Social Security: Needs to strengthened not dismantled

[RDD_1210]

I'm sure you'll be tempted to immediately attack the source being that he is an actual socialist, but how about discussing the actual topic itself. What are your thoughts?

Social Security: The program needs to be shored up, not dismantled - latimes.com

 

[cutter]

All it takes is money. Everybody wants more as long as someone else pays for it.

 

[Immanuel]

I'm sure you'll be tempted to immediately attack the source being that he is an actual socialist, but how about discussing the actual topic itself. What are your thoughts?

Social Security: The program needs to be shored up, not dismantled - latimes.com

Decent article, but I disagree with him in regards to the privatization issue. It is my opinion that even the financially illiterate individual would be better served if the funds were put into an account with his/her name on it and if he just happens to die three days before reaching whatever magical age the government has set for his generation, those funds would be directed to his family and not swallowed up by politicians.

Those more financially literate would be much better off if they could do so as well as be more aggressive in the investment of those funds.

Social Security invests its surpluses, as it should, in U.S Treasury bonds, the safest interest-bearing securities in the world. These are the same bonds that wealthy investors and China and other foreign countries have purchased. The bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, which in our long history has never defaulted on its debt obligations. In other words, Social Security investments are safe.

Safe! Yes, U.S. Treasury Bonds are safe. No! The U.S. has not defaulted on any obligations. Does that mean that we can continue to go on spending like we are now? No, not in my opinion. Quite frankly, I think the U.S. is in trouble and I personally am concerned about our ability to pay those obligations. That does not mean I predict an imminent collapse in our future or that the U.S. will default, but I do not believe that Treasury Bonds are necessarily the best investment (when defined as providing the highest amount of return for the least amount of risk) out there.

According to the latest report of the Social Security Administration, the program will be able to pay all of its promised benefits for the next 26 years. After 2037, Social Security will still be able to pay about 78% of promised benefits.

I turn 50 in three months. That means my retirement will be just a few short years before the cuts supposedly have to begin. Lucky me! But the real problem is this... I am over weight and not exactly in the best of health. So, I have been taxed for thirty years now and let's say I just happen to be one of those unlucky people that do not make it to whatever age I can begin collecting SS. Guess what... my wife and family get a whopping $255 and I don't even get a thank you for my contributions!

That is why I believe it should be privatized. Hell, even if they force you to place it in Treasury Bonds, which I still believe is wrong, it would be better than leaving my wife and three children with a whopping $255.

Good article, but I happen to disagree with Bernie Sanders.

That being said, I for one agree we need to strengthen SS not eliminate it. Where he and I differ is in the definition of strengthen.

Immie

 

[rightwinger]

I'm sure you'll be tempted to immediately attack the source being that he is an actual socialist, but how about discussing the actual topic itself. What are your thoughts?

Social Security: The program needs to be shored up, not dismantled - latimes.com

Decent article, but I disagree with him in regards to the privatization issue. It is my opinion that even the financially illiterate individual would be better served if the funds were put into an account with his/her name on it and if he just happens to die three days before reaching whatever magical age the government has set for his generation, those funds would be directed to his family and not swallowed up by politicians.

Those more financially literate would be much better off if they could do so as well as be more aggressive in the investment of those funds.

Social Security invests its surpluses, as it should, in U.S Treasury bonds, the safest interest-bearing securities in the world. These are the same bonds that wealthy investors and China and other foreign countries have purchased. The bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, which in our long history has never defaulted on its debt obligations. In other words, Social Security investments are safe.

Safe! Yes, U.S. Treasury Bonds are safe. No! The U.S. has not defaulted on any obligations. Does that mean that we can continue to go on spending like we are now? No, not in my opinion. Quite frankly, I think the U.S. is in trouble and I personally am concerned about our ability to pay those obligations. That does not mean I predict an imminent collapse in our future or that the U.S. will default, but I do not believe that Treasury Bonds are necessarily the best investment (when defined as providing the highest amount of return for the least amount of risk) out there.

According to the latest report of the Social Security Administration, the program will be able to pay all of its promised benefits for the next 26 years. After 2037, Social Security will still be able to pay about 78% of promised benefits.

I turn 50 in three months. That means my retirement will be just a few short years before the cuts supposedly have to begin. Lucky me! But the real problem is this... I am over weight and not exactly in the best of health. So, I have been taxed for thirty years now and let's say I just happen to be one of those unlucky people that do not make it to whatever age I can begin collecting SS. Guess what... my wife and family get a whopping $255 and I don't even get a thank you for my contributions!

That is why I believe it should be privatized. Hell, even if they force you to place it in Treasury Bonds, which I still believe is wrong, it would be better than leaving my wife and three children with a whopping $255.

Good article, but I happen to disagree with Bernie Sanders.

That being said, I for one agree we need to strengthen SS not eliminate it. Where he and I differ is in the definition of strengthen.

