americans account that had a SS number.

What have you got now?

No. You're not. You're refusing to look at all options. How can you talk about SS and changes when you refuse to look at all the options?
 
Don't expect these neo-cons to consider your post. They don't want rational discussion. They just want to throw sound bites and barbs. Kinda like their POTUS candidates.


The party is causing itself great damage with its absolutist, black & white, binary approach to everything. It's a shame, because I agree with them on some issues...

.
Most issues are binary. It stems from thought and logic. Grey areas don''t exist in logic.

But you knew that, didn't you?



I agree completely that logic produces binary results.

I just don't think that logic should be the only measurement on which to judge an issue.

It's like a Spock vs. Kirk thing. The two worked best in tandem.

.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top