The Numbers Case For SS Reform

[nakedemperor]

I realize that my retirement will not be funded by social security, and if you have half the intelligence I think you do, I would be damned concerned about retirement, NOW....and not wait until you are at the end of your 30's and only have 30 years left to live.....get on it now, and don't be caught like the hare without any preparation for winter.

For real-- that's why I hate politics. Why can't dudes just sit down in a room together and find a solution, screw partisan politics. The solution on the table is a start, but its not enough, it doesn't solve anything *really*; its a whitewash when we should be rebuilding the whole wall.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

For real-- that's why I hate politics. Why can't dudes just sit down in a room together and find a solution, screw partisan politics. The solution on the table is a start, but its not enough, it doesn't solve anything *really*; its a whitewash when we should be rebuilding the whole wall.

because of partisan hacks like you who obscur reality to suit your agenda, and refuse to be reasonable.

tell me why America Should continue with the ponzi scheme of ss, or how it's not a ponzi scheme or why ponzi schemes are moral. There are three options. Or you could admit that something needs to be done.

 

[nakedemperor]

because of partisan hacks like you

ok pal

Or you could admit that something needs to be done.

Would "its a whitewash job when we need to rebuild the whole wall" count as "admitting something needs to be done"? Reading comprehension is so much fun!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

ok pal



Would "its a whitewash job when we need to rebuild the whole wall" count as "admitting something needs to be done"? Read comprehension is so much fun!

First of all, I'm not your pal, asschunk.

secondly, private accounts and self reliance are the key.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Listen, your NAME is RightWing. You've ostentaciously advertised that you will defend the party line at every turn, in an aggressive and invective manner (that's how I read avenger, and by golly you live up to it, in effort if not in results). You want to talk about typical? You want to talk about immutible ideologies and faith in policy that won't and can't be shifted even in the face of failed policy? Take a look in the mirror.

Now, social security is a ponzi scheme, and you're saying that investment acounts will "get people out of the system"; except it won't. Most people will rely mostly on social security benefits (not PIA payoffs) for decades to come. The transition to this partial program alone will cost 2 trillion dollars. It does not fix the problem that social security faces insolvency in 40 years (currently) nor does it "get people out of the system"; at least, not in its current form.

It will get them out of the system.

 

[Huckleburry]

For all of you folks enamoured by the idea of privitizing SS should take a look at the end results of the system we intend to emulate...Chile http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/27/b...tml?ex=1109394000&en=42b26b21ffb3398c&ei=5070

 

[rtwngAvngr]

For all of you folks enamoured by the idea of privitizing SS should take a look at the end results of the system we intend to emulate...Chile http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/27/b...tml?ex=1109394000&en=42b26b21ffb3398c&ei=5070

They probably should have put MORE than a mere 10% in the private account. And of course we must ensure that bogus fees don't eat it up.

Also. One sob story does justify our current ponzi scheme!

 

[Said1]

For all of you folks enamoured by the idea of privitizing SS should take a look at the end results of the system we intend to emulate...Chile http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/27/b...tml?ex=1109394000&en=42b26b21ffb3398c&ei=5070

I'm just curious, why do you keep using an example set by a dictatorship where half the population works for cash to prove your point? The article states the idea has been copied in one way or another, in other countries, did they fail or succeed?

 

[cptpwichita]

What about galveston,texas?The privatized accounts worked rather well there.Privatized social security alone will not solve all of the problems this nation faces,we need to go to a national retail sales tax which is a consumption tax to replace the income tax along with all of the other federal taxes including the corporate tax and social security tax.The fair tax would be a sales tax on new goods and services.We could eliminate 90% or more of the current I.R.S. and get rid of all the tax shelters and income tax dodgers which means foreign tourists and illegal immigrants would both be taxed.Exports are not taxed which would make u.s. companies more competitive world-wide since the federal government taxes corporations and that cost is transferred to the buyers.The american tax-payers also would easily be able to tell when the government starts to spend our money like drunken sailors since it would be impossible to hide spending through a compilcated tax system no one understands but easily detectable through the fair tax which is about 23% (this is what is said is needed for all our current government spending including social security). however by reducing the size of government we can reduce the rate.How would you like to control your own taxation by deciding what you will consume in new goods and services?The states would also get a collection fee of 1/4 of 1% of all taxes collected, also every american citizen would get a monthly check to cover all spending up to to the poverty line(i believe a family of 5 would get $6600 a year divided into monthly checks).decrease govt spending decrease the tax rate,seperate the social security tax and privatize and reduce the tax rate.

 

[Huckleburry]

I use the Chile example because the right uses it as an example of success which it is not. Britian copied the system. It failed bismally.

I have not done much research on the sales tax idea. I will get back to it after I have done some research and thought about it a bit.

