KRC Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 Now this is friggin scary: Linky Thingy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 Charles Ponzi would be proud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 Now this is friggin scary: Linky Thingy 710967[/snapback] No, seriously...what's the real plan... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted June 20, 2006 Author Share Posted June 20, 2006 No, seriously...what's the real plan... 711153[/snapback] I thought you would enjoy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 I thought you would enjoy it. 711163[/snapback] I got a 1906 Indian Head penny in my change when I bought breakfast this morning. Personally...I think that (receiving the occasional rare penny with breakfast) is a far more reliable retirement plan than that Social Security plan... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 Up to a $7500 tax increase for the middle age, middle class earners. Great idea, that group certainly isn't paying enough taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 My ultimate fear is that SS benefits will be based on how much you have in personal retirement accounts. Those with nothing: full benefits. Those with plenty: nothing. It's the American way right? Punish the people who have worked hard and planned and reward the slackers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 My ultimate fear is that SS benefits will be based on how much you have in personal retirement accounts. Those with nothing: full benefits. Those with plenty: nothing. It's the American way right? Punish the people who have worked hard and planned and reward the slackers. 711286[/snapback] But successful people don't get that way because of planning and hard work. They're successful because they take advantage of innocent, everyday people. So it's only fair that robber-barons like you and me should be punished for exploiting people like meazza and stevestojan... And that's why Congresscritters get guaranteed pensions and cost-of-living raises...because they protect Americans from exploitation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 So it's only fair that robber-barons like you and me should be punished for exploiting people like meazza and stevestojan... 711313[/snapback] Karl Marx would be proud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 So it's only fair that robber-barons like you and me should be punished for exploiting people like meazza and stevestojan... 711313[/snapback] I'm not included?! Tom, I think you're beginning to loooooooooooooove me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 But successful people don't get that way because of planning and hard work. They're successful because they take advantage of innocent, everyday people. So it's only fair that robber-barons like you and me should be punished for exploiting people like meazza and stevestojan... And that's why Congresscritters get guaranteed pensions and cost-of-living raises...because they protect Americans from exploitation. 711313[/snapback] I take advantage of the system, because I learned from the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 Karl Marx would be proud. 711752[/snapback] Karl is a lesser intellectual than the other Marx's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 Karl is a lesser intellectual than the other Marx's 711990[/snapback] What about Lenny, did you read his book? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 What about Lenny, did you read his book? 711992[/snapback] You talking about Lenny from the Simpsons? He is a great mind but doesn't get the credit he deserves because everyone is focused on Karl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 You talking about Lenny from the Simpsons? He is a great mind but doesn't get the credit he deserves because everyone is focused on Karl 711997[/snapback] All because of affirmative action Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 Something needs to be done about social security. Of the ideas the authors presented, I feel increasing the retirement age is the best. People are living longer than ever before, so it makes sense they should retire later. The worst idea is the tax rate increase: taxes are too high already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 I see alot of people against this proposal, but I see no reasons why. Lets start with the facts a) Social Security will go bankrupt in the next 20 years. b) Workers under the age of 40 are unlikely to see ANY benefit from the current plan, yet are paying in 6.2% of their salary into social security. Something needs to be done. Personal accounts HAVE to be part of any social security reform. Money YOU put in needs to be there for YOU when YOU retire. Right now, money in the social security system has a NEGATIVE rate of return. How money in your account is invested is another matter entirely. Only allow it to be invested in a money market account for all I care, we NEED individual accounts. Now, the problem is this. If we start putting money into our newly created private accounts, it takes away the money available to fully fund the current system. This poses a problem. This article makes it sound like they will take many corses of action to solve this shortfall. I dont agree with all the proposals for this, but I think its a good start and a good debate to have. Once we decide to have personal accounts, the rest is water under the bridge. People have fallen for the typical scare tactic often used in politics. Privatization=bad. People will blow their money investing in Enron. Its simply not true. If done properly, the riskiest investment one can make would be to invest in a total market index fund (S&P 500, wilshire 5000 or equivalent). You pay in every 2 weeks and dollar cost average. This is NOT risky folks. If you make 40k a year, and you pay 6% into a private account, thats 200/mo. And if you could get JUST 3% real rate of return on that money (a bank CD would do), you would have over 185k in the bank over a 40 year career. If you could then get 5% per year interest during retirement, and didnt touch the principle, thats $9,250 per year in retirement income. Nearly 1/4 of your salary from social security. Again, thats IF YOU DID NOT TOUCH THE PRINCIPLE. This is pure logic (and math) folks. I cant imagine why anyone would be against this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 Up to a $7500 tax increase for the middle age, middle class earners. Great idea, that group certainly isn't paying enough taxes. 