Debate Now Given The Chance To Start Over, What Would You Do Different With Social Security

[Sun Devil 92]

Social Security has been around for several decades now. In it's heyday, it was something politicians loved to talk about. After the mid 70's, it started to look a little different.

Still just a few years ago, Harry Reid referred to it as the most successful social program in the history of the world.

Others would disagree.

Some are not so sure just what the program is anymore (compared to what it was supposed to be).

On the surface it appears to have turned into a national retirement program. Social Security itself says people should not rely on it soley for retirement. And yet that is what many people are doing. They have some savings, but everything I read says it is less than 100,000 going into retirement. That really isn't that much.

For many years I rejected the idea of Social Security as a viable program. However, it is clear that many people won't save (seriously) for retirement. I since come to the opinion that they should be forced to save.

However, the current pay-go system seems flawed to me and I would certainly come at it differently.

I'd like to hear how others feel on this topic.

Rules for this discussion:

1. No ad hominem or personal attacks directed to members, political parties, or ideologies (liberals, conservatives, etc.)

2. Any discussion of the past should be done to provide context for your "redesign" (if you feel one is necessary). Commentary about the past (and blaming and smearing or name calling) is not allowed.

3. Links can be useful but are not required. If you do use them, post a illustrative paragraph or two that makes the point you want to make with the link or explain in your own words a summary of what your linked material will tell us.


THE HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION TO BE ADDRESSED:

You have an opportunity to participate in a process of redesigning Social Security from scratch. That could include scrapping it all now and not replacing it. Or your make any modifications you'd like. What would your system look like and why ?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

'Change it to something else' seemed the best option for,

End farm subsidies and use that saved money to fund Social Security.

 

[there4eyeM]

Make it an insurance-type fund that Congress could not touch (but, wasn't that what is was supposed to be?).

 

[Sun Devil 92]

O.K.

Let's say they come to you and say....you get to set up the system.

What would it look like ?

Would there even be a system ?

 

[Hossfly]

I draw SS but if was my only source of income, it wouldn't be enough to live on. In 1978 I sold life and health insurance for a couple of years to supplement my meager Army retirement pay. At that time IRAs were very popular. I sold hundreds of them and I bought one for myself. After 27 years I turned 65, started drawing SS and initiated a monthly income from the IRA. Employers started using 401k about the time of the IRA and everyone I know who had these retirement plans from the 70s and beyond are living a comfortable life. I feel that each worker should have a personal retirement savings plan so that SS could fade away. The US population doesn't need it anymore.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I draw SS but if was my only source of income, it wouldn't be enough to live on. In 1978 I sold life and health insurance for a couple of years to supplement my meager Army retirement pay. At that time IRAs were very popular. I sold hundreds of them and I bought one for myself. After 27 years I turned 65, started drawing SS and initiated a monthly income from the IRA. Employers started using 401k about the time of the IRA and everyone I know who had these retirement plans from the 70s and beyond are living a comfortable life. I feel that each worker should have a personal retirement savings plan so that SS could fade away. The US population doesn't need it anymore.

I disagree with your last statement.

If you look at the OP you'll see statistics on how much people DON'T have saved. If they know they will be collecting S.S. they seem happy.

Several elderly people I know have been quite surprized to find how little it is when they get right down to it.

 

[Hossfly]

I draw SS but if was my only source of income, it wouldn't be enough to live on. In 1978 I sold life and health insurance for a couple of years to supplement my meager Army retirement pay. At that time IRAs were very popular. I sold hundreds of them and I bought one for myself. After 27 years I turned 65, started drawing SS and initiated a monthly income from the IRA. Employers started using 401k about the time of the IRA and everyone I know who had these retirement plans from the 70s and beyond are living a comfortable life. I feel that each worker should have a personal retirement savings plan so that SS could fade away. The US population doesn't need it anymore.

I disagree with your last statement.

If you look at the OP you'll see statistics on how much people DON'T have saved. If they know they will be collecting S.S. they seem happy.

Several elderly people I know have been quite surprized to find how little it is when they get right down to it.

Eventually there will be no money in SS so having a mandatory savings plan will the thing of the near future. And yes, I know an old lady who gets $72 a month.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I draw SS but if was my only source of income, it wouldn't be enough to live on. In 1978 I sold life and health insurance for a couple of years to supplement my meager Army retirement pay. At that time IRAs were very popular. I sold hundreds of them and I bought one for myself. After 27 years I turned 65, started drawing SS and initiated a monthly income from the IRA. Employers started using 401k about the time of the IRA and everyone I know who had these retirement plans from the 70s and beyond are living a comfortable life. I feel that each worker should have a personal retirement savings plan so that SS could fade away. The US population doesn't need it anymore.

I disagree with your last statement.

If you look at the OP you'll see statistics on how much people DON'T have saved. If they know they will be collecting S.S. they seem happy.

Several elderly people I know have been quite surprized to find how little it is when they get right down to it.

Eventually there will be no money in SS so having a mandatory savings plan will the thing of the near future. And yes, I know an old lady who gets $72 a month.

