Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 11/2/2006 10:24:56 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/2/2006 10:29:16 AM EST by Mattl]
Heres the thought S.S. is going bankrupt and the economics of it currently are unfair to say the least so how about forced savings?


Lets say mandatory 5% every pay period goes into a >>Low to No risk<< savings account that generates interest with the option to add more. Starting from day 1 of first employment so from 16 to 65 you are saving. Needless to say chances to access this money would be near 0 but it is your money and it earns. Due to the incompotent, ignorrant, and risks I believe it should not go into stocks or business investment, the idea is to keep leaches off taxpayer support.


Discuss, expand, or shoot holes in please.
Link Posted: 11/2/2006 10:30:05 AM EST
Let me keep my money and do whatever the hell I want with it.

Simple, fair, effective.
Link Posted: 11/2/2006 10:30:58 AM EST
Guess I should clarify that you are free to seek other investments and savings but not with the forced savings amount.
Link Posted: 11/2/2006 10:32:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By Mattl:
Guess I should clarify that you are free to seek other investments and savings but not with the forced savings amount.


The government shouldn't be "forcing" me to "help myself." Just let me handle it, all of it.
Link Posted: 11/2/2006 10:32:33 AM EST

Originally Posted By DJAteOhAte:
Let me keep my money and do whatever the hell I want with it.

Simple, fair, effective.


Do you write off legally any chance of recieving welfare or social program support? Many will not save, they will be a bleed on the rest of us.
Link Posted: 11/2/2006 10:32:57 AM EST
over social security? hell yes.... in addition.... hell no
Link Posted: 11/2/2006 10:34:18 AM EST

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By DJAteOhAte:
Let me keep my money and do whatever the hell I want with it.

Simple, fair, effective.


Do you write off legally any chance of recieving welfare or social program support? Many will not save, they will be a bleed on the rest of us.


I don't know how to get out of the mess we're in.

But, if we are building a new system, let's start with not having a system.
Link Posted: 11/2/2006 10:35:48 AM EST

Originally Posted By Orion_Shall_Rise:
over social security? hell yes.... in addition.... hell no


Thats what I am advocating, instead of. 5% is theoretical but I would speculate most of us pay more then 5% in S.S.
Link Posted: 11/2/2006 10:38:35 AM EST

Originally Posted By DJAteOhAte:

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By DJAteOhAte:
Let me keep my money and do whatever the hell I want with it.

Simple, fair, effective.


Do you write off legally any chance of recieving welfare or social program support? Many will not save, they will be a bleed on the rest of us.


I don't know how to get out of the mess we're in.

But, if we are building a new system, let's start with not having a system.


I'm 26yo it is unfair to take from me and make me pay for a benfit I will not recieve. 3 workers to prop up 1 retiree is unfair and unviable. Something needs to be done soon.
Link Posted: 11/2/2006 2:59:21 PM EST
Ah, the Bush plan.

Take some of the funds from the payroll tax and create a new, forced, savings system.

Of course, that reduces the revenues available to fund the current system which people have been paying into all their lives.

So, eventually and reluctantly Bush admits there'd have to be some sort of means testing to reduce the burden, that's actually the only part of the plan that had anything to do with saving social security, the private accounts were just a new government program, and a particularly odious one at that.

Problem with a forced savings program is that it distorts the marketplace, creates unnatural demand for investment vehicles, and assuming your plan follows the Bush pattern of limiting investment choices to those approved by a federal employee, gives the government yet another tool with which to move markets, and therefore to line their pockets.

That and the FORCED part.

If we really want to save SS I think we've got two options. The first is to make it a paygo safety net with a limited budget targeted only at the most needy people who've paid in, in other words means test it until it's solvent.

The other solution would be to monetize the IOUs in the trust fund, remove the cap on the payroll tax, stop borrowing money from the fund for general spending, and take the proceeds and buy up assets which generate revenue owned by the trust for the benefit of seasoned citizens and the disabled, utilities, rail, energy, public/private partnerships to build bridges, dams, etc.

Trying to kill it completely isn't going to work, everybody's got a grandma and everyone's been paying in.

Fact is though we've spent all the surplus money paid in on the welfare/warfare state, and we the people allowed it to happen.

I REALLY dislike the regressive nature of the payroll tax as it exists today, no reason at all for it to be limited to the first $100K or so of income, should be a flat tax on all income. It's a safety net, not a retirement plan.
Link Posted: 11/2/2006 3:19:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/2/2006 3:23:45 PM EST by stator]
Well, first of all, Social Security is a retirement plan and not a safety net. That is not saying it is designed as the only retirement plan you need. Far from it, however, it was design as a retirement plan. The money collected was suppose to go into a trust fund that would earn interest until you withdrew from it. It was not intended as a tax which is a revenue stream into the general fund for Congress to spend. Politicians turned it into such a tax, and added welfare programs into Social Security by allow those to withdraw from an account they never had.

Second, if you enrolled in Social Security, you have a Social Security number which is your bank account number. It tracks the money you paid into it (both FICA directly from your paycheck, and the compulsitory payment from your employer that is really from your pay as well). If you are so inclined, you can ask for your bank statement that shows the deposit amounts and dates over the years.

Third, Congress broke the system by stealing the money. If it was left as originally intended, the combined accounts in Social Security would have funding well past all baby-boomer obligations.

Fourth, Congress took all the money out of the Social Security account and placed IOUs into it instead. I forgot what technically the IOUs are but these are not the same T-Bills sold on the market by the Feds. Any way, the Social Security bank is busted and the rooster came home to roost.

Fifth, any time Congress changes the pay outs to a lessor amount, or raises the eligibility age requirements, they are simply defaulting on the IOUs. Under no uncertain terms, is it anything otherwise.

Sixth, I paid more than $200,000 into my Social Security account at age 46. So it will suck if the federal government changes to a full welfare program where my account balance is stolen from me and given to some shithead, worthless dick who lived off the gubinment all of his/her crappy life.

And finally, IT SUCKS BEING THE FIRST YEAR OF THE GENERATION X's WHO WALKS INTO THE WASTE LAND LEFT BY THE BOOMERS.
Link Posted: 11/2/2006 3:23:32 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/2/2006 3:29:29 PM EST by david_g17]
ww2.dowtheoryletters.com/dtlol.nsf/htmlmedia/body_rich_man__poor_man.html

if you don't read it, at least check out this chart (assumes a high interest rate, like 10% - but the proportions should hold true for a more reasonable rate). Notice that Investor B only makes 7 deposits, and still has more money at age 65.




In order to emphasize the power of compounding, I am including this extraordinary study, courtesy of Market Logic, of Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33306. In this study we assume that investor (B) opens an IRA at age 19. For seven consecutive periods he puts $2,000 in his IRA at an average growth rate of 10% (7% interest plus growth). After seven years this fellow makes NO MORE contributions -- he's finished.

A second investor (A) makes no contributions until age 26 (this is the age when investor B was finished with his contributions). Then A continues faithfully to contribute $2,000 every year until he's 65 (at the same theoretical 10% rate).

Now study the incredible results. B, who made his contributions earlier and who made only seven contributions, ends up with MORE money than A, who made 40 contributions but at a LATER TIME. The difference in the two is that B had seven more early years of compounding than A. Those seven early years were worth more than all of A's 33 additional contributions.

Link Posted: 11/2/2006 3:59:23 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/2/2006 4:00:09 PM EST by K2QB3]
.
Top Top