Beating Social Security

[Wyatt earp]

Prior to FDR, peoples retirement consisted of having enough kids and hoping one of them would support you in your old age

There was no such thing as retirement. You worked until you were no longer able to work and then hoped you died young

Social Security provided all Americans with a nest egg so they could be protected in their old age

Well the ripe old age back then was 45

 

[rightwinger]

The first thing wrong with your numbers is that the FICA deductions include both Social Security AND Medicare taxes. This puts your numbers somewhere past Mars.

. " The CBO puts the 75-year imbalance in Social Security at 1.2% of GDP—about $200 billion in 2014, and rising steadily as GDP increases. If we do nothing, the Social Security actuaries estimated last year, all Social Security reserves will be exhausted by 2033,after which revenues could cover only three-quarters of currently scheduled benefits." The Hard Numbers on Social Security

a. Social Security Liability ....$14.4 trillion (into the future)
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

That doesn't answer the imbalance that I posted. You can't arrive at your numbers with half the money.

"In addition, our research shows that when all Social Security and Medicare liabilities are included, our national debt is over $80 trillion. The federal government’s most recent financials from 2014 excluded $27.9 trillion of Social Security benefits from the national debt because government officials believe no benefits are owed beyond the checks that are currently written. This unreported debt is crippling the Social Security program and leaving those who are paying taxes today with a small chance of receiving any benefits in the future.

Unfortunately, this unreported $27.9 trillion debt is not the only issue with Social Security. There is a large decrease in the number of workers who are paying taxes to support each person on Social Security."
Social Security adding trillions to our national debt

Good god....

Almost four hours in and the child still has not come up with a viable replacement that "beats" Social Security

You should try to use language with the precision that I do.
"... still has not come up with a viable replacement that "beats" Social Security."

The correct statement would be "and the child still has not revealed the viable replacement that "beats" Social Security."


Brings to mind the jibe "know how to keep an idiot in suspense?"

Other than building a Wayback machine and going back to when Social Security was started...I haven't seen any credible plan out of you that makes Social Security better

 

[rightwinger]

Social Security has evolved. It has lasted for 75 years of republican predictions of impending doom

It needs to be adjusted with a retirement age of 70 and higher payment limits, but other than that, it is working well

Is this your paean to President Ronald Reagan who saved Roosevelt's bacon (Social Security) in 1983???


YOU????

So you're not too old to learn, huh?



"In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees."
Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010

Nobody ever claimed Social Security would not evolve to meet the needs of a changing society

What changes to Social Security would you like to see?

I recognize that at your advanced age, you don't even buy green bananas....

...but hold your horses, grandpa....

I'll lay it all out, as I usually do....slowly, accurately, and completely.

You may want to take notes on the thread.



Need the bottom line now?
OK....the megalomaniac, Roosevelt, jumped at the idea, an would brook no adjustments.

I imagine it takes a while to find something to cut and paste

I will wait with baited breath for your profound observations on saving Social Security

Doesn't look like Franklin Roosevelt did SS recipient's any favor, huh?

Add it to the rest of his maladroit accomplishments.

Doesn't look like Franklin Roosevelt did SS recipient's any favor, huh?
Add it to the rest of his maladroit accomplishments

Looks like PC has once again run away without offering her promised solutions. Once again, her thread is a thinly veiled attack on FDR


What PCs simplistic savings plan does not offer that FDR did offer was that FDR offered immediate retirement for those who were of age. Under PCs plan, the first people could not have retired till sometime in the 1960s when they had built up a large enough nest egg.

That means those in the 30s and 40s who were suffering from a depression would have still suffered, would have still died in poverty. FDRs Social Security helped people immediately

 

[Lakhota]

Social Security is a "safety net" - a valuable lesson learned from the Great Depression. Corporations do not have "safety nets"...