711203[/snapback] From the retirement savings of middle class earners, directly into paying for the retirements of other people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 I was railing on my father about SS the other night. He claims he's a taxapayer. He's retired. No income=no income tax. OF course, he's gotta pay tax on interest income, but that's peanuts compared to people who actually WORK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 Something needs to be done about social security. Of the ideas the authors presented, I feel increasing the retirement age is the best. People are living longer than ever before, so it makes sense they should retire later. The worst idea is the tax rate increase: taxes are too high already. 721628[/snapback] How about raising the retirement age to "whenever you save enough to quit working". Get rid of SS completely but do not give in when the people in society that were simply too lazy to work beg for help from the hard working members of society. I work in a 401(k) dept and see people take out their puny 401(k) balances all the time when changing jobs..."hey it's free money" Everyone knows that the Government doesn't let you starve no matter how unwilling you are to work or save. We need to focus our welfare efforts on those who truly need it and have no other means to support themselves. I think we all know someone who is too "dissabled" to work but bowls, plays softball, etc. every weekend. How many people wait to look for their next job until their unemployment runs out. Have you ever been behind someone at the food store who buys food with food stamps or WIC and tobacco and booze with their own money? The working man is a sucker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted July 12, 2006 Author Share Posted July 12, 2006 Something needs to be done. Personal accounts HAVE to be part of any social security reform. 721644[/snapback] I agree, but you need to get around the typical scare tactics being used associated with private accounts: you could lose your money. Of course, if you keep it in SS, you will lose your money, but that is never mentioned. Congress does not want to give up SS, becuase they use it as a source of revenue for their spending. The KRC Plan: have both systems. On your W-2, there will be a checkbox to say whether you want the deduction from your paycheck to be sent in to the government for SS or whether you want it sent to a similar system to 401k. It is a good compromise. The people who want private accounts can have their private accounts. People who want to rely on SS can keep SS. You are going to create a deficit in this system, but you will create a deficit regarldess of any solution you provide. To help with this, you can increase the age to collect SS to keep it in line with the original scheme. I am against cutting benefits. To make up the rest of the deficit, you cut federal spending. Under this scheme, I see a gradual phasing out of SS. The younger generation will put their money into private accounts. As the older people start to pass away, there will be less and less people relying on SS. The program will phase itself out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 I agree, but you need to get around the typical scare tactics being used associated with private accounts: you could lose your money. Of course, if you keep it in SS, you will lose your money, but that is never mentioned. Congress does not want to give up SS, becuase they use it as a source of revenue for their spending. The KRC Plan: have both systems. On your W-2, there will be a checkbox to say whether you want the deduction from your paycheck to be sent in to the government for SS or whether you want it sent to a similar system to 401k. It is a good compromise. The people who want private accounts can have their private accounts. People who want to rely on SS can keep SS. You are going to create a deficit in this system, but you will create a deficit regarldess of any solution you provide. To help with this, you can increase the age to collect SS to keep it in line with the original scheme. I am against cutting benefits. To make up the rest of the deficit, you cut federal spending. Under this scheme, I see a gradual phasing out of SS. The younger generation will put their money into private accounts. As the older people start to pass away, there will be less and less people relying on SS. The program will phase itself out. 721786[/snapback] Effing brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 I agree, but you need to get around the typical scare tactics being used associated with private accounts: you could lose your money. Of course, if you keep it in SS, you will lose your money, but that is never mentioned. Congress does not want to give up SS, becuase they use it as a source of revenue for their spending. The KRC Plan: have both systems. On your W-2, there will be a checkbox to say whether you want the deduction from your paycheck to be sent in to the government for SS or whether you want it sent to a similar system to 401k. It is a good compromise. The people who want private accounts can have their private accounts. People who want to rely on SS can keep SS. You are going to create a deficit in this system, but you will create a deficit regarldess of any solution you provide. To help with this, you can increase the age to collect SS to keep it in line with the original scheme. I am against cutting benefits. To make up the rest of the deficit, you cut federal spending. Under this scheme, I see a gradual phasing out of SS. The younger generation will put their money into private accounts. As the older people start to pass away, there will be less and less people relying on SS. The program will phase itself out. 721786[/snapback] Sure you don't want to run in '08? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted July 12, 2006 Author Share Posted July 12, 2006 Sure you don't want to run in '08? 722020[/snapback] Doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 Doubt it. 722101[/snapback] Just checking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Under this scheme, I see a gradual phasing out of SS. The younger generation will put their money into private accounts. As the older people start to pass away, there will be less and less people relying on SS. The program will phase itself out. 721786[/snapback] You make a reallllly big assumption here: that people aren't stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 You make a reallllly big assumption here: that people aren't stupid. 722268[/snapback] We've been down this road before. The main reason I'm against totally voluntary contributions is that there are more stupid people than not. Therefore, when they choose private accounts but will inevitably not earn as much as they thought they should earn, they'll simply vote in folks into Congress who will "restore" their benefits. (See the UK) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Doubt it. 722101[/snapback] There are some twinkies in it for you if you do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 We've been down this road before. The main reason I'm against totally voluntary contributions is that there are more stupid people than not. Therefore, when they choose private accounts but will inevitably not earn as much as they thought they should earn, they'll simply vote in folks into Congress who will "restore" their benefits. (See the UK) 722277[/snapback] That depends on how much freedom you give people to invest in those private accounts. If you let them choose individual stocks, then sure, a lot will put all their savings into the next Enron. But if their choices are "small cap index fund" "large cap index fund" "investment grade bond index fund" and the like, there's only so much pain people will suffer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 That depends on how much freedom you give people to invest in those private accounts. If you let them choose individual stocks, then sure, a lot will put all their savings into the next Enron. But if their choices are "small cap index fund" "large cap index fund" "investment grade bond index fund" and the like, there's only so much pain people will suffer. 722289[/snapback] Now that is really funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 My ultimate fear is that SS benefits will be based on how much you have in personal retirement accounts. Those with nothing: full benefits. Those with plenty: nothing. It's the American way right? Punish the people who have worked hard and planned and reward the slackers. 711286[/snapback] You can see examples of people like this everywhere. I know quite a few people with very strong incomes for 20+ years running (maybe top 8-10% each and every year) that have zippo for net worth. Boats, cars, pools, too big a house all on credit and voila, no savings. Others make almost identical incomes and forego some/all of the lavish lifestyle and end up pretty well off. Why should the two groups have any difference in retirement benefit eligibility? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted July 13, 2006 Author Share Posted July 13, 2006 We've been down this road before. The main reason I'm against totally voluntary contributions is that there are more stupid people than not. Therefore, when they choose private accounts but will inevitably not earn as much as they thought they should earn, they'll simply vote in folks into Congress who will "restore" their benefits. (See the UK) 722277[/snapback] They have an option to change back to SS at any time. They could even mix and match. One year to private accounts. Another year, SS. It is all in the little checkbox on the W-2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted July 13, 2006 Author Share Posted July 13, 2006 You make a reallllly big assumption here: that people aren't stupid. 722268[/snapback] No plan is perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted July 13, 2006 Author Share Posted July 13, 2006 There are some twinkies in it for you if you do... 722279[/snapback] Well, if there are twinkies... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 They have an option to change back to SS at any time. They could even mix and match. One year to private accounts. Another year, SS. It is all in the little checkbox on the W-2. 722363[/snapback] Of course they could, and that would be the logical thing to do. I just have this hunch that there may be a few folks wading into the muck after a 3-year stock losing cycle making a push to "equalize" everyone's benefits. Forget the hunch, look at what Spitzer is doing to HR Block for daring to get people hooked on personal savings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromagnum Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 We've been down this road before. Therefore, when they choose private accounts but will inevitably not earn as much as they thought they should earn, they'll simply vote in folks into Congress who will "restore" their benefits. (See the UK) 722277[/snapback] Maybe I am misunderstanding, U.K. had private retirement accounts and because of whining they switched it back to gov't controll? Reason I ask, is an englishman just stated that the uk gov't has ss and healthcare since wwII. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts