Social Security, a conversation silenced by failure

Discussion in 'Politics' started by 1_Old_Man, Jan 28, 2012.

  1. 1_Old_Man
    Offline

    1_Old_Man Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    77
    Thanks Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +25
    The effort to kill Social Security continues, its just quieter now. The Social Security system is still 'going broke', just like it was six months ago when no other subject captured the public discussion so thoroughly. The only difference between now and then is that then we paid more into it then we do now. The income tax reduction that was put into effect just adds to the underfunding problem.

    The cut in program income came about as the Republicans in Congress blackmailed the President when they held up expansion of the nation's debt authority, a political move that immediately resulted in the downgrading of the nation's credit; you may remember the day hit happened, the Stock Market plunged. There are rumors floating around Capital Hill, rumors spoken by C-Span guests in the last few weeks, that the Republicans will be at it again when the new debt authorization comes up.

    I think there may be a solution to the Republican attack on Social Security, and while I recognized one great weakness in this plan I'm sure it can be addressed.

    Currently Social Security is funded primarily by payments into the system made by both Employees and employers in equal amounts. My suggestion is that the entire amount be paid by the employee.

    Yikes! Did a self-identified Progressive say that? Why one earth would anyone want the employee to have to pay the entire amount of their Social Security contribution, wouldn't that break them financially? Well, the answer is no, it would not break them financially for the very simple reason that they are already paying the full amount. The Employers contribution does no appear out of thin air, it comes from earnings that result directly from the labor of the employees. Of course the money earned by the workers that the employer is currently paying into the system in each individuals name will have to be paid to the worker in the new system.

    The immediate effect of having each employee pay their full share of the Payroll Tax is that it will immediately take Social Security off the Republican's Radar screen, with employers no longer required to pay (that portion of their employee's earnings that they retained) into the system the matter should no longer interest them. Thus the greatest danger to the Social Security System, the Republican Party, will be out of the game.

    And where does that leave employees? It leaves them whole, just as they were before. By their labors they are already paying the entire cost of the system, now it will just be codified.

    And how should any future dips in Social Security revenue be handled, what if demographics or other trends leave the system lacking for funds, what then? The answer here has traditionally been to adjust the pay in rate, but in fact that is not necesary. Rather than make the rate at which people pay in be variable, moving up or down as the financial situation of the nation dictates, why not make the cap variable instead? When the system is lacking for funds increase the maximum amount of earnings on which Payroll Taxes must be paid, when the system is flush reduce the cap. There is no reason to increase the tax rate on the lower end of the income scale to protect the system, just reach up higher into the income spectrum to save it.

    Now the one great failing which would have to be addressed. In the initial phase I said that the employers would no longer pay a certain percentage of each employees earnings into the system in the company name but instead would pay the employee the full amount of their earnings and then pay the full and appropriate amount into the system in the employees name. It is clear that unscrupulous employers would then deny employees future raises until they had managed to absorb those earnings back into the companies vaults - to rob the employees of their just earnings, but that is another matter to be dealt with separately.

    So, what do you think? Is it an absurd suggestion or does it make some sense? I await your comments.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. merrill
    Offline

    merrill VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,263
    Thanks Received:
    92
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +92
    Absolutely Save Social Security!!!

    The system won't be bankrupt in any sense. On this point politicians are consciously misrepresenting the truth with the intent to deceive." That is what the dictionary defines as lying.

    Social Security privatization will raise the size of the government's deficit to nearly $700 billion per year for the next 20 years, almost tripling the size of the national debt.

    There is likely not the problem that politicians claim:

    1. Not everyone collects Social Security

    2. Tons of people die everywhere for a multitude of reasons thereby
    eliminating thousands upon thousands of potential Social Security
    checks each year.

    3. 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

    The system won't be bankrupt in any sense. On this point politicians are consciously misrepresenting the truth with the intent to deceive." That is what the dictionary defines as lying.