Even if the so-called "trust fund" goes belly up...the system will have enough cash flow on a monthly basis to pay out 70% of current benefits (from what I recall).

But, I am asking you what you would do if you had the chance to reform or eliminate it.

 

[Hossfly]

I draw SS but if was my only source of income, it wouldn't be enough to live on. In 1978 I sold life and health insurance for a couple of years to supplement my meager Army retirement pay. At that time IRAs were very popular. I sold hundreds of them and I bought one for myself. After 27 years I turned 65, started drawing SS and initiated a monthly income from the IRA. Employers started using 401k about the time of the IRA and everyone I know who had these retirement plans from the 70s and beyond are living a comfortable life. I feel that each worker should have a personal retirement savings plan so that SS could fade away. The US population doesn't need it anymore.

I disagree with your last statement.

If you look at the OP you'll see statistics on how much people DON'T have saved. If they know they will be collecting S.S. they seem happy.

Several elderly people I know have been quite surprized to find how little it is when they get right down to it.

Eventually there will be no money in SS so having a mandatory savings plan will the thing of the near future. And yes, I know an old lady who gets $72 a month.

Even if the so-called "trust fund" goes belly up...the system will have enough cash flow on a monthly basis to pay out 70% of current benefits (from what I recall).

But, I am asking you what you would do if you had the chance to reform or eliminate it.

I would eliminate it. Workers should be required to invest in their retirement. After all, IRAs and 401k are not that expensive.

 

[JQPublic1]

My first action in reforming SS would be to get rid of the free loaders who have contributed nothing or little to the funds. I would then increase the benefit for contributors to 90% of the average of their last three years in the workforce.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I draw SS but if was my only source of income, it wouldn't be enough to live on. In 1978 I sold life and health insurance for a couple of years to supplement my meager Army retirement pay. At that time IRAs were very popular. I sold hundreds of them and I bought one for myself. After 27 years I turned 65, started drawing SS and initiated a monthly income from the IRA. Employers started using 401k about the time of the IRA and everyone I know who had these retirement plans from the 70s and beyond are living a comfortable life. I feel that each worker should have a personal retirement savings plan so that SS could fade away. The US population doesn't need it anymore.

I disagree with your last statement.

If you look at the OP you'll see statistics on how much people DON'T have saved. If they know they will be collecting S.S. they seem happy.

Several elderly people I know have been quite surprized to find how little it is when they get right down to it.

Eventually there will be no money in SS so having a mandatory savings plan will the thing of the near future. And yes, I know an old lady who gets $72 a month.

Even if the so-called "trust fund" goes belly up...the system will have enough cash flow on a monthly basis to pay out 70% of current benefits (from what I recall).

But, I am asking you what you would do if you had the chance to reform or eliminate it.

I would eliminate it. Workers should be required to invest in their retirement. After all, IRAs and 401k are not that expensive.

Your realize that you would be taking money away from people who put into the system expecting to get something out of it ?

I am not critical of your response...I just want to make sure.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

My first action in reforming SS would be to get rid of the free loaders who have contributed nothing or little to the funds. I would then increase the benefit for contributors to 90% of the average of their last three years in the workforce.

How would you define a "freeloader" ?

 

[Hossfly]

I draw SS but if was my only source of income, it wouldn't be enough to live on. In 1978 I sold life and health insurance for a couple of years to supplement my meager Army retirement pay. At that time IRAs were very popular. I sold hundreds of them and I bought one for myself. After 27 years I turned 65, started drawing SS and initiated a monthly income from the IRA. Employers started using 401k about the time of the IRA and everyone I know who had these retirement plans from the 70s and beyond are living a comfortable life. I feel that each worker should have a personal retirement savings plan so that SS could fade away. The US population doesn't need it anymore.

I disagree with your last statement.

If you look at the OP you'll see statistics on how much people DON'T have saved. If they know they will be collecting S.S. they seem happy.

Several elderly people I know have been quite surprized to find how little it is when they get right down to it.

Eventually there will be no money in SS so having a mandatory savings plan will the thing of the near future. And yes, I know an old lady who gets $72 a month.

Even if the so-called "trust fund" goes belly up...the system will have enough cash flow on a monthly basis to pay out 70% of current benefits (from what I recall).

But, I am asking you what you would do if you had the chance to reform or eliminate it.

I would eliminate it. Workers should be required to invest in their retirement. After all, IRAs and 401k are not that expensive.

Your realize that you would be taking money away from people who put into the system expecting to get something out of it ?

I am not critical of your response...I just want to make sure.

It would have to be grandfathered until there were no more contributers.

 

[Hossfly]

My first action in reforming SS would be to get rid of the free loaders who have contributed nothing or little to the funds. I would then increase the benefit for contributors to 90% of the average of their last three years in the workforce.

How would you define a "freeloader" ?

There are people who legitimately receive SS and are disabled and whose familys minor children receive benefits and education assistance even after the SS recipient dies and they milk it for all it's worth. I know of 3 families who have been doing this fo 30-40 years.