Immie

Right now, you have the best of both worlds available to you. You can invest your money tax free and if your employer has a 401K, you will get matching funds
You should also be well on your way of paying off your home by now.
With Social Security, investments and your own home ....you should have a solid retirement

 

[Immanuel]

I'm sure you'll be tempted to immediately attack the source being that he is an actual socialist, but how about discussing the actual topic itself. What are your thoughts?

Social Security: The program needs to be shored up, not dismantled - latimes.com

Decent article, but I disagree with him in regards to the privatization issue. It is my opinion that even the financially illiterate individual would be better served if the funds were put into an account with his/her name on it and if he just happens to die three days before reaching whatever magical age the government has set for his generation, those funds would be directed to his family and not swallowed up by politicians.

Those more financially literate would be much better off if they could do so as well as be more aggressive in the investment of those funds.



Safe! Yes, U.S. Treasury Bonds are safe. No! The U.S. has not defaulted on any obligations. Does that mean that we can continue to go on spending like we are now? No, not in my opinion. Quite frankly, I think the U.S. is in trouble and I personally am concerned about our ability to pay those obligations. That does not mean I predict an imminent collapse in our future or that the U.S. will default, but I do not believe that Treasury Bonds are necessarily the best investment (when defined as providing the highest amount of return for the least amount of risk) out there.

According to the latest report of the Social Security Administration, the program will be able to pay all of its promised benefits for the next 26 years. After 2037, Social Security will still be able to pay about 78% of promised benefits.

I turn 50 in three months. That means my retirement will be just a few short years before the cuts supposedly have to begin. Lucky me! But the real problem is this... I am over weight and not exactly in the best of health. So, I have been taxed for thirty years now and let's say I just happen to be one of those unlucky people that do not make it to whatever age I can begin collecting SS. Guess what... my wife and family get a whopping $255 and I don't even get a thank you for my contributions!

That is why I believe it should be privatized. Hell, even if they force you to place it in Treasury Bonds, which I still believe is wrong, it would be better than leaving my wife and three children with a whopping $255.

Good article, but I happen to disagree with Bernie Sanders.

That being said, I for one agree we need to strengthen SS not eliminate it. Where he and I differ is in the definition of strengthen.

Immie

Right now, you have the best of both worlds available to you. You can invest your money tax free and if your employer has a 401K, you will get matching funds
You should also be well on your way of paying off your home by now.
With Social Security, investments and your own home ....you should have a solid retirement

Guess what... I lost my job just over a year ago. The 401k funds and IRAs are dwindling fast. The home won't be paid off until I am 70.

But, none of that matters... the issue is that if I die before I reach the magic year, my family gets screwed. That is just plain obscene.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Let me just say this though.

Under no circumstances do I believe that we can simply decide to privatize SS and jump into that over night. We have obligations to the surviving retirees and those who have paid into the system over the last 75 years or so that I do not believe should ever be ignored.

If we were going to privatize SS, I believe it should be done gradually weaning us off the old system and into a better system. And we could never do so fully as we need to provide for those individuals who become disabled and cannot work.

Immie

 

[uscitizen]

But if they do not dismantle it we will have to pay back the 2+ trillion of surplus we have spent. And pay it back out of general funds.

 

[uscitizen]

Let me just say this though.

Under no circumstances do I believe that we can simply decide to privatize SS and jump into that over night. We have obligations to the surviving retirees and those who have paid into the system over the last 75 years or so that I do not believe should ever be ignored.

If we were going to privatize SS, I believe it should be done gradually weaning us off the old system and into a better system. And we could never do so fully as we need to provide for those individuals who become disabled and cannot work.

Immie

Yep contracts must be honored.
And debts must be paid.

 

[RDD_1210]

Let me just say this though.

Under no circumstances do I believe that we can simply decide to privatize SS and jump into that over night. We have obligations to the surviving retirees and those who have paid into the system over the last 75 years or so that I do not believe should ever be ignored.

If we were going to privatize SS, I believe it should be done gradually weaning us off the old system and into a better system. And we could never do so fully as we need to provide for those individuals who become disabled and cannot work.

Immie

My problem with privatizing it completely is that if we have the severe market melt down like we just did, people can lose most if not all of their safety net.

 

[uscitizen]

Privatizing in the market is also corporation in essence taxing the public.

 

[signelect]

Immie is right. I am 68 and will retire on SS and not much else. Most of that is bad decisions on my part so I am not blaming the system or anyone for this fact. I have paid into the system for over 50 years and I want my money back. I agree that if I die early my family loses the money I paid into the system and since is was taken by the government and kept tax free I want it back. Notice that our congressman don't have to follow this system, proving that they are smarter than we are or is it that they are just plain immoral thief's.

 

[Immanuel]

Let me just say this though.

Under no circumstances do I believe that we can simply decide to privatize SS and jump into that over night. We have obligations to the surviving retirees and those who have paid into the system over the last 75 years or so that I do not believe should ever be ignored.

If we were going to privatize SS, I believe it should be done gradually weaning us off the old system and into a better system. And we could never do so fully as we need to provide for those individuals who become disabled and cannot work.

