Social Security Privatize?

[no1tovote4]

:teeth: Uh huh..I am more convinced that you never served in combat..I never heard a guy in a foxhole say.."Save me or help me money!....geez it was always "Help me God for I need ya" hummm...have fun with your short lived stock accounts...yuk!

Do you understand that this was the exact type of post that I was talking about? You know nothing of him and because he disagrees this is what you give him? You expect respect but in this thread so far you have given none in return.

 

[Mr. P]

I've posted this link at least 3 times here...Some of you need to read it.

A retired $20,000-per-year worker with the personal retirement account would receive $2,740 each month at current interest rates, while Social Security benefits would be about $775 per month.

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba215.html

 

[Merlin1047]

LOL! true to form! thanks for the laughs!

Talk about true to form. Why don't you get off your butt and PROVE that we actually HAD a surplus IN THE TREASURY. Not a projection, not Clinton's guess, not lib wishful thinking, but actual money.

Do that and then we can talk.

 

[Fmr jarhead]

:teeth: Uh huh..I am more convinced that you never served in combat..I never heard a guy in a foxhole say.."Save me or help me money!....geez it was always "Help me God for I need ya" hummm...have fun with your short lived stock accounts...yuk!

I am happy you have faith...good for you...I would rather have a platoon of jarheads with M16's than a prayer book anyday....but I digress....

...and this has what to do with reforming Social Security.

 

[Fmr jarhead]

I've posted this link at least 3 times here...Some of you need to read it.

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba215.html

AS usual, you have provided some great information.

 

[Merlin1047]

Okay guys and gals this is going to be a hot button issue this year...so here goes just one mans opinion:It does not take rocket science to figure this one out...Leave it alone...It was intended to be a safety net for the elderly..it has been raped and abused by politicians for uses other than it's intention...

Okay, I got off on a bit of a tangent so I'll address this specifically.

You accused us of pie-in-the-sky proposals. What would you call this? Your statement is certainly true to the extent that we used to have a social security trust fund until Lyndon Johnson and his pack of Great Society idiots just couldn't stand to see all that money sitting there. So they stole it. It's gone. We won't get it back.

So I'd like you to qualify your solution of "Leave it alone". That's certainly the correct approach, but how do you propose to accomplish that? As long as there are politicians in DC, your tax money isn't safe. The ONLY way I can see to accomplish what you suggest is through a Constitutional amendment. Personal opinion - fat chance.

Right now there is a 3.3 ratio of contributors to payee's...hummm...it was 16 to one previously..what happened? Well try outsourcing of jobs for a start...then add importing of illegal immigration workers to the mix and walla we have a problem...what is the answer?

I believe that you're completely off base here. First, neither outsourcing nor illegal immigrants rob Americans of anything but minimum wage jobs. Second, while I agree that border security is a must, it will not change anything in regard to social security funding, nor will outsourcing. The reason is that the unemployment rate is hovering around 5.5 percent. That's been pretty average for the last twelve years. So even if you assume that forbidding outsourcing and eliminating illegal immigration would bring about 100% employment (which it wouldn't) FICA would end up with a net loss because the minimum wage jobs gained would pay far less into FICA than the recipient will eventually draw out. The change in recipient - contributor ratio is mostly due to the demographics of the baby boom generation not to losses in the job market.

Well we close our borders tightly...punish corporations who outsource and hire illegal immigrants for low wages...punish politicians who rape the coffer for programs the SSA money was not intended for and call in the IOU's placed in the system for the illegal withdrawl...I like and am satisfied with GW's anti terrorist war,however he is way off base on this one...what say you?

First, have you any idea what it would cost to close our borders "tightly"? You have to consider not only the Mexican border, but the Canadian, two coast lines plus the Gulf of Mexico and dozens of port-of-entry airports. It would take hundreds of billions of dollars and a huge army of people to accomplish what you suggest. Even if this saved social security, it would bankrupt the rest of the government.

You want to "punish corporations who outsource". For what? Wanting to stay in business? Corporations do what they must to stay competitive. If they can't compete, they die. Why don't you suggest punishing Americans who demand salaries higher than those the corporation can afford to pay for a given product or service? Answer - because that would be silly. Well, so is your proposal to trounce the corps.

Next, you want to "punish politicians who rape the coffer for programs the SSA money was not intended for ". Hey - you get no argument from me. If you'll organize the tar-and-feather party, post a notice in this forum as to time and date and I'll make it a point to show up. I'll even bring my own feathers. But you know damn well that's not going to happen, so there's no point in fantasizing about it.

And finally you suggest that we should "call in the IOU's placed in the system for the illegal withdrawal". Okay. But tell me how you plan to do that. Then tell me where we're going to get the money. Congress STOLE our FICA money back in the '60s. It's gone. It ain't ever coming back. Kiss it goodbye. It's time to start over and look to the future to find new solutions, not to go back and try the same tired old crap over and over again. It has failed once. There is no reason to think that if we try the same thing again that the outcome will be any different this time.