 

[rightwinger]

One valuable quality of Social Security is that it is there until you die and is indexed to inflation

Giving people a $500,000 nest egg when they retire and telling them it has to last the next 30 years is not necessarily the best plan. People can overspend at the beginning, put the money in bad investments, old people are notorious for being swindled out of their nest egg

Social Security has worked for 75 years, Americans depend on it
I would not mess with the basic structure. If you want retirement savings, you can still set up a 401K tax free and have the best of both worlds

 

[NYcarbineer]

(A) Congress has been pilfering from SS since the Reagan era; make them give the money back, problem solved
(B) How many people here will be taking Grandma in to live with them after they take away her SS payments (yes, I know, all of your grandparents are millionaires and they don't need SS). Will you be paying her medical bills, too, after you destroy Medicare?
(C) Income above 118K is not subject to FICA withdrawals...another instance where the middle class is carrying the wealthy, but you don't mind that, right?

The federal government sells bonds to SS. The interest the government pays on those securities is over 100 billion a year.

You want the government to 'give back' about 2.5 trillion dollars to Social Security? Why?

That 2.5 trillion has to come out of your taxes btw.

The amount you cite almost gibes with this:

What Happened to the $2.6 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund?

But Forbes seems to have a different set of facts.

And why does the shortfall have to come from taxes? Can't we figure out what those funds were "borrowed" for and cut that budget to make up the difference?

Still doesn't answer who here is willing to take Grandma in.

Why do you want the government to cash out the Trust Fund securities and give the money back to SS?

 

[NYcarbineer]

6. The email goes on:

" If you calculate the future value of your monthly investment in social security ($375/month, including both you and your employers contributions) at a meager 1% interest rate compounded monthly, after 40 years of working you'd have more than $1.3+ million dollars saved!"


Is that possible???
Is it accurate?


a. I found this:

"...look at the $375 monthly payment invested at a "meager 1% interest rate compounded monthly". First, compounding an investment at 1% compounded monthly becomes 12.7% annual growth rate (1.01 raised to the 12th power). I would not consider this "meager". Also, if you used this 1% compounded monthly, your $375 monthly payment becomes $4.4 million over this 40 year work career which is very different than the $1.3 million stated in the email."
Understanding Data in the News: Social Security Myths Set Straight



b. Do banks compound monthly?
Yup.
" Interest on savings accounts is usually compounded daily and paid monthly. " How do savings accounts work?



c. And this:
· One pays a rate of 10%, compounded annually.

· One pays a rate of 9.6%, compounded monthly.

· One pays a rate of 9.5%, compounded continuously.
All of these accounts pay interest at the same rate (up to one decimal place, anyway). Are there any banks that actually offer continuous compound interest? - Quora




Let's go with the lower accrued total of $1.3 million, rather that the generous $4.4 million.
Does the Roosevelt plan pay off commensurate with those figures?


Judging by who posted this thread....wadda you think?
I'll prove it.

Still waiting for a viable proposal to replace Social Security....Remember, you have to "Beat" what we have

You still have over 200 million Americans you have to pay benefits to. You don't get to tear it up and start over. So your plan will have to provide a means to transition to a new program

"Remember, you have to "Beat" what we have."
Psst....I'm not the one having troubling remembering stuff.
Have you tried B12 shots?

And my posts will do exactly what you've asked.

Still looking for a viable plan

Guess over the last two hours you still can't find what you want to cut and paste. Hundreds of millions of lives hang in the balance

Calm down, old timer.

I plan the entire thread before the first post.
You didn't know that?

Did you want to explain the vapid 'cut and paste' comment?
You object to facts posted by that method?

Or are you grasping at straws because you have no adequate response to said facts.
You can be honest....just between us.

Why are denying that Reagan fixed social security for 50 years?

Gee....another lie from the NYLiar!

Shocker.

OKAY, I tricked you into making another concession:

You aren't denying that Reagan fixed Social Security in 1983,

so you have to concede that it is fixable.

Case closed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

One valuable quality of Social Security is that it is there until you die and is indexed to inflation

Giving people a $500,000 nest egg when they retire and telling them it has to last the next 30 years is not necessarily the best plan. People can overspend at the beginning, put the money in bad investments, old people are notorious for being swindled out of their nest egg

Social Security has worked for 75 years, Americans depend on it
I would not mess with the basic structure. If you want retirement savings, you can still set up a 401K tax free and have the best of both worlds

Social Security is only one part of a person's retirement. You want to put your IRA in pets.com, go for it.