Immie

My problem with privatizing it completely is that if we have the severe market melt down like we just did, people can lose most if not all of their safety net.

I am by no means an expert on the market, but I have been interested in it for years and my degree is in finance.

People tend to invest aggressively in their younger years and then as they get older (with higher incomes) they tend to moderate and then as they get old (I'm getting there) they go very conservative. When they go conservative their risk tends to level out and the losses become less severe.

The big issue that I have when people make statements about a "market collapse" is that they (not saying you but maybe you do think like this) seem to think that the day that they retire they are going to liquidate all their investments and if it just happens to be shortly after a "market collapse" they will lose everything. The only people that really lose everything when that happens is the idiots that panic and sell everything hours after it happens. Those that think about it, tend to understand that the market will rebound and generally it will not take long to do so.

I did find this argument to be interesting by Mr. Sanders though:

Why has there been such a concerted effort to privatize Social Security, raise the retirement age or cut benefits? First, Wall Street stands to make billions in profits if workers are forced to go to private financial establishments for their retirement accounts.

He is right, Wall Street would profit. Personally, I would prefer that Wall Street prosper as opposed to those thieves in Washington prospering, especially if I am prospering as well, but that is my own opinion needless to say, I do not think much of politicians.

Immie

 

[hortysir]

How do we go about shoring up an account that has more deductions, per year, than contributions without reaching deeper into American's paychecks??

 

[RDD_1210]

How do we go about shoring up an account that has more deductions, per year, than contributions without reaching deeper into American's paychecks??

The article proposed raising the cap limit to obtain these additional funds needed.

 

[rightwinger]

Immie is right. I am 68 and will retire on SS and not much else. Most of that is bad decisions on my part so I am not blaming the system or anyone for this fact. I have paid into the system for over 50 years and I want my money back. I agree that if I die early my family loses the money I paid into the system and since is was taken by the government and kept tax free I want it back. Notice that our congressman don't have to follow this system, proving that they are smarter than we are or is it that they are just plain immoral thief's.

Congress has paid into Social Security for 30 years

Your example is a good one or keeping Social Security. No matter how badly you screwed up your other investments, Social Security is still there

 

[Immanuel]

Immie is right. I am 68 and will retire on SS and not much else. Most of that is bad decisions on my part so I am not blaming the system or anyone for this fact. I have paid into the system for over 50 years and I want my money back. I agree that if I die early my family loses the money I paid into the system and since is was taken by the government and kept tax free I want it back. Notice that our congressman don't have to follow this system, proving that they are smarter than we are or is it that they are just plain immoral thief's.

Congress has paid into Social Security for 30 years

Your example is a good one or keeping Social Security. No matter how badly you screwed up your other investments, Social Security is still there

Agreed. And quite frankly, I think as long as we are a nation, it will continue to be there. I do not foresee nor desire to see the system shut down completely. It was established for a good reason and it continues to serve a purpose.

My one belief is that there is a better way to serve retirees of this nation than how we are doing it today. Market sophistication has changed since the system was implemented. Things have changed significantly over the years. What was not possible in 1935 is now possible today. A plan can be established that would privatize the system and essentially work as a real death benefits plan (call it a life insurance plan if you want) as well as a retirement plan for our citizens, but it will take time to accomplish that task.

Immie

 

[Mad Scientist]

I'm sure you'll be tempted to immediately attack the source being that he is an actual socialist, but how about discussing the actual topic itself. What are your thoughts?

Social Security: The program needs to be shored up, not dismantled - latimes.com

How about "No SS Checks to anyone who didn't pay in"? or an "Opt Out Entirely" option?

By "shore up", government is really saying "raise taxes, reduce benefits and increase retirement age".

If someone came to your door and wanted to sell you a retirement policy just like SS, you'd slam the door in their face and rightly so.

 

[Immanuel]

I'm sure you'll be tempted to immediately attack the source being that he is an actual socialist, but how about discussing the actual topic itself. What are your thoughts?

Social Security: The program needs to be shored up, not dismantled - latimes.com

How about "No SS Checks to anyone who didn't pay in"? or an "Opt Out Entirely" option?

By "shore up", government is really saying "raise taxes, reduce benefits and increase retirement age".

If someone came to your door and wanted to sell you a retirement policy just like SS, you'd slam the door in their face and rightly so.

I think rather than slamming the door in his face, I would call the authorities and have him committed.

Immie

 

[DiamondDave]

If social security is such a great system and good thing... why is it not voluntary and not mandatory???... I mean, if it were so superior and great and run so superbly by government, people would inherently chose it over self investment...

Social security is a joke and needs to be phased out of existence

 

[RDD_1210]

If social security is such a great system and good thing... why is it not voluntary and not mandatory???... I mean, if it were so superior and great and run so superbly by government, people would inherently chose it over self investment...

Social security is a joke and needs to be phased out of existence

I think part of it is because people in general are not good savers and unfortunately can't be trusted to think long term. Can we educate people? Sure. But that only goes so far.