 

[archangel]

Ah guys for your info there are no rules in debate that says one cannot address the opponents actual experience..it only ads to the material presented for debate..it is not condescending to point out experience as it relates to the opinions the opposition uses to make his or her point...I never attack the enemy or debate partners without knowing where they are comming from rather than rhetoric presented in a so called civil manner..If you feel I have been rude or not polite I am sorry...who is in control of your thoughts you are the party...geez..combat is rough stay with me here before you have a cow or something...geez-talk about thin skins...

 

[Fmr jarhead]

there are no rules in debate that says one cannot address the opponents actual experience.

So what actual experience do you have in investing in the stock market (since that is the issue that is most applicable to our topic) Combat experience is not a necessary requirement to discuss reforming Social Security, is it? If it is, then I bet there would only be a couple of us here.

 

[Merlin1047]

Ah guys for your info there are no rules in debate that says one cannot address the opponents actual experience..

There are rules of common courtesy with which you may want acquaint yourself. Calling one's service into question without absolute proof is not only crude and insulting, but reflects rather poorly on you.

So if you're unwilling tone down the condescending rhetoric then don't whine when someone unloads on you.

 

[Fmr jarhead]

For the majority of retired Americans...women, here are some useful bits of information.

Women are disproportionately dependent on Social Security in retirement. Twice as many women as men retire in poverty, and women receive only 75 cents in Social Security benefits to men's $1.

To make matters worse, Social Security will be able to pay just 72 percent of scheduled benefits in the future. That means the average woman's monthly benefit could drop from $621 to $447.

Even if Congress could get a few more years out of the current program by increasing taxes, women's benefits would still be inadequate. Roughly 15 percent of women retire poor. Poverty rates are even higher for minority women: 29 percent of black women and 28 percent of Hispanic women retire in poverty.

The best solution is to give women the option of redirecting their payroll taxes into real retirement accounts, similar to IRAs. Personal accounts with an earnings-sharing component and a guaranteed safety net can ensure that every woman has the opportunity for a middle-class retirement and no woman retires in poverty.

Important Advantages of Personal Accounts to Women:

* Virtually every woman would be better off in retirement. For example, a single woman making $12,000 a year pays $1,488 per year in Social Security tax. When she retires, Social Security promises her $683 per month (assuming solvency). If she were allowed instead to save and invest her money in a portfolio of stocks and bonds earning a 6.2 percent return, she would retire with $936 per month.


* Social Security's discrimination against working wives and widows would be eliminated. Currently 25 percent of married women who work receive the same retirement benefit as their stay-at-home counterparts. That unfair discrimination is expected to affect 40 percent of women by the year 2040. Stay-at-home spouses, too, would have greater retirement benefits with earnings sharing.


* Women would own their accounts, which means their retirement benefits would not be taken away in the event of divorce or death, or congressional fancy.


* With a guaranteed safety net funded by general revenues, women would not have to retire poor.

 

[Fmr jarhead]

Try this calculator and plug in some numbers....

Old timers or those seasoned citizens over 55 need not even look at it. I think that a 6.2% return is more than an adequate benchmark to start the estimates. Most banks offer bonds that will get you in that ballpark (long term)

http://www.socialsecurity.org/reformandyou/sscalc/sscalc.php

 

[no1tovote4]

For the majority of retired Americans...women, here are some useful bits of information.

Women are disproportionately dependent on Social Security in retirement. Twice as many women as men retire in poverty, and women receive only 75 cents in Social Security benefits to men's $1.

To make matters worse, Social Security will be able to pay just 72 percent of scheduled benefits in the future. That means the average woman's monthly benefit could drop from $621 to $447.

Even if Congress could get a few more years out of the current program by increasing taxes, women's benefits would still be inadequate. Roughly 15 percent of women retire poor. Poverty rates are even higher for minority women: 29 percent of black women and 28 percent of Hispanic women retire in poverty.

The best solution is to give women the option of redirecting their payroll taxes into real retirement accounts, similar to IRAs. Personal accounts with an earnings-sharing component and a guaranteed safety net can ensure that every woman has the opportunity for a middle-class retirement and no woman retires in poverty.

Important Advantages of Personal Accounts to Women:

* Virtually every woman would be better off in retirement. For example, a single woman making $12,000 a year pays $1,488 per year in Social Security tax. When she retires, Social Security promises her $683 per month (assuming solvency). If she were allowed instead to save and invest her money in a portfolio of stocks and bonds earning a 6.2 percent return, she would retire with $936 per month.


* Social Security's discrimination against working wives and widows would be eliminated. Currently 25 percent of married women who work receive the same retirement benefit as their stay-at-home counterparts. That unfair discrimination is expected to affect 40 percent of women by the year 2040. Stay-at-home spouses, too, would have greater retirement benefits with earnings sharing.