    More info not rhetoric:
    Social Security Q&A | Dollars & Sense
     
  3. PoliticalChic
    Online

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,681
    Thanks Received:
    15,586
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,816
    Welcome to the board, Oldy....glad someone is trying to find a solution to the solvency problem.

    Too bad the instigator didn't.

    The Social Security plan was that workers would pay for retirees, and, based on actuarial tables, those who died earlier than expected would add to the fund.

    a. No one considered that life expectancy would increase?
    b. No one considered that the balance of workers and retirees might change?
    c. No one calculated the long-term costs?

    d. Ida May Fuller, the first person to begin receiving benefits, in January, 1940, when she was 65- she lived to be 100. “…worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.” Social Security Online

    e. “Social Security will pay out more this year than it gets in payroll taxes, marking the first time since the program will be in the red since it was overhauled in 1983, according to the annual authoritative report released Thursday by the program's actuary.” Social Security in the red this year - Washington Times

    f. “…redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037, at which point tax income would be sufficient to pay about 75 percent of scheduled benefits through 2084.” Trustees Report Summary
     
  4. DaGoose
    Offline

    DaGoose Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2010
    Messages:
    4,347
    Thanks Received:
    655
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    Illinois
    Ratings:
    +676
    Like PoliticalChic allow me to welcome you to the board.

    Any attempt to eliminate (or even severely restrict) SS will only spell doom for any politician that proposes it. (Remember the beating Rick Perry got when all he did was refer to it as a Ponzi Scheme?) It is a far too popluar of a program to mess with.

    No, SS is here to stay and the sooner everyone realizes it the sonner we can look at solutions to keep it fully funded.

    Why do you feel the GOP would agree to "the money earned by the workers that the employer is currently paying into the system in each individuals name will have to be paid to the worker in the new system"? This is the same party that would do away with minimum wage laws!!

    Here is what I would like to see......

    1) Raise the ceiling of $110,000 to $250,000
    2) Stop paying SSI benefits out of it.
     
  5. francoHFW
    Offline

    francoHFW Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Messages:
    33,370
    Thanks Received:
    2,172
    Trophy Points:
    1,115
    Location:
    NY 26th FINALLY DEM!
    Ratings:
    +5,575
    Not "politicians", lying cheating Pubs, fer chrissake....
     
  6. merrill
    Offline

    merrill VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,263
    Thanks Received:
    92
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +92
    Social Security Insurance is a safe route to take.

    So let's get serious why would anyone say no to $1,000 per month as a supplement that is safe from Wall Street crooks?
     
  7. LordBrownTrout
    Offline

    LordBrownTrout Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    15,490
    Thanks Received:
    2,962
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    South Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,352
    SS should have an opt in or out option.
     
  8. merrill
    Offline

    merrill VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,263
    Thanks Received:
    92
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +92
    When you opt out the understanding would be you would be on your own no matter what.

    Might want to think that over:

    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 = 24 years.

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

    Social Security Q&A | Dollars & Sense
     
  9. rdean
    Offline

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,013
    Thanks Received:
    6,877
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +14,878
    There are a lot of ways we could improve social security.

    One to is to raise the lid on who pays into it.

    Another is to put a limit on how much you can receive tied to your wealth. If you receive a huge inheritance, you shouldn't be collecting money you don't even need. At some point, it becomes senseless greed. I know, I know, Republicans insist "greed is good". They might want to review their "magical texts" and find out what that says about greed.

    A third is to put in place a common sense retirement age. A 69 year old police officer or fireman is the most stupid thing I ever heard. But a 69 year old clerk is no problem. Clerks don't put their lives on the line. And if they want to retire younger, then they should become a fireman or a policeman.
     
  10. Lakhota
    Offline

    Lakhota Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    47,680
    Thanks Received:
    4,703
    Trophy Points:
    1,855
    Location:
    Native America
    Ratings:
    +15,922
    I contend that employees already pay the entire amount. It's part of their overall compensation package. Does anyone not believe that employers factor that in?
     

Share This Page