The compromise on SS that both sides should be able to agree on.

[Independentthinker]

The Republican position, in a nutshell: Social Security isn't really an investment system, it's basically a ponzi scheme where the government taxes you, spends it on current payments, and legislatively (pseudo-arbitrarily) chooses how much to pay out and when. It would be better to abolish it and leave that money in the hands of people who can then use the free market to choose if, when, and how to invest and spend their money.

The Democrat position, in a nutshell: Social Security isn't just about retirement, it's really about providing a fundamental safety net. Disability is funded through Social Security also, and it would be unfathomable for the disabled to end up homeless and dying on the street. And the fact of the matter is that many people end up not being good at being disciplined enough to invest in their retirements adequately so if we take away Social Security we'll have tons of old people becoming homeless and dying on the streets from exposure and hunger. Social Security can be saved and made solvent with again with updated adjustments to the pseudo-arbitrary tax and spending levels.

The solution:
Keep Social Security and restructure it. One half of SS taxes go to funding disability programs. The other half gets privatized and directed to a 401k or IRA of the taxpayer's choosing. The result would be much like an employer sponsored retirement plan, except that the taxpayer would have more control to choose with whom and how their retirement funds are invested.

Why should it be so difficult for either side to agree to this?

Sorry, but I couldn't get past your totally wrong perception of the right's position on the subject. Therefore, the rest of your post obviously wasn't worth reading.

 

[Jarlaxle]

No. SS is a necessity for working people.
SS worked well for over 70 years with minor tweaks. SS needs a "fix" like raise the 62 "early" retirement age a year, and raise the "cap". Problem solved.

Also, make it a required program, no opting out for private plans. You can have both, but paying into SS should be required.

Making it solvent is EASY-just go back to the original numbers: you should be able to collect, on average, two years after you die. Set the age to get social security at the average life expectancy, plus two.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I don’t want to see your stupid ass on my sidewalk. Let’s face it. You’re barely making it by. I like knowing you are going to have some minimal subsistence in your future. It’s selfish of me but you will stink up the place.

I know you think you’ll live off your measly savings but you won’t. It’s nothing and you won’t magically inflate it by the time you retire.

This, class, is a PERFECT example of projection!

 

[Jarlaxle]

Here’s an idea:

We can’t make it voluntary since so many people would fail to save for retirement, and we’d be on the hook for their support. (You know that’s what would happen.) Instead, you are still forced to contribute, via paycheck deductions, but you could divert half your contribution to one of several large mutual funds. They would be broad - like VTV or SPY - and, given history, you would come out ahead over time. No withdrawals allowed before retirement.

Also, to refine it further, in your 20s and 30s, you could invest in somewhat more aggressive funds, but beginning at 40, your choices would be limited to “safer options.”

If I had HALF of what has been taken from me for social security (that I will never see), I'd be able to retire by 50.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

1. No new Federal Spending
2. Zero based budgeting, cut spending programs, entire departments
3. Every 2 years 10% of the non-existent SS "Trust Fund" gets either invested in US Equity fund or Berkshire Hathaway at the direction of the pensioner until in 20 years 100% is fully invested in actual assets.
4. Any Illegals or non disabled people drawing from the Fund will be immediately deported to Mexico or Cuba

 

[Jarlaxle]

Did you not have the ability to change where your 403b was invested, like to safe low yield funds?

Probably...but he prefers to blame others for his poor financial sense.

 

[Lisa558]

If I had HALF of what has been taken from me for social security (that I will never see), I'd be able to retire by 50.

Well, I‘m already retired, but I’d have a ton of money from my half of private investment, buy an annuity, and have a payout of at least double what I’m getting from SS (on top of the “half” of my traditional SS payout).

SS is not designed for responsible, disciplined savers such as us. It’s designed to save the irresponsible people from themselves - and at our expense.

 

[Lesh]

If I had HALF of what has been taken from me for social security (that I will never see), I'd be able to retire by 50.

Except you wouldn't. You'd have pissed it away with all your other money.

 

[Lesh]

Well, I‘m already retired, but I’d have a ton of money from my half of private investment, buy an annuity, and have a payout of at least double what I’m getting from SS (on top of the “half” of my traditional SS payout).

SS is not designed for responsible, disciplined savers such as us. It’s designed to save the irresponsible people from themselves - and at our expense.