 

[rightwinger]

One valuable quality of Social Security is that it is there until you die and is indexed to inflation

Giving people a $500,000 nest egg when they retire and telling them it has to last the next 30 years is not necessarily the best plan. People can overspend at the beginning, put the money in bad investments, old people are notorious for being swindled out of their nest egg

Social Security has worked for 75 years, Americans depend on it
I would not mess with the basic structure. If you want retirement savings, you can still set up a 401K tax free and have the best of both worlds

Social Security is only one part of a person's retirement. You want to put your IRA in pets.com, go for it.

Absolutely

Pay off your house, wait till you are 67 to collect Social Security and pay into a 401K from the time you are 21

You will not have to worry about retirement

 

[danielpalos]

i believe social security could be a legacy program by solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Per the title of this thread, the term "Beating" means doing better than.....
And today, another lesson in "The Mythology of Big Government Solutions."
Social security.

Another of the cosmic gaffes of the 32nd President, Social Security.....well, OK...the idea was good....but not the planning nor the insight necessary to go with it.

Is there a far, far better iteration of Social Security than the one with which Franklin Roosevelt insisted on saddling America?
A free-market version, more consistent with the vision of our Founders?
You betcha;!
Unveiled in this thread.



First....Roosevelt's 'gift:'

1. " The CBO puts the 75-year imbalance in Social Security at 1.2% of GDP—about $200 billion in 2014, and rising steadily as GDP increases. If we do nothing, the Social Security actuaries estimated last year, all Social Security reserves will be exhausted by 2033, after which revenues could cover only three-quarters of currently scheduled benefits." The Hard Numbers on Social Security

a. Social Security Liability ....$14.4 trillion (into the future)
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
...


No one considered that life expectancy would increase?

No one considered that the balance of workers and retirees might change?

No one calculated the long-term costs?


.

Now that's funny. Right after you post the CBO's long term cost calculations,

you rhetorically claim that no one ever calculated the long term costs.

Wake up, ditz. Take your blonde wig off.

"you rhetorically claim that no one ever calculated the long term costs."

No I didn't.

I indicated that Liberals are not smart enough to take exigencies or worrisome details into their calculations.
Of course, that is one of your many problems, as well: lack of insight.

Totalitarians cannot allow that their may be problems with their mandates.
That's what big government devotees do.

Do you know what a rhetorical question is?

 

[NYcarbineer]

One valuable quality of Social Security is that it is there until you die and is indexed to inflation

Giving people a $500,000 nest egg when they retire and telling them it has to last the next 30 years is not necessarily the best plan. People can overspend at the beginning, put the money in bad investments, old people are notorious for being swindled out of their nest egg

Social Security has worked for 75 years, Americans depend on it
I would not mess with the basic structure. If you want retirement savings, you can still set up a 401K tax free and have the best of both worlds

Social Security is only one part of a person's retirement. You want to put your IRA in pets.com, go for it.

Absolutely

Pay off your house, wait till you are 67 to collect Social Security and pay into a 401K from the time you are 21

You will not have to worry about retirement

My SS entitlement will pay my survival expenses - food shelter utilities transportation, etc.

My pensions and savings are effectively mad money. All available for non-essentials. I'm GLAD they took SS out of my pay every week.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Is this your paean to President Ronald Reagan who saved Roosevelt's bacon (Social Security) in 1983???


YOU????

So you're not too old to learn, huh?



"In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees."
Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010

Nobody ever claimed Social Security would not evolve to meet the needs of a changing society

What changes to Social Security would you like to see?

I recognize that at your advanced age, you don't even buy green bananas....

...but hold your horses, grandpa....

I'll lay it all out, as I usually do....slowly, accurately, and completely.

You may want to take notes on the thread.