Again I started this conversation asking a conservative to explain how this fixes the problem. Thus far I have been given an example of a place where it failed and told that SS sexurtity is a ponzi scheme. Neither argument has been particullarly convincing.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I use the Chile example because the right uses it as an example of success which it is not. Britian copied the system. It failed bismally.

I have not done much research on the sales tax idea. I will get back to it after I have done some research and thought about it a bit.

Again I started this conversation asking a conservative to explain how this fixes the problem. Thus far I have been given an example of a place where it failed and told that SS sexurtity is a ponzi scheme. Neither argument has been particullarly convincing.

Do you believe it's a ponzi scheme?

 

[IControlThePast]

Do you believe it's a ponzi scheme?

To prove it is a Ponzi scheme you have to prove how the sources are fictitious and that the government takes the money through fraud and deciet. You also assume that the worse thing possible is a Ponzi scheme instead of using some mathematics (which should be easy if you're right) and economics to show how privitization is better than a Ponzi scheme.

Right now other alternatives are raising the retirement age and not allowing anyone to dip into money allocated for SS. For private accounts to succeed, the economy must do well. If the economy does well with the current scheme, we could easily take the extra tax revenue earned and properly fund SS. SS is also supposed to be "insurance" so that people will be less afraid to take risks and try innovation. The "insurance" part is lost when amounts in accounts becomes dependant upon the economy.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

To prove it is a Ponzi scheme you have to prove how the sources are fictitious and that the government takes the money through fraud and deciet. You also assume that the worse thing possible is a Ponzi scheme instead of using some mathematics (which should be easy if you're right) and economics to show how privitization is better than a Ponzi scheme.

Right now other alternatives are raising the retirement age and not allowing anyone to dip into money allocated for SS. For private accounts to succeed, the economy must do well. If the economy does well with the current scheme, we could easily take the extra tax revenue earned and properly fund SS. SS is also supposed to be "insurance" so that people will be less afraid to take risks and try innovation. The "insurance" part is lost when amounts in accounts becomes dependant upon the economy.

Ok. Our government doesn't even bother with a fictitious cover story. They don't even respect us that much. It's a just a brazen ponzi scheme without a lie to cover it. Does that make it better?

The numbers on a ponzi scheme never work, it requires a constant base of expanding workers paying in to keep on going, this alone is at odds with your leftist population control agenda. The truth is the retirees heading into the system will vastly overstress it, as there are not enough new workers heading in to pay their promised benefits. What do the specific numbers matter? I did it at a level of "less than" and "greater than" specifically for idiots like you, yet still you're lost.

 

[Huckleburry]

Right wing,
If the sources of funding are not ficticious (which they are not) then it is by definition not a ponzi scheme. Give it up! You think we are so denese because we ask you to make an argument that extends beyond a declaration of your "correctness". Your arguments are weak at best. Riddle me this oh great economist...If privitization does nothing to solve the current SS problem (which the administration admits it does not) then why is it the center of the debate? The right is constantly praising Bush for his willingingness to tackle the "tough" problems. Yet in the case of SS it would seem that he has chosen to turn tail and run under the cover of smoke and mirrors called Privitization. Icontrolthepast just laid down two alternatives that do solve the problem. You have yet to reply, perry, or defend. Instead you have chosen to lambaste him with half wit remarks. We all wait with baited breath for an economic argument from anyone on the right. Thus far our wait has been in vain...

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Right wing,
If the sources of funding are not ficticious (which they are not) then it is by definition not a ponzi scheme. Give it up! You think we are so denese because we ask you to make an argument that extends beyond a declaration of your "correctness". Your arguments are weak at best. Riddle me this oh great economist...If privitization does nothing to solve the current SS problem (which the administration admits it does not) then why is it the center of the debate? The right is constantly praising Bush for his willingingness to tackle the "tough" problems. Yet in the case of SS it would seem that he has chosen to turn tail and run under the cover of smoke and mirrors called Privitization. Icontrolthepast just laid down two alternatives that do solve the problem. You have yet to reply, perry, or defend. Instead you have chosen to lambaste him with half wit remarks. We all wait with baited breath for an economic argument from anyone on the right. Thus far our wait has been in vain...

But idiotboy, the incoming money is used to pay benefits due right away; the money is not invested wisely, there is not even a pretext of productive use. BUT, the second and most relevant part of the definition "early investors are paid off with funds raised from later ones" is accurate. Just because they don't bother to lie to you doesn't make the sytem economocally solvent. It's a mathematical impossibility for it to succeed. Please extract your head from wherever it's wedged.

 

[cptpwichita]

money is taken out of your payroll checks as witholdings both you and your employer pay a certain percentage.what would happen if suddenly your employer no longer had to pay this contribution?could we expect less expensive products and services,more job security,more jobs,higher returns to investors,better able to compete on the world-market,higher wages?


we need the national retail sales tax!we need to reform social security!we need to privatize education (put an end to the department of education)!we need to privatize the postal service!we need more exploration of oil here at home (quit being scared of the wacko environmentalists)!we need health-care savings accounts and looser restrictions of imported prescription drugs!we need legalization of prostitution and marijuana (stop flooding the criminal justice system with these victim-less crimes)!we need to secure our borders!

How bout we start with those!

 

[cptpwichita]

here is an idea...

when a citizen is born the government establishes a personal retirement account and deposits 5000 dollars into it.the personal retirement account is well diversified mix of stocks,bonds and mutual funds and the investment manager is a government certified company chosen by the legal guardian.when the individual turns 18 he can change managers and when the individual enters the work force he or she pays back the 5000 dollars over time.it is basically a no interest loan.the individual then has the potential to retire a millionaire.everyone in this country could retire a millionaire with little cost to the federal government.also part could be diverted at 18 into a health-care savings account and even a down payment on a first home.

 

[IControlThePast]

here is an idea...

when a citizen is born the government establishes a personal retirement account and deposits 5000 dollars into it.the personal retirement account is well diversified mix of stocks,bonds and mutual funds and the investment manager is a government certified company chosen by the legal guardian.when the individual turns 18 he can change managers and when the individual enters the work force he or she pays back the 5000 dollars over time.it is basically a no interest loan.the individual then has the potential to retire a millionaire.everyone in this country could retire a millionaire with little cost to the federal government.also part could be diverted at 18 into a health-care savings account and even a down payment on a first home.

Remember, everyone can't succeed. Some people have to fail and dig ditches. If everyone was a millionaire then the dollar would be worth very little.

The numbers on a ponzi scheme never work, it requires a constant base of expanding workers paying in to keep on going, this alone is at odds with your leftist population control agenda. The truth is the retirees heading into the system will vastly overstress it, as there are not enough new workers heading in to pay their promised benefits. What do the specific numbers matter? I did it at a level of "less than" and "greater than" specifically for idiots like you, yet still you're lost.

What, the lefties don't want population control, at least not in those welfare trailer parks .

I undestand the greater than less then, but we can fund SS through alterior means (like have a SS tax if we really need to, we'd have to pay off the two trillion in taxes anyways) and not have to take on the two trillion defecit. Because it is insurance, the rich don't really need their payoff. If you have invested your own money privately in addition to SS and made a killing, you just don't get any SS money back. We can also increase the retirement age. The purpose of SS is insurance, to build market stability and confidence. The baby-boomers are just a surge of people, a bump in the road. Afterwards our population will be increasing again. One thing you should not do is trust the results of something projected to happen 30 years down the road. There is way to many extraneous factors that add more and more to the error each year forecast. If we get closer, like 2020 with much of the defecit paid off, and the problem still appears to be coming up without us being able to deal with it, then I would go for a privitization scheme if it looked right to me.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Remember, everyone can't succeed. Some people have to fail and dig ditches. If everyone was a millionaire then the dollar would be worth very little.



What, the lefties don't want population control, at least not in those welfare trailer parks .

I undestand the greater than less then, but we can fund SS through alterior means (like have a SS tax if we really need to, we'd have to pay off the two trillion in taxes anyways) and not have to take on the two trillion defecit. Because it is insurance, the rich don't really need their payoff. If you have invested your own money privately in addition to SS and made a killing, you just don't get any SS money back. We can also increase the retirement age. The purpose of SS is insurance, to build market stability and confidence. The baby-boomers are just a surge of people, a bump in the road. Afterwards our population will be increasing again. One thing you should not do is trust the results of something projected to happen 30 years down the road. There is way to many extraneous factors that add more and more to the error each year forecast. If we get closer, like 2020 with much of the defecit paid off, and the problem still appears to be coming up without us being able to deal with it, then I would go for a privitization scheme if it looked right to me.

All these ideas suck.

Read my lips, no new taxes.

 

[IControlThePast]

All these ideas suck.

Read my lips, no new taxes.

Well then I hope you find a way of paying off the two trillion we have to loan to finance the system change. We could even keep the tax level as it is now by cutting other taxes and adding the SS tax in.

This is worst case scenario, because it all assumes that we won't be generating as much money after the Bush tax cuts as we did before, so if those tax cuts have worked we will have a surplus we can allocate our surplus to SS. Most people on this board seem to find the Bush tax cuts are perfect on the Laffer curvre, so the surplus should start coming in any time.

We can invest the extra funds to the private sector. The SS system already relies on the private sector investments to generate some money, so we could simply put some extra money in there and get our rewards. In the years where benefits exceed contributions the system is designed to run on the revenue generated by the private sector. The SS system is designed so that it only needs to be modified at the margins to account for demographic or economic changes.