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

[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.

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.

This is good information.

What would you do if you could redesign or eliminate the system ?

 

[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.

This is good information.

What would you do if you could redesign or eliminate the system ?

Thank you for asking. Look back in history when the SS system was originally voted on. It was intended to help those who pay in to establish a retirement. Granted, it is not much, but it does make a difference for some.

Then there was amendments to that original law. The 504b was just one of them. We have to go back to its intended purpose. Paying only to those who pay in and used for retired people. We have to stop this money for nothing attitude that has fallen on this nation. We just cannot afford the needless expenditures.

 

[Jackson]

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

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

That is a good plan. Subsidies are not was intended in the original law and subsidies have been abused for years. No more subsidies!

 

[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.

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.

This is good information.

What would you do if you could redesign or eliminate the system ?

Thank you for asking. Look back in history when the SS system was originally voted on. It was intended to help those who pay in to establish a retirement. Granted, it is not much, but it does make a difference for some.

Then there was amendments to that original law. The 504b was just one of them. We have to go back to its intended purpose. Paying only to those who pay in and used for retired people. We have to stop this money for nothing attitude that has fallen on this nation. We just cannot afford the needless expenditures.

O.K.....

What would you do ?

I'd like to see the program phased over into one where the contributions you make remain with you.

 

[Jackson]

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.

This is good information.

What would you do if you could redesign or eliminate the system ?

Thank you for asking. Look back in history when the SS system was originally voted on. It was intended to help those who pay in to establish a retirement. Granted, it is not much, but it does make a difference for some.

Then there was amendments to that original law. The 504b was just one of them. We have to go back to its intended purpose. Paying only to those who pay in and used for retired people. We have to stop this money for nothing attitude that has fallen on this nation. We just cannot afford the needless expenditures.

O.K.....

What would you do ?

I'd like to see the program phased over into one where the contributions you make remain with you.

Excellent. I agree. Congress could not loot the fund as it has in the past.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

This is good information.

What would you do if you could redesign or eliminate the system ?

Thank you for asking. Look back in history when the SS system was originally voted on. It was intended to help those who pay in to establish a retirement. Granted, it is not much, but it does make a difference for some.

Then there was amendments to that original law. The 504b was just one of them. We have to go back to its intended purpose. Paying only to those who pay in and used for retired people. We have to stop this money for nothing attitude that has fallen on this nation. We just cannot afford the needless expenditures.

O.K.....

What would you do ?

I'd like to see the program phased over into one where the contributions you make remain with you.

Excellent. I agree. Congress could not loot the fund as it has in the past.

I'd also like to see the unemployment insurance that is paid by your employer and you...put into this account. The account would become your unemployment insurance and it would be something you could draw from in cases where you are unemployed.

Also....if you are a deadbeat dad......guess where your ex goes to get the money you are obligated to pay ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

A question for Foxfyre .......

Is the conservative "movement" doing anything to address Social Security ? Or do they find it acceptable the way it is ?

 

[Foxfyre]

A question for Foxfyre .......

Is the conservative "movement" doing anything to address Social Security ? Or do they find it acceptable the way it is ?

Nobody with a brain thinks Social Security is acceptable the way it is, and since most conservatives are reasonably intelligent people. . . well. . .

There is no 'conservative movement' as such. There are only patriotic minded people trying to effect positive change. They may or may not identify or label themselves as 'conservative'. . .so it is safe to say that there is no 'conservative movement' as such trying to do anything. The closest thing to it is when a groundswell of support for a particular conservative concept or policy is evident.

I have always believed there was no constitutional authority for social security or any other program like that. The federal government could provide tax incentives, provide insured vehicles for saving, and promote a social imperative to secure one's future, all within intended constitutional limits, and that is the approach I would have taken having authority to do so. It could have given people a voluntary option for the government to collect and hold a portion of earnings with the guarantee the person and/or his/her heirs would get them. But privately owned and managed retirement funds would have been the way to go.

And provisions for the truly helpless among us who need assistance should be handled in a separate program for that purpose.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

A question for Foxfyre .......

Is the conservative "movement" doing anything to address Social Security ? Or do they find it acceptable the way it is ?

Nobody with a brain thinks Social Security is acceptable the way it is, and since most conservatives are reasonably intelligent people. . . well. . .