 

[JQPublic1]

My first action in reforming SS would be to get rid of the free loaders who have contributed nothing or little to the funds. I would then increase the benefit for contributors to 90% of the average of their last three years in the workforce.

How would you define a "freeloader" ?

Anyone who has not met the requisite 40 quarters of payroll deductions or work history. Also 2nd or third wives or husbands and all their kids would be freeloaders. uh oh yeah, the SSI fund should be completely separate from the SS retirement fund and not just in name only!

 

[JQPublic1]

My first action in reforming SS would be to get rid of the free loaders who have contributed nothing or little to the funds. I would then increase the benefit for contributors to 90% of the average of their last three years in the workforce.

How would you define a "freeloader" ?

There are people who legitimately receive SS and are disabled and whose familys minor children receive benefits and education assistance even after the SS recipient dies and they milk it for all it's worth. I know of 3 families who have been doing this fo 30-40 years.

That's the problem. There are just too many hands in the till that don't belong there.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I disagree with your last statement.

If you look at the OP you'll see statistics on how much people DON'T have saved. If they know they will be collecting S.S. they seem happy.

Several elderly people I know have been quite surprized to find how little it is when they get right down to it.

Eventually there will be no money in SS so having a mandatory savings plan will the thing of the near future. And yes, I know an old lady who gets $72 a month.

Even if the so-called "trust fund" goes belly up...the system will have enough cash flow on a monthly basis to pay out 70% of current benefits (from what I recall).

But, I am asking you what you would do if you had the chance to reform or eliminate it.

I would eliminate it. Workers should be required to invest in their retirement. After all, IRAs and 401k are not that expensive.

Your realize that you would be taking money away from people who put into the system expecting to get something out of it ?

I am not critical of your response...I just want to make sure.

It would have to be grandfathered until there were no more contributers.

So, it sounds as if you would pick option 4. Phase it out over time.

 

[jwoodie]

1. Eliminate the earnings cap on contributions.

2. Eliminate COLAs in any year that SS takes in less than it pays out.

3. Gradually raise the full retirement age to 70.

 

[JQPublic1]

3. Gradually raise the full retirement age to 70.

That would work only if mortality rates remain about the same or higher for seniors between 62 and 70. Any fiscal or budgetary gains by raising the full retirement age to 70 would be offset by an ever increasing increasing longevity rate.

One other consideration Is the impact on certain communities . For some minorities, the mortality rates average 67 years. I don't know if that knowledge might have some bearing on future legislation in that regard, but It might be a factor.

 

[Jackson]

I draw SS but if was my only source of income, it wouldn't be enough to live on. In 1978 I sold life and health insurance for a couple of years to supplement my meager Army retirement pay. At that time IRAs were very popular. I sold hundreds of them and I bought one for myself. After 27 years I turned 65, started drawing SS and initiated a monthly income from the IRA. Employers started using 401k about the time of the IRA and everyone I know who had these retirement plans from the 70s and beyond are living a comfortable life. I feel that each worker should have a personal retirement savings plan so that SS could fade away. The US population doesn't need it anymore.

I disagree with your last statement.

If you look at the OP you'll see statistics on how much people DON'T have saved. If they know they will be collecting S.S. they seem happy.

Several elderly people I know have been quite surprized to find how little it is when they get right down to it.

Eventually there will be no money in SS so having a mandatory savings plan will the thing of the near future. And yes, I know an old lady who gets $72 a month.

Even if the so-called "trust fund" goes belly up...the system will have enough cash flow on a monthly basis to pay out 70% of current benefits (from what I recall).

But, I am asking you what you would do if you had the chance to reform or eliminate it.

Social Security is not only doling out funds for retired workers but it encompasses all types of checks for needless reasons.

Being an educator, I was aware of what I believe was called the 504B program under Social Security program. It entails monthly checks to parents of children who are in special education classes. These classes are not for progressively handicapped children. They just need a smaller classroom and IEP (Individual Educational Plans) for their adjusted curriculum.

This child does not need special accessories to learn. No wheel chairs, no costly individual speech therapists not included in the daily education program. IOW, it costs nothing to raise a child in a special class such as Developmentally Handicapped, Educationally Disabled or Behavioral Modification classes. The public schools assume the costs of their special needs. Yet, the parents of these children receive approximately $400 a month if they are in the poverty districts.

They don't need anything special but these parents are receiving a minimum of $5k a year for each child enrolled in a special class or being transitioned into a regular classroom with an IEP. Think about the cost to the Social Security fund of these unnecessary checks. It costs no more to raise this child that a child without an IEP.

Investigate just how many other checks are going out that are not associated with retirement. We would be horrified to learn that this unnecessary cost to SS is weighing down this program.

I was the teacher of a student who had his penis pulled in the boys bathroom. He wasn't physically hurt for years, but the attorney managed to get his parents the check just the same. The family, on welfare, now have a very nice RV in their driveway of their rented home. They had two other children with IEP's and the third help to fund their RV and trips. Isn't there something wrong with that? I definitely think so.