Need the bottom line now?
OK....the megalomaniac, Roosevelt, jumped at the idea, an would brook no adjustments.

I imagine it takes a while to find something to cut and paste

I will wait with baited breath for your profound observations on saving Social Security

Doesn't look like Franklin Roosevelt did SS recipient's any favor, huh?

Add it to the rest of his maladroit accomplishments.

Doesn't look like Franklin Roosevelt did SS recipient's any favor, huh?
Add it to the rest of his maladroit accomplishments

Looks like PC has once again run away without offering her promised solutions. Once again, her thread is a thinly veiled attack on FDR


What PCs simplistic savings plan does not offer that FDR did offer was that FDR offered immediate retirement for those who were of age. Under PCs plan, the first people could not have retired till sometime in the 1960s when they had built up a large enough nest egg.

That means those in the 30s and 40s who were suffering from a depression would have still suffered, would have still died in poverty. FDRs Social Security helped people immediately

I just showed you one that paid thrice what your god, Roosevelt's did....so you used the tried and true Liberal defense: you lie.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now, before the "Roosevelt is God" groupies claim it was not/is not possible ....it has been done, and done better.
Before Reagan saved the plan....it was possible to opt out.



8. "THE TEXAS TRIBUNE
How Privatized Social Security Works in Galveston
By BECCA AARONSON
Published: September 17, 2011

.... see how a privatized Social Security plan might work. Government employees in Galveston, Brazoria and Matagorda Counties have controlled their private retirement plan for 30 years. They opted out of Social Security before Congress changed the law in 1983 to prevent others from withdrawing.


Though the private program has its critics — and some say it does not provide all of the important benefits many destitute Americans claim through Social Security — many in these counties consider their system superior.


Almost everyone agrees Social Security will need to be changed in some way to remain solvent.

In the Alternate Plan, retirement benefits are a direct result of employee contributions. In each paycheck, employees contribute 13.9 percent of the their gross pay (6.1 percent from the employee, 7.8 percent from the county) to a private account.

First Financial Benefits invests the accounts conservatively, ... The company guarantees a minimum rate of return of 3.75 percent to 4 percent on the accounts to safeguard employees’ benefits against inflation and severe drops in market rates." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/u...y-works-in-galveston.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0



What????

A possible non-lock-step, one-size-fits all, my way or else plan?????

Oh...noooozzzzzz!

Roosevelt must be spinning in his grave!

 

[PoliticalChic]

One valuable quality of Social Security is that it is there until you die and is indexed to inflation

Giving people a $500,000 nest egg when they retire and telling them it has to last the next 30 years is not necessarily the best plan. People can overspend at the beginning, put the money in bad investments, old people are notorious for being swindled out of their nest egg

Social Security has worked for 75 years, Americans depend on it
I would not mess with the basic structure. If you want retirement savings, you can still set up a 401K tax free and have the best of both worlds

Social Security is only one part of a person's retirement. You want to put your IRA in pets.com, go for it.

Absolutely

Pay off your house, wait till you are 67 to collect Social Security and pay into a 401K from the time you are 21

You will not have to worry about retirement

My SS entitlement will pay my survival expenses - food shelter utilities transportation, etc.

My pensions and savings are effectively mad money. All available for non-essentials. I'm GLAD they took SS out of my pay every week.

You have nothing to worry about!

Lichens never die.

 

[Lakhota]

Social Security is an "insurance" program (safety net) - not an "investment" program. Social Security is also referred to as Supplemental Security Income (SSI).

 

[nuhuh]

Now, before the "Roosevelt is God" groupies claim it was not/is not possible ....it has been done, and done better.
Before Reagan saved the plan....it was possible to opt out.



8. "THE TEXAS TRIBUNE
How Privatized Social Security Works in Galveston
By BECCA AARONSON
Published: September 17, 2011

.... see how a privatized Social Security plan might work. Government employees in Galveston, Brazoria and Matagorda Counties have controlled their private retirement plan for 30 years. They opted out of Social Security before Congress changed the law in 1983 to prevent others from withdrawing.