There is no 'conservative movement' as such. There are only patriotic minded people trying to effect positive change. They may or may not identify or label themselves as 'conservative'. . .so it is safe to say that there is no 'conservative movement' as such trying to do anything. The closest thing to it is when a groundswell of support for a particular conservative concept or policy is evident.

I have always believed there was no constitutional authority for social security or any other program like that. The federal government could provide tax incentives, provide insured vehicles for saving, and promote a social imperative to secure one's future, all within intended constitutional limits, and that is the approach I would have taken having authority to do so. It could have given people a voluntary option for the government to collect and hold a portion of earnings with the guarantee the person and/or his/her heirs would get them. But privately owned and managed retirement funds would have been the way to go.

And provisions for the truly helpless among us who need assistance should be handled in a separate program for that purpose.

So, I am going to reply in the context of other threads that we've been on in this forum.

First, you say nobody with a brain thinks it is acceptable the way it is. That would seem to imply that there is a "way" in which it would be acceptable. If that is the case, please share.

Second, there are plenty of smart people who feel it is fine just the way it is. But, you've poisoned the well against them. I find that to be somewhat unacceptable. Just sayin'.

Third, despite the fact that it is unacceptable, you say that conservatives are not doing anything to change it. You always laud conservatives as being "reasonably intelligent"......and yet, no effort against something that is not acceptable (and my effort...nothing that says "We want to change or get rid of Social Security".....your qualification about "groundswell says that conservatives are not all that organized....especially for intelligent people.

Constitutional or not, it is here and will continue to be here until someone does something. I agree with the statements in your final paragraph regarding what the Federal Government could do.

But, conservatives are not leading the charge......

How disappointing.

 

[Foxfyre]

A question for Foxfyre .......

Is the conservative "movement" doing anything to address Social Security ? Or do they find it acceptable the way it is ?

Nobody with a brain thinks Social Security is acceptable the way it is, and since most conservatives are reasonably intelligent people. . . well. . .

There is no 'conservative movement' as such. There are only patriotic minded people trying to effect positive change. They may or may not identify or label themselves as 'conservative'. . .so it is safe to say that there is no 'conservative movement' as such trying to do anything. The closest thing to it is when a groundswell of support for a particular conservative concept or policy is evident.

I have always believed there was no constitutional authority for social security or any other program like that. The federal government could provide tax incentives, provide insured vehicles for saving, and promote a social imperative to secure one's future, all within intended constitutional limits, and that is the approach I would have taken having authority to do so. It could have given people a voluntary option for the government to collect and hold a portion of earnings with the guarantee the person and/or his/her heirs would get them. But privately owned and managed retirement funds would have been the way to go.

And provisions for the truly helpless among us who need assistance should be handled in a separate program for that purpose.

So, I am going to reply in the context of other threads that we've been on in this forum.

First, you say nobody with a brain thinks it is acceptable the way it is. That would seem to imply that there is a "way" in which it would be acceptable. If that is the case, please share.

Second, there are plenty of smart people who feel it is fine just the way it is. But, you've poisoned the well against them. I find that to be somewhat unacceptable. Just sayin'.

Third, despite the fact that it is unacceptable, you say that conservatives are not doing anything to change it. You always laud conservatives as being "reasonably intelligent"......and yet, no effort against something that is not acceptable (and my effort...nothing that says "We want to change or get rid of Social Security".....your qualification about "groundswell says that conservatives are not all that organized....especially for intelligent people.

Constitutional or not, it is here and will continue to be here until someone does something. I agree with the statements in your final paragraph regarding what the Federal Government could do.

But, conservatives are not leading the charge......

How disappointing.

Sorry to be disappointing but I prefer to discuss what I say instead of what somebody infers that I said. I prefer to discuss what I meant instead of what somebody inferred that I meant. And I prefer that my opinion be challenged if there is cause to challenge it rather than being accused of 'poisoning the well'. Most especially when I have been invited to participate in the thread.

As for those that may think Social Security is just fine the way it is being 'smart', even those in government in the Social Security Administration don't think that.
Social Security Not Sustainable for the Long Term

I, as a conservative, offered several suggestions that would be a better system than the existing Social Security system. It is not my place to speak for anybody but myself.

Do have a nice day.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

A question for Foxfyre .......

Is the conservative "movement" doing anything to address Social Security ? Or do they find it acceptable the way it is ?