* Women would own their accounts, which means their retirement benefits would not be taken away in the event of divorce or death, or congressional fancy.


* With a guaranteed safety net funded by general revenues, women would not have to retire poor.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Okay guys and gals this is going to be a hot button issue this year...so here goes just one mans opinion:It does not take rocket science to figure this one out...Leave it alone...It was intended to be a safety net for the elderly..it has been raped and abused by politicians for uses other than it's intention...

If we "leave SS alone" it is going to go BUST, BROKE, BYE-BYE. (get that?)

No more "secure" money for the everyday citizen. However, take a look at what your friendly Congressmen are getting. (And their plan will not go broke since they're paid from the General Fund, not the empty SS fund)

Congress has a pretty generous retirement plan for themselves. On average they are making about $50k per year after only 20 years of work.

As it is for all other federal employees, congressional retirement is funded through taxes and the participants' contributions. Members of Congress under FERS contribute 1.3 percent of their salary into the FERS retirement plan and pay 6.2 percent of their salary in Social Security taxes.

Members of Congress are not eligible for a pension until they reach the age of 50, but only if they've completed 20 years of service. Members are eligible at any age after completing 25 years of service or after they reach the age of 62. Please also note that Member's of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to even receive a pension.

The amount of a Congressperson's pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of his or her salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary.

Data compiled in 20034 showed 413 retired Members of Congress were receiving federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service. The average age of those retiring under CSRS was 75.5 and had at least 20 years of federal service. Those who retired under FERS had an average age of 68.3 years and 21.6 years of federal service. Their average retirement payment was $3,909 a month.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa031200a.htm

 

[Merlin1047]

Old timers or those seasoned citizens over 55 need not even look at it.

Watch who the hell you're calling an old timer or seasoned citizen ya damn impertinent young-pup whippersnapper!

Do that again and I'll whomp you with my walker! :firing:

 

[Fmr jarhead]

Negative....the pattern is full.....

Sorry Merlin, no disrespect, at all. I think you are aware that those over 55 are not going to be affected by any changes, right?

It is good to see you supportive of a change that will affect your kids and grandkids (if you have them....)

 

[archangel]

As you all can see since I took a firm stand the numbers in this debate have significantly increased...Experience in actual life experience is who we are and what it is we trying to say...Combat experience is a true life experience as to what a person is made of..not how or what he or she can manipulate from the system or party philosophy...Independent thinkers put out controversial issues to be debated...you can supply numbers all day long and still not come to a conclusion...what is important is how you say it and why you say it...ie:"Theory without fact is hypothesis-fact without theory is chaos" What the Republican and the Democratic party is putting out is chaos...
I prefer to be a conservative free thinker....is that so hard to understand? Or do you prefer to mimick party lines and conclusions...geez I sure am glad that I dropped out of college after just two years of brainwashing...I learned to think based on real life experience...ie:college of hard knocks'...Maybe ya all should try it...very refreshing...lol...

 

[Merlin1047]

Negative....the pattern is full.....

Sorry Merlin, no disrespect, at all. I think you are aware that those over 55 are not going to be affected by any changes, right?

It is good to see you supportive of a change that will affect your kids and grandkids (if you have them....)

Awwww - I was just funnin ya.

You should know by now I'm not THAT thin-skinned.

 

[Fmr jarhead]

As you all can see since I took a firm stand the numbers in this debate have significantly increased...Experience in actual life experience is who we are and what it is we trying to say...Combat experience is a true life experience as to what a person is made of..not how or what he or she can manipulate from the system or party philosophy...Independent thinkers put out controversial issues to be debated...you can supply numbers all day long and still not come to a conclusion...what is important is how you say it and why you say it...ie:"Theory without fact is hypothesis-fact without theory is chaos" What the Republican and the Democratic party is putting out is chaos...
I prefer to be a conservative free thinker....is that so hard to understand? Or do you prefer to mimick party lines and conclusions...geez I sure am glad that I dropped out of college after just two years of brainwashing...I learned to think based on real life experience...ie:college of hard knocks'...Maybe ya all should try it...very refreshing...lol...

Pat yourself on the back some more....you deserve it!

Good thing the POTUS has thrown out this controversial issue to be debated, he should be applauded for it...(ooops, do you mean that you are an independent thinker...I guess that is what all the back patting for yourself is all about, huh?)

So your conclusion is what....that you are a free thinker, and need to self congratulate yourself? Great, good job, get over yourself, already!

 

[archangel]

I'm a vet who served and am very proud-you can knock points off till the cow comes home...however your conscience will get to you eventually..
If this is the only power you have in life...well I feel sorry for you...If this is what you call educated...hummm! Have a great day,night,and lifetime...!

 

[Fmr jarhead]

If you look carefully, I gave you positive points, AA (a name that will live in infamy...from a previous lifetime)

Best of luck to you, AA.