Though the private program has its critics — and some say it does not provide all of the important benefits many destitute Americans claim through Social Security — many in these counties consider their system superior.


Almost everyone agrees Social Security will need to be changed in some way to remain solvent.

In the Alternate Plan, retirement benefits are a direct result of employee contributions. In each paycheck, employees contribute 13.9 percent of the their gross pay (6.1 percent from the employee, 7.8 percent from the county) to a private account.

First Financial Benefits invests the accounts conservatively, ... The company guarantees a minimum rate of return of 3.75 percent to 4 percent on the accounts to safeguard employees’ benefits against inflation and severe drops in market rates." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/u...y-works-in-galveston.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0



What????

A possible non-lock-step, one-size-fits all, my way or else plan?????

Oh...noooozzzzzz!

Roosevelt must be spinning in his grave!

Some plan when a judge no less, exhausts his account in ten years and the has to rely on Social Security to get by.

 

[rightwinger]

Nobody ever claimed Social Security would not evolve to meet the needs of a changing society

What changes to Social Security would you like to see?

I recognize that at your advanced age, you don't even buy green bananas....

...but hold your horses, grandpa....

I'll lay it all out, as I usually do....slowly, accurately, and completely.

You may want to take notes on the thread.



Need the bottom line now?
OK....the megalomaniac, Roosevelt, jumped at the idea, an would brook no adjustments.

I imagine it takes a while to find something to cut and paste

I will wait with baited breath for your profound observations on saving Social Security

Doesn't look like Franklin Roosevelt did SS recipient's any favor, huh?

Add it to the rest of his maladroit accomplishments.

Doesn't look like Franklin Roosevelt did SS recipient's any favor, huh?
Add it to the rest of his maladroit accomplishments

Looks like PC has once again run away without offering her promised solutions. Once again, her thread is a thinly veiled attack on FDR


What PCs simplistic savings plan does not offer that FDR did offer was that FDR offered immediate retirement for those who were of age. Under PCs plan, the first people could not have retired till sometime in the 1960s when they had built up a large enough nest egg.

That means those in the 30s and 40s who were suffering from a depression would have still suffered, would have still died in poverty. FDRs Social Security helped people immediately

I just showed you one that paid thrice what your god, Roosevelt's did....so you used the tried and true Liberal defense: you lie.

You fail to show when the first retiree would be eligible to receive benefits. You also fail to account for the feeble interest rates in the 30s and 40s

FDR provided immediate eligibility, those in your plan would have had to wait until the 1960s before the first could retire

Looks like FDR wins

 

[rightwinger]

Now, before the "Roosevelt is God" groupies claim it was not/is not possible ....it has been done, and done better.
Before Reagan saved the plan....it was possible to opt out.



8. "THE TEXAS TRIBUNE
How Privatized Social Security Works in Galveston
By BECCA AARONSON
Published: September 17, 2011

.... see how a privatized Social Security plan might work. Government employees in Galveston, Brazoria and Matagorda Counties have controlled their private retirement plan for 30 years. They opted out of Social Security before Congress changed the law in 1983 to prevent others from withdrawing.


Though the private program has its critics — and some say it does not provide all of the important benefits many destitute Americans claim through Social Security — many in these counties consider their system superior.


Almost everyone agrees Social Security will need to be changed in some way to remain solvent.

In the Alternate Plan, retirement benefits are a direct result of employee contributions. In each paycheck, employees contribute 13.9 percent of the their gross pay (6.1 percent from the employee, 7.8 percent from the county) to a private account.

First Financial Benefits invests the accounts conservatively, ... The company guarantees a minimum rate of return of 3.75 percent to 4 percent on the accounts to safeguard employees’ benefits against inflation and severe drops in market rates." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/u...y-works-in-galveston.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0



What????

A possible non-lock-step, one-size-fits all, my way or else plan?????

Oh...noooozzzzzz!

Roosevelt must be spinning in his grave!

I opted out of Social Security until Reagan banned it

I still am not eligible

 

[danielpalos]

I believe social safety nets should funded through general taxes instead of our current regime.