Nobody with a brain thinks Social Security is acceptable the way it is, and since most conservatives are reasonably intelligent people. . . well. . .

There is no 'conservative movement' as such. There are only patriotic minded people trying to effect positive change. They may or may not identify or label themselves as 'conservative'. . .so it is safe to say that there is no 'conservative movement' as such trying to do anything. The closest thing to it is when a groundswell of support for a particular conservative concept or policy is evident.

I have always believed there was no constitutional authority for social security or any other program like that. The federal government could provide tax incentives, provide insured vehicles for saving, and promote a social imperative to secure one's future, all within intended constitutional limits, and that is the approach I would have taken having authority to do so. It could have given people a voluntary option for the government to collect and hold a portion of earnings with the guarantee the person and/or his/her heirs would get them. But privately owned and managed retirement funds would have been the way to go.

And provisions for the truly helpless among us who need assistance should be handled in a separate program for that purpose.

So, I am going to reply in the context of other threads that we've been on in this forum.

First, you say nobody with a brain thinks it is acceptable the way it is. That would seem to imply that there is a "way" in which it would be acceptable. If that is the case, please share.

Second, there are plenty of smart people who feel it is fine just the way it is. But, you've poisoned the well against them. I find that to be somewhat unacceptable. Just sayin'.

Third, despite the fact that it is unacceptable, you say that conservatives are not doing anything to change it. You always laud conservatives as being "reasonably intelligent"......and yet, no effort against something that is not acceptable (and my effort...nothing that says "We want to change or get rid of Social Security".....your qualification about "groundswell says that conservatives are not all that organized....especially for intelligent people.

Constitutional or not, it is here and will continue to be here until someone does something. I agree with the statements in your final paragraph regarding what the Federal Government could do.

But, conservatives are not leading the charge......

How disappointing.

Sorry to be disappointing but I prefer to discuss what I say instead of what somebody infers that I said. I prefer to discuss what I meant instead of what somebody inferred that I meant. And I prefer that my opinion be challenged if there is cause to challenge it rather than being accused of 'poisoning the well'. Most especially when I have been invited to participate in the thread.

As for those that may think Social Security is just fine the way it is being 'smart', even those in government in the Social Security Administration don't think that.
Social Security Not Sustainable for the Long Term

I, as a conservative, offered several suggestions that would be a better system than the existing Social Security system. It is not my place to speak for anybody but myself.

Do have a nice day.

You'll need to go back and read the question I asked.

I really didn't request your opinion...I simply asked if the conservative movement was doing anything about Social Security. Or do they find it acceptable as it is.

A simple no would have sufficed (if I read your response correctly).

What I found confusing was that you said "anyone with a brain" does not find it acceptable as it is. But the answer was that the conservative movement wasn't doing anything about it. And if you don't believe that saying anyone with a brain does not accepts it as it currently is isn't poisoning the well, then we have a much more fundamental difference over communication.

Please make sure you follow your own rules before you try to rebuke others for no doing so (which in this case I don't believe is true).

Thanks for the answer. It's good to know that the reasonably intelligent who don't accept something the way it is....still are not doing anything about it. It gives me hope.

 

[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.**

* This is a huge tax break for people who make over $110K per year.

**Maintain an early retirement option.

Agree/Disagree?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.**

* This is a huge tax break for people who make over $110K per year.

**Maintain an early retirement option.

Agree/Disagree?

Why do you call it a tax break ?

They won't collect on anything above a certain income....so the extra they pay in is lost.

To help the system, I am all for adding a surecharge on income above the limit.

I suspect the entire retirement formula needs to be looked at.

In the long run, if it was "your money", you could retire whenever you wanted provided you hit certain minimums.

And thanks for answering.

 

[prison/con.net]

How about we just shoot everybody who thinks that it's a good idea? How about people just PERISH if they don't provide for their OWN retirement? It's not just THEM who are being forced to pay, but also everyone ELSE. The early recipients of SS paid NOTHING into the system and almost nobody pays into it what they have spent on them (including Medicare, nursing home costs, etc) It's a ponzi scheme, enforced with govt guns. and that's all it ever was. There's no "savings", or invmestment being done. That revenue is SPENT as it comes in.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

How about we just shoot everybody who thinks that it's a good idea? How about people just PERISH if they don't provide for their OWN retirement? It's not just THEM who are being forced to pay, but also everyone ELSE. The early recipients of SS paid NOTHING into the system and almost nobody pays into it what they have spent on them (including Medicare, nursing home costs, etc) It's a ponzi scheme, enforced with govt guns. and that's all it ever was. There's no "savings", or invmestment being done. That revenue is SPENT as it comes in.