Hubby made a ton of money huh?

Not everyone is so lucky

 

[kyzr]

To hell I don't. I have been retired since 2003.
I know you are a Conservative. I was talking about the Liberals that support SS. I should have used the term them instead of you. My bad.

Making it solvent is EASY-just go back to the original numbers: you should be able to collect, on average, two years after you die. Set the age to get social security at the average life expectancy, plus two.

Duh, yeah okay....but these would work better...

20 Ways to Fix Social Security, From the Logical to the Absolutely Insane | The Motley Fool

Do any of these Social Security solutions speak to you?

www.fool.com

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Here’s an idea:

We can’t make it voluntary since so many people would fail to save for retirement, and we’d be on the hook for their support. (You know that’s what would happen.) Instead, you are still forced to contribute, via paycheck deductions, but you could divert half your contribution to one of several large mutual funds. They would be broad - like VTV or SPY - and, given history, you would come out ahead over time. No withdrawals allowed before retirement.

Also, to refine it further, in your 20s and 30s, you could invest in somewhat more aggressive funds, but beginning at 40, your choices would be limited to “safer options.”

OK, who gets to decide what the safer option is?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

1. No new Federal Spending
2. Zero based budgeting, cut spending programs, entire departments
3. Every 2 years 10% of the non-existent SS "Trust Fund" gets either invested in US Equity fund or Berkshire Hathaway at the direction of the pensioner until in 20 years 100% is fully invested in actual assets.
4. Any Illegals or non disabled people drawing from the Fund will be immediately deported to Mexico or Cuba

Still working on your image as an idiot? You can stop. Everyone already knows you are!

You want to make Warren Buffett even richer?

 

[Clipper]

You have it wrong.

What is necessary is for people to plan for their retirement.

If they don't do it then that is their problem.

It is called personal responsibility. Something Liberals never seem to understand.

Think only Dems don't plan for retirement?

What's your solution for people who have 401k's who set a retirement date then have the stock market tank wiping out their retirement savings? Start over again & work till they're 90 or they drop?

 

[Clipper]

1. No new Federal Spending
2. Zero based budgeting, cut spending programs, entire departments
3. Every 2 years 10% of the non-existent SS "Trust Fund" gets either invested in US Equity fund or Berkshire Hathaway at the direction of the pensioner until in 20 years 100% is fully invested in actual assets.
4. Any Illegals or non disabled people drawing from the Fund will be immediately deported to Mexico or Cuba

It's a good thing that you're not allowed to use sharp objects & power tools.

 

[Lisa558]

OK, who gets to decide what the safer option is?

There would be a few to select from, but it would be a conservative mix of approximately 65%fixed income/35% stock funds. Maybe something like Fidelity Balanced Fund, and a few like that.

As far as who decides, it would have to be a committee like the Fed. Not ideal, but at least you get SOME say-so. Currently you get nothing.

.

 

[Lesh]

There would be a few to select from, but it would be a conservative mix of approximately 65%fixed income/35% stock funds. Maybe something like Fidelity Balanced Fund, and a few like that.

As far as who decides, it would have to be a committee like the Fed. Not ideal, but at least you get SOME say-so. Currently you get nothing.

.

And shitloads of fees.

They tried this in Chile and it was a disaster

 

[BluesLegend]

16% the f'ing government has been confiscating from me for SS I should be able to retire in comfort on that but government assholes spent all my f'ing money on other shit.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Except you wouldn't. You'd have pissed it away with all your other money.

You're so full of shit your breath stinks.

 

[Lisa558]

16% the f'ing government has been confiscating from me for SS I should be able to retire in comfort on that but government assholes spent all my f'ing money on other shit.

They really need to adjust the point at which seniors have to pay taxes on their benefits. We have Biden giving tax credits to families earning $150,000 and more - while granny pays taxes on her SS benefits if she withdraws $25,000 or $30,000 from her IRA to live on.

Then again, Democrat Socialists place little value on the elderly once they have retired - after paying taxes for 40 or 45 years.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Think only Dems don't plan for retirement?

What's your solution for people who have 401k's who set a retirement date then have the stock market tank wiping out their retirement savings? Start over again & work till they're 90 or they drop?

If they have anything in the stock market near retirement, they're idiots.