That wasn't one of the options.

But I take it to mean that you would just as soon get ride of it. Now or phasing it out.

 

[jwoodie]

Why do you call it a tax break ?

They won't collect on anything above a certain income....so the extra they pay in is lost.

The marginal benefit return on SS contributions by higher earners is only 15% of average income (which happens to be almost exactly the combined employee/employer payroll tax rate). This means that in return for contributing 15% of your pretax income for 35 years, you will get back a taxable lifetime annuity of the same amount at age 65-66. Actuarially, this is a terrible "investment."

This reduced benefit for higher earners is what allows SS to give lower earners up to 90% of their earnings, thus making SS a de facto means-tested welfare program. Why should earnings over $110K be exempted from this tax? I guarantee you that no one in this category would voluntarily contribute to this scheme, even if it increased their SS benefits. Instead, they would much prefer to keep the regressive drop in their marginal tax rates that they now enjoy.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why do you call it a tax break ?

They won't collect on anything above a certain income....so the extra they pay in is lost.

The marginal benefit return on SS contributions by higher earners is only 15% of average income (which happens to be almost exactly the combined employee/employer payroll tax rate). This means that in return for contributing 15% of your pretax income for 35 years, you will get back a taxable lifetime annuity of the same amount at age 65-66. Actuarially, this is a terrible "investment."

This reduced benefit for higher earners is what allows SS to give lower earners up to 90% of their earnings, thus making SS a de facto means-tested welfare program. Why should earnings over $110K be exempted from this tax? I guarantee you that no one in this category would voluntarily contribute to this scheme, even if it increased their SS benefits. Instead, they would much prefer to keep the regressive drop in their marginal tax rates that they now enjoy.

Yes, social security is an absolutely miserable investment. The only way it can be justified is that at least those who do not plan and save for their retirement years will receive something when they retire.

But what if there had been no social security program? What if the government instead had offered the IRAs, 401Ks, and other tax free savings vehicles as an incentive to save--had allowed employers to match 401K contributions and deduct those from their taxes? What if the push had been to ensure that the culture made it socially desirable and 'the right thing to do' to save for retirement? None of that would have cost the government a dime but would have been a huge incentive for people to save. And if you make the tax consequences for early withdrawal painful enough, that is a strong incentive to leave the funds intact for one's retirement.

The advantages of managing one's own funds is that they can be invested so that they at least draw interest or hopefully grow in value far and beyond what interest alone can do. And they are your funds. If you die before you can use them, they are passed on to whomever you designate should receive them instead of disappearing into the black hole that is government. Because you would not be paying taxes on that money at any point, you would have ability to save more. Right now we pay taxes on the amount that is taken for social security taxes before the social security taxes are taken.

So what about the irresponsible who don't save, you say? Well whose responsibility is it to make people responsible? The government? You? Me? Or the person who is making the choices?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Why do you call it a tax break ?

They won't collect on anything above a certain income....so the extra they pay in is lost.

The marginal benefit return on SS contributions by higher earners is only 15% of average income (which happens to be almost exactly the combined employee/employer payroll tax rate). This means that in return for contributing 15% of your pretax income for 35 years, you will get back a taxable lifetime annuity of the same amount at age 65-66. Actuarially, this is a terrible "investment."

This reduced benefit for higher earners is what allows SS to give lower earners up to 90% of their earnings, thus making SS a de facto means-tested welfare program. Why should earnings over $110K be exempted from this tax? I guarantee you that no one in this category would voluntarily contribute to this scheme, even if it increased their SS benefits. Instead, they would much prefer to keep the regressive drop in their marginal tax rates that they now enjoy.

Yes, social security is an absolutely miserable investment. The only way it can be justified is that at least those who do not plan and save for their retirement years will receive something when they retire.

But what if there had been no social security program? What if the government instead had offered the IRAs, 401Ks, and other tax free savings vehicles as an incentive to save--had allowed employers to match 401K contributions and deduct those from their taxes? What if the push had been to ensure that the culture made it socially desirable and 'the right thing to do' to save for retirement? None of that would have cost the government a dime but would have been a huge incentive for people to save. And if you make the tax consequences for early withdrawal painful enough, that is a strong incentive to leave the funds intact for one's retirement.

The advantages of managing one's own funds is that they can be invested so that they at least draw interest or hopefully grow in value far and beyond what interest alone can do. And they are your funds. If you die before you can use them, they are passed on to whomever you designate should receive them instead of disappearing into the black hole that is government. Because you would not be paying taxes on that money at any point, you would have ability to save more. Right now we pay taxes on the amount that is taken for social security taxes before the social security taxes are taken.

So what about the irresponsible who don't save, you say? Well whose responsibility is it to make people responsible? The government? You? Me? Or the person who is making the choices?

This is where I part company with conservatives...if, for no other reason, they often don't seem to understand the history of how it got started.

Prior to the roaring 20's, most people worked in a family business or on a family farm. As they grew older, they didn't retire...they simply took on fewer and fewer tasks..but still contributed.

The industrial revolution marginalized the elderly as farm population and small business employment (relative to past percentages) shrunk. The elderly were not phased out...they were simply dropped.

The Real Deal The History and Future of Social Security - Sylvester J. Schieber John B. Shoven - Google Books

When the great depression hit, unemployment amongst the elderly was over 50% (from memory). So you can see....something was needed.

What wasn't needed was a permanent system.

However, the "progressives" of the time were aware of the social safety nets of Europe (and apparently not aware of the issues associated with them), and thought we needed something similar.

And thus FDR got his way (after threatening the SCOTUS).

While I think the elderly needed relief I am not so sure we needed this program long term.

Had we phased it out (in favor of something else where you got what you paid in) when things were good (the 50's), we might have been O.K.

The system could be set, via the government, such that it is handled like a retirement account. Whether you went private or under the government (the entire structure within the government would have to be redone so it looked and acted like a bank).....the goals you all out in paragraph 3 could be accomplished.

I certainly find the "pay go" ideology to be pathetic.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why do you call it a tax break ?

They won't collect on anything above a certain income....so the extra they pay in is lost.

The marginal benefit return on SS contributions by higher earners is only 15% of average income (which happens to be almost exactly the combined employee/employer payroll tax rate). This means that in return for contributing 15% of your pretax income for 35 years, you will get back a taxable lifetime annuity of the same amount at age 65-66. Actuarially, this is a terrible "investment."

This reduced benefit for higher earners is what allows SS to give lower earners up to 90% of their earnings, thus making SS a de facto means-tested welfare program. Why should earnings over $110K be exempted from this tax? I guarantee you that no one in this category would voluntarily contribute to this scheme, even if it increased their SS benefits. Instead, they would much prefer to keep the regressive drop in their marginal tax rates that they now enjoy.

Yes, social security is an absolutely miserable investment. The only way it can be justified is that at least those who do not plan and save for their retirement years will receive something when they retire.

But what if there had been no social security program? What if the government instead had offered the IRAs, 401Ks, and other tax free savings vehicles as an incentive to save--had allowed employers to match 401K contributions and deduct those from their taxes? What if the push had been to ensure that the culture made it socially desirable and 'the right thing to do' to save for retirement? None of that would have cost the government a dime but would have been a huge incentive for people to save. And if you make the tax consequences for early withdrawal painful enough, that is a strong incentive to leave the funds intact for one's retirement.

The advantages of managing one's own funds is that they can be invested so that they at least draw interest or hopefully grow in value far and beyond what interest alone can do. And they are your funds. If you die before you can use them, they are passed on to whomever you designate should receive them instead of disappearing into the black hole that is government. Because you would not be paying taxes on that money at any point, you would have ability to save more. Right now we pay taxes on the amount that is taken for social security taxes before the social security taxes are taken.

So what about the irresponsible who don't save, you say? Well whose responsibility is it to make people responsible? The government? You? Me? Or the person who is making the choices?

This is where I part company with conservatives...if, for no other reason, they often don't seem to understand the history of how it got started.

Prior to the roaring 20's, most people worked in a family business or on a family farm. As they grew older, they didn't retire...they simply took on fewer and fewer tasks..but still contributed.

The industrial revolution marginalized the elderly as farm population and small business employment (relative to past percentages) shrunk. The elderly were not phased out...they were simply dropped.

The Real Deal The History and Future of Social Security - Sylvester J. Schieber John B. Shoven - Google Books

When the great depression hit, unemployment amongst the elderly was over 50% (from memory). So you can see....something was needed.

What wasn't needed was a permanent system.

However, the "progressives" of the time were aware of the social safety nets of Europe (and apparently not aware of the issues associated with them), and thought we needed something similar.

And thus FDR got his way (after threatening the SCOTUS).

While I think the elderly needed relief I am not so sure we needed this program long term.

Had we phased it out (in favor of something else where you got what you paid in) when things were good (the 50's), we might have been O.K.

The whatever that was needed did not have to be unconstitutional taxes and allocations from the federal government. Certainly the meager amounts routed to the senior citizens before the 50's could have been accomplished in many different ways than by creating a faceless entitlement program that the federal government was never intended to have authority to do.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Why do you call it a tax break ?

They won't collect on anything above a certain income....so the extra they pay in is lost.

The marginal benefit return on SS contributions by higher earners is only 15% of average income (which happens to be almost exactly the combined employee/employer payroll tax rate). This means that in return for contributing 15% of your pretax income for 35 years, you will get back a taxable lifetime annuity of the same amount at age 65-66. Actuarially, this is a terrible "investment."

This reduced benefit for higher earners is what allows SS to give lower earners up to 90% of their earnings, thus making SS a de facto means-tested welfare program. Why should earnings over $110K be exempted from this tax? I guarantee you that no one in this category would voluntarily contribute to this scheme, even if it increased their SS benefits. Instead, they would much prefer to keep the regressive drop in their marginal tax rates that they now enjoy.

Yes, social security is an absolutely miserable investment. The only way it can be justified is that at least those who do not plan and save for their retirement years will receive something when they retire.

But what if there had been no social security program? What if the government instead had offered the IRAs, 401Ks, and other tax free savings vehicles as an incentive to save--had allowed employers to match 401K contributions and deduct those from their taxes? What if the push had been to ensure that the culture made it socially desirable and 'the right thing to do' to save for retirement? None of that would have cost the government a dime but would have been a huge incentive for people to save. And if you make the tax consequences for early withdrawal painful enough, that is a strong incentive to leave the funds intact for one's retirement.

The advantages of managing one's own funds is that they can be invested so that they at least draw interest or hopefully grow in value far and beyond what interest alone can do. And they are your funds. If you die before you can use them, they are passed on to whomever you designate should receive them instead of disappearing into the black hole that is government. Because you would not be paying taxes on that money at any point, you would have ability to save more. Right now we pay taxes on the amount that is taken for social security taxes before the social security taxes are taken.

So what about the irresponsible who don't save, you say? Well whose responsibility is it to make people responsible? The government? You? Me? Or the person who is making the choices?

This is where I part company with conservatives...if, for no other reason, they often don't seem to understand the history of how it got started.

Prior to the roaring 20's, most people worked in a family business or on a family farm. As they grew older, they didn't retire...they simply took on fewer and fewer tasks..but still contributed.

The industrial revolution marginalized the elderly as farm population and small business employment (relative to past percentages) shrunk. The elderly were not phased out...they were simply dropped.

The Real Deal The History and Future of Social Security - Sylvester J. Schieber John B. Shoven - Google Books

When the great depression hit, unemployment amongst the elderly was over 50% (from memory). So you can see....something was needed.

What wasn't needed was a permanent system.

However, the "progressives" of the time were aware of the social safety nets of Europe (and apparently not aware of the issues associated with them), and thought we needed something similar.

And thus FDR got his way (after threatening the SCOTUS).

While I think the elderly needed relief I am not so sure we needed this program long term.

Had we phased it out (in favor of something else where you got what you paid in) when things were good (the 50's), we might have been O.K.

The whatever that was needed did not have to be unconstitutional taxes and allocations from the federal government. Certainly the meager amounts routed to the senior citizens before the 50's could have been accomplished in many different ways than by creating a faceless entitlement program that the federal government was never intended to have authority to do.

I really don't care what could have been...the fact still remains that there was a problem that needed to be addressed. Those different ways obviously were not appealing and so-called conservatives were asleep at the wheel (just like on Obamacare). So now you have a stupid system and me asking what you would do different if you could change it.