User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 8:26:14 AM EDT
DKProf's post asking about Libertarianism got me to thinking about SS.
We all know that it needs to go. But the American voter is not going to support a "shut it down now" plan for doing that. Please do not post a rant about how "there IS NO MONEY in SS and it is a Ponzi scheme!!!!!" reply. We already know that. But people that were forced to pay into it for all their lives (like myself) were promised that they could one day draw a retirement income from the system. It is not fair, and more importantly, will not be popular with voters, to just shut it down. I was thinking that a possible "tapering off" of the system might win voter approval. On some date, anyone 30 years old (or some age) would pay 90% of the SS tax and would, upon retirement, draw 90% of the SS benefit. The next year, the people reaching that age would pay 80% and would draw 80% of the benefits when they retire. This could be done until it reached zero, and then those after that would not participate in the system at all. A big program would have to be put in place to teach people the importance of investing the money that would have paid into the SS system into some sort of retirement plan, mutual funds, etc. We have to do something that will be supported by the majority of the voters. What do you think? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 8:27:45 AM EDT
[#1]
Weaning off is a good plan.
Good luck with the well indoctrinated morons being churned out of,schools now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 8:28:02 AM EDT
[#2]
Alan Greenspan testified that we will always have the money to pay SSI. What that money buys is another matter.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 8:28:50 AM EDT
[#3]
1. Stop the gathering of funds for SS from paychecks.
2. Money that does exist in SS, send out one time checks to everyone that paid into it, and base the check amount on the amount they earned and the time they've worked. 3. People can take that check, and do with it what they want, put it into a 401k, IRA, stocks, cocaine, whatever they want. 4. End the program in it's entirety. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 8:30:48 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Weaning off is a good plan. Good luck with the well indoctrinated morons being churned out of,schools now. Yep, I realize that the "average person", if relieved of the SS tax, would use it to buy "stuff" and have no savings for retirement. That's why I mentioned the educational aspect of the plan. Dave Ramsey has shown that if a person could invest the money we spend on SS taxes, we could retire as a millionaire. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 8:31:19 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: DKProf's post asking about Libertarianism got me to thinking about SS. We all know that it needs to go. But the American voter is not going to support a "shut it down now" plan for doing that. Please do not post a rant about how "there IS NO MONEY in SS and it is a Ponzi scheme!!!!!" reply. We already know that. But people that were forced to pay into it for all their lives (like myself) were promised that they could one day draw a retirement income from the system. It is not fair, and more importantly, will not be popular with voters, to just shut it down. I was thinking that a possible "tapering off" of the system might win voter approval. On some date, anyone 30 years old (or some age) would pay 90% of the SS tax and would, upon retirement, draw 90% of the SS benefit. The next year, the people reaching that age would pay 80% and would draw 80% of the benefits when they retire. This could be done until it reached zero, and then those after that would not participate in the system at all. A big program would have to be put in place to teach people the importance of investing the money that would have paid into the SS system into some sort of retirement plan, mutual funds, etc. We have to do something that will be supported by the majority of the voters. What do you think? That is, indeed, the biggest problem. Unfortunately you will always have those that refuse to learn. Then they end up in despair, the left deems that something must be done (with other peoples money) and boom, we're back to square one with a "safety net". If my history knowledge serves me correctly, that is what SS was when it was first implemented. It was bastardized from there. Overall, though, I like the idea. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 8:32:52 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
1. Stop the gathering of funds for SS from paychecks. 2. Money that does exist in SS, send out one time checks to everyone that paid into it, and base the check amount on the amount they earned and the time they've worked. Quote HistoryQuoted:
1. Stop the gathering of funds for SS from paychecks. 2. Money that does exist in SS, send out one time checks to everyone that paid into it, and base the check amount on the amount they earned and the time they've worked. The part in red.....there is no money in SS. 
3. People can take that check, and do with it what they want, put it into a 401k, IRA, stocks, cocaine, whatever they want.
4. End the program in it's entirety. Voters will NEVER vote for a politician that says he will do that. We have to have a solution that we can SELL to the American voter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 8:34:10 AM EDT
[#7]
Offer everyone what they paid in a lump sum payable in Powerball tickets in lieu of SS benefits.
About 87% of people would take it. Problem solved. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 8:35:20 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is, indeed, the biggest problem. Unfortunately you will always have those that refuse to learn. Then they end up in despair, the left deems that something must be done (with other peoples money) and boom, we're back to square one with a "safety net". If my history knowledge serves me correctly, that is what SS was when it was first implemented. It was bastardized from there. Overall, though, I like the idea. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
A big program would have to be put in place to teach people the importance of investing the money that would have paid into the SS system into some sort of retirement plan, mutual funds, etc. That is, indeed, the biggest problem. Unfortunately you will always have those that refuse to learn. Then they end up in despair, the left deems that something must be done (with other peoples money) and boom, we're back to square one with a "safety net". If my history knowledge serves me correctly, that is what SS was when it was first implemented. It was bastardized from there. Overall, though, I like the idea. I believe you are correct. The government does not have any business providing a "safety net". That is not a Constitutional job of the federal Government. But you are right.......That will be hard thing to sell. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 8:35:50 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Weaning off is a good plan. Good luck with the well indoctrinated morons being churned out of,schools now. When politicians aren't terrified of proposing cuts to medicare then we can talk more seriously about social security. Medicare should be the lower-hanging fruit but much of the last presidential election was both sides accusing the other of wanting to cut medicare. Maybe someone could propose eliminating SSDI/SSI though; pitch it as a way to maintain the original intent and keep it social security solvent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 8:35:52 AM EDT
[#10]
We, as a nation, are moving exactly in the opposite direction. Entitlements have become the rule and my instinct is that SS is going to become an even larger program with greater "benefits". Eventually you see a VAT that will help pay for this, in addition to the SS tax.
The logic will be that it's not fair that just because someone didn't save anything during their work years that they shouldn't enjoy their retirement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 8:39:52 AM EDT
[#11]
SS would have to be phased out. A voucher and/or a yearly tax applied refund based around a timetable.
Implement it over a period of a decade. Everyone would get what they put into it. Then shut it down forever. We do NOT need to implement a government mandated educational program. Fuck's sake, the gov is the last place I would go to learn how to invest for a future. This could be done easily and fairly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 8:40:12 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
What do you think?
I think the taper would have to be much slower than that, say 4% per year. So it would go 96%, 92%, 88%, 84%, etc. That would do it over a 25 year period. The replacement would be a mandated by law 401K system where the 4%, 8%, 12%, etc. would go into a 401K plan that could not be borrowed or touched in any other way. So the first year, 96% of the SS tax would go to SS and 4% into the 401K plan. We would have to rename the plan 401K-B to distinguish it from a regular 401K plan. People are procrastinators and most will wait until the last minute to save or not save at all. Then they still become a burden. If you don't force people to save, then they will not do so. So this way the person controls their money more directly and it is less of a pyramid scheme. I would pass a law that if you died, the 401K-B money would be inherited by your heirs but be taxed. If the heir transferred it into their own 401K-B plan, it would transfer tax free. It would promote savings. I would also create a 401K-H health savings plan where pre-tax dollars could be put into a fund to use for health care and slowly eliminate Medicare. Medicaid would remain in some form but I have plans for that as well.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 8:40:58 AM EDT
[#13]
An excellent approach!
I have not planned my retirement around my SS. If I get it, it will be a bonus that I will gladly accept, having paid into it my whole life. And weaning is the best way to break dependency. ETA: The state of Florida took a similar approach paring down the interest rate of a retirement cola. We used to have a 3% cola. now it's 1.8 I think. But the 17 years I had in the system are locked at 3%. Each year I work after that gets 1.8%, my total years worked at each rate will be averaged for my final cola rate on my retirement payments. A fair system, not retroactively taking what I was promised, but reflecting the new reality. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 8:41:43 AM EDT
[#14]
TODAY:
Those 55 and up continue as planned except the age to begin collecting is set at 65. Those 45-54 will receive 80% of their projected monthly ammount and the age to begin collecting is set at 67. Those 40-44 will receive 60% of their projected monthly amount and the age to begin collecting is set at 69. Those 35-39 will receive an option to opt out instantly and no longer pay into the system OR collect 35% of the projected monthly amount and the age to begin collecting will be 71. Those 34 and younger are opted out and will not pay into the system. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 8:43:22 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We do NOT need to implement a government mandated educational program. Fuck's sake, the gov is the last place I would go to learn how to invest for a future. Oh, I agree with you. I didn't necessarily mean that the education would be another government program. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 8:43:27 AM EDT
[#16]
End admission of new recipients.
Stop all payments to non contributors. No SSDI past what you contributed plus interest. Change the disbursements to total contribution plus interest minus admin costs divided by average life expectancy of recipient. Calculate a reduction in benefit to make sure fund has enough money to pay off all recipients fairly (reasonably fairly). Sure people will get fucked but that's the lest amount of fucking that can possibly come of this fucking mess. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 8:43:54 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think the taper would have to be much slower than that, say 4% per year. So it would go 96%, 92%, 88%, 84%, etc. That would do it over a 25 year period. The replacement would be a mandated by law 401K system where the 4%, 8%, 12%, etc. would go into a 401K plan that could not be borrowed or touched in any other way. So the first year, 96% of the SS tax would go to SS and 4% into the 401K plan. We would have to rename the plan 401K-B to distinguish it from a regular 401K plan. People are procrastinators and most will wait until the last minute to save or not save at all. Then they still become a burden. If you don't force people to save, then they will not do so. So this way the person controls their money more directly and it is less of a pyramid scheme. I would pass a law that if you died, the 401K-B money would be inherited by your heirs but be taxed. If the heir transferred it into their own 401K-B plan, it would transfer tax free. It would promote savings. I would also create a 401K-H health savings plan where pre-tax dollars could be put into a fund to use for health care and slowly eliminate Medicare. Medicaid would remain in some form but I have plans for that as well.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What do you think?
I think the taper would have to be much slower than that, say 4% per year. So it would go 96%, 92%, 88%, 84%, etc. That would do it over a 25 year period. The replacement would be a mandated by law 401K system where the 4%, 8%, 12%, etc. would go into a 401K plan that could not be borrowed or touched in any other way. So the first year, 96% of the SS tax would go to SS and 4% into the 401K plan. We would have to rename the plan 401K-B to distinguish it from a regular 401K plan. People are procrastinators and most will wait until the last minute to save or not save at all. Then they still become a burden. If you don't force people to save, then they will not do so. So this way the person controls their money more directly and it is less of a pyramid scheme. I would pass a law that if you died, the 401K-B money would be inherited by your heirs but be taxed. If the heir transferred it into their own 401K-B plan, it would transfer tax free. It would promote savings. I would also create a 401K-H health savings plan where pre-tax dollars could be put into a fund to use for health care and slowly eliminate Medicare. Medicaid would remain in some form but I have plans for that as well.
Mandated by law............just like Obamacare. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 8:44:21 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
TODAY: Those 55 and up continue as planned except the age to begin collecting is set at 65. Those 45-54 will receive 80% of their projected monthly ammount and the age to begin collecting is set at 67. Those 40-44 will receive 60% of their projected monthly amount and the age to begin collecting is set at 69. Those 35-39 will receive an option to opt out instantly and no longer pay into the system OR collect 35% of the projected monthly amount and the age to begin collecting will be 71. Those 34 and younger are opted out and will not pay into the system. That would be great, but the math wouldn't even come close to working. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 8:45:37 AM EDT
[#19]
Good luck finding someone in Congress that has the stones to piss off the entire senior citizen demographic.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 8:46:09 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Stop all payments to non contributors. Agree 110%.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 8:48:11 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think the taper would have to be much slower than that, say 4% per year. So it would go 96%, 92%, 88%, 84%, etc. That would do it over a 25 year period. The replacement would be a mandated by law 401K system where the 4%, 8%, 12%, etc. would go into a 401K plan that could not be borrowed or touched in any other way. So the first year, 96% of the SS tax would go to SS and 4% into the 401K plan. We would have to rename the plan 401K-B to distinguish it from a regular 401K plan. People are procrastinators and most will wait until the last minute to save or not save at all. Then they still become a burden. If you don't force people to save, then they will not do so. So this way the person controls their money more directly and it is less of a pyramid scheme. I would pass a law that if you died, the 401K-B money would be inherited by your heirs but be taxed. If the heir transferred it into their own 401K-B plan, it would transfer tax free. It would promote savings. I would also create a 401K-H health savings plan where pre-tax dollars could be put into a fund to use for health care and slowly eliminate Medicare. Medicaid would remain in some form but I have plans for that as well.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What do you think?
I think the taper would have to be much slower than that, say 4% per year. So it would go 96%, 92%, 88%, 84%, etc. That would do it over a 25 year period. The replacement would be a mandated by law 401K system where the 4%, 8%, 12%, etc. would go into a 401K plan that could not be borrowed or touched in any other way. So the first year, 96% of the SS tax would go to SS and 4% into the 401K plan. We would have to rename the plan 401K-B to distinguish it from a regular 401K plan. People are procrastinators and most will wait until the last minute to save or not save at all. Then they still become a burden. If you don't force people to save, then they will not do so. So this way the person controls their money more directly and it is less of a pyramid scheme. I would pass a law that if you died, the 401K-B money would be inherited by your heirs but be taxed. If the heir transferred it into their own 401K-B plan, it would transfer tax free. It would promote savings. I would also create a 401K-H health savings plan where pre-tax dollars could be put into a fund to use for health care and slowly eliminate Medicare. Medicaid would remain in some form but I have plans for that as well.
I believe you are wrong. Expect people act like adults they may just do that. We have thousands of years of history of most people acting like adults. Some will not save, probably same people who don't have jobs today. Frankly I don't give a shit if we pile them up at the landfill and make tasty green wafers out of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 8:48:12 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good luck finding someone in Congress that has the stones to piss off the entire senior citizen demographic. But that's just the point. My plan (or some variation) would not "piss off the entire senior citizen demographic", as they would not be effected by it. And younger people would have time to plan another source of income for their retirement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 8:53:00 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mandated by law............just like Obamacare. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What do you think?
I think the taper would have to be much slower than that, say 4% per year. So it would go 96%, 92%, 88%, 84%, etc. That would do it over a 25 year period. The replacement would be a mandated by law 401K system where the 4%, 8%, 12%, etc. would go into a 401K plan that could not be borrowed or touched in any other way. So the first year, 96% of the SS tax would go to SS and 4% into the 401K plan. We would have to rename the plan 401K-B to distinguish it from a regular 401K plan. People are procrastinators and most will wait until the last minute to save or not save at all. Then they still become a burden. If you don't force people to save, then they will not do so. So this way the person controls their money more directly and it is less of a pyramid scheme. I would pass a law that if you died, the 401K-B money would be inherited by your heirs but be taxed. If the heir transferred it into their own 401K-B plan, it would transfer tax free. It would promote savings. I would also create a 401K-H health savings plan where pre-tax dollars could be put into a fund to use for health care and slowly eliminate Medicare. Medicaid would remain in some form but I have plans for that as well.
Mandated by law............just like Obamacare. Social Security . . . mandated by law. The difference is the 401K is your money. If I died tomorrow, "my" Social Security money is gone, *poof*! A 401K-B replacement means the money can be transferred to your heirs. The OP is asking about a workable system of savings that the voters would actually accept from a politician. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 8:54:13 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
We have to do something that will be supported by the majority of the voters. What do you think?
I think the majority of the voters wont approve of tampering with FICA |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 8:56:14 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh, I agree with you. I didn't necessarily mean that the education would be another government program. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
We do NOT need to implement a government mandated educational program. Fuck's sake, the gov is the last place I would go to learn how to invest for a future. Oh, I agree with you. I didn't necessarily mean that the education would be another government program. Fortunately we live in the information age. Everything is at our fingertips. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 8:56:26 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That would be great, but the math wouldn't even come close to working. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
TODAY: Those 55 and up continue as planned except the age to begin collecting is set at 65. Those 45-54 will receive 80% of their projected monthly ammount and the age to begin collecting is set at 67. Those 40-44 will receive 60% of their projected monthly amount and the age to begin collecting is set at 69. Those 35-39 will receive an option to opt out instantly and no longer pay into the system OR collect 35% of the projected monthly amount and the age to begin collecting will be 71. Those 34 and younger are opted out and will not pay into the system. That would be great, but the math wouldn't even come close to working. So make the cuts sharper and the age of collection longer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 8:58:18 AM EDT
[#27]
Currently Social Security is NOT a government mandated retirement program, despite what it once was. It is now an income redistribution program. Hell, that's what is really was from the beginning: taking income from some, and giving it to others. In the beginning, it was used to help those who produced all their lives from not living naked under a bridge when they nearing the end of life. Now Americans want their check starting in their mid 60's for the rest of their lives, even if they live to 95 or older.
My solution. Calculate how many dollars you have put into the system over your entire life, then you get to decide when and how you get them back. Lump sum at 62.5? Here is your check. Stretch it out for 5 years? 60 monthly payments. 10 years? 120 monthly payments. When it's gone, you get no more, and good luck to ya. What about the time value of your confiscated money? Let's be realistic, you can't squeeze blood from a potato, it probably isn't there. The principle value you paid in probably isn't there either. At best, I'd think you would get a pro-rata share and receive cents on the dollar. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 8:58:41 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I believe you are wrong. Expect people act like adults they may just do that. We have thousands of years of history of most people acting like adults. Some will not save, probably same people who don't have jobs today. Frankly I don't give a shit if we pile them up at the landfill and make tasty green wafers out of them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What do you think?
I think the taper would have to be much slower than that, say 4% per year. So it would go 96%, 92%, 88%, 84%, etc. That would do it over a 25 year period. The replacement would be a mandated by law 401K system where the 4%, 8%, 12%, etc. would go into a 401K plan that could not be borrowed or touched in any other way. So the first year, 96% of the SS tax would go to SS and 4% into the 401K plan. We would have to rename the plan 401K-B to distinguish it from a regular 401K plan. People are procrastinators and most will wait until the last minute to save or not save at all. Then they still become a burden. If you don't force people to save, then they will not do so. So this way the person controls their money more directly and it is less of a pyramid scheme. I would pass a law that if you died, the 401K-B money would be inherited by your heirs but be taxed. If the heir transferred it into their own 401K-B plan, it would transfer tax free. It would promote savings. I would also create a 401K-H health savings plan where pre-tax dollars could be put into a fund to use for health care and slowly eliminate Medicare. Medicaid would remain in some form but I have plans for that as well.
I believe you are wrong. Expect people act like adults they may just do that. We have thousands of years of history of most people acting like adults. Some will not save, probably same people who don't have jobs today. Frankly I don't give a shit if we pile them up at the landfill and make tasty green wafers out of them. No. Expect people to act like people. I'm not going to say I'm an expert on human nature, but from my observations the vast majority of people do things because they have to or are forced to. That's why we have laws and police to enforce them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:04:23 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. Expect people to act like people. I'm not going to say I'm an expert on human nature, but from my observations the vast majority of people do things because they have to or are forced to. That's why we have laws and police to enforce them. This is the exact argument liberals make. This is why I am libertarian. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:04:59 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
1. Stop the gathering of funds for SS from paychecks. 2. Money that does exist in SS, send out one time checks to everyone that paid into it, and base the check amount on the amount they earned and the time they've worked. 3. People can take that check, and do with it what they want, put it into a 401k, IRA, stocks, cocaine, whatever they want. 4. End the program in it's entirety. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:06:38 AM EDT
[#31]
I would make existing dollars worthless. The checks would remain the same, but their buying power would amount to half a loaf of stale bread. After that the people, who lived, wouldn't be using their SS check for anything but a shit ticket.
Voters and political opposition won't let anyone touch entitlements, so something else has to give way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:08:07 AM EDT
[#32]
I don't think we'll ever be able to get rid of the system. However, we could massively reform it. Simple steps:
A) Automatic adjustments of retirement age based on life expectancy. B) Reform the increases every year. They need to be the LESSER of Inflation, GDP growth, and SS Revenue growth. C) Freeze increases whenever expenditures exceed income. D) Do a better job - any job, really - of Fraud prevention. E) Reform SSI. Make people re-prove their disability. The key, IMO, is education. People don't understand the system, and the Dems use that to their advantage. People need to understand what the problems are, and what potential solutions can be, and most importantly, that we aren't trying to push Grandma over the cliff - we're trying to save all of us from going over the cliff. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:09:07 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But that's just the point. My plan (or some variation) would not "piss off the entire senior citizen demographic", as they would not be effected by it. And younger people would have time to plan another source of income for their retirement. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Good luck finding someone in Congress that has the stones to piss off the entire senior citizen demographic. But that's just the point. My plan (or some variation) would not "piss off the entire senior citizen demographic", as they would not be effected by it. And younger people would have time to plan another source of income for their retirement. Thats not how Dems or the media would portray it. I can hear the wailing, "Those evil republicans want to take away your SS and throw you out into the street to die"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:10:17 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
1. Stop the gathering of funds for SS from paychecks. 2. Money that does exist in SS, send out one time checks to everyone that paid into it, and base the check amount on the amount they earned and the time they've worked. This would be their regular monthly check. 3. People can take that check, and do with it what they want, put it into a 401k, IRA, stocks, cocaine, whatever they want. They already do 4. End the program in it's entirety. Money that comes in from SS tax that month, goes out with teh next SS check payment. There is no account, so to speak. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:10:53 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
A big program would have to be put in place to teach people the importance of investing the money that would have paid into the SS system into some sort of retirement plan, mutual funds, etc. What do you think? More money in the paycheck? Spend it. I think that money will get invested in bigger plasma TV's and more eating out at restaurants. Now, don't get me wrong. If you are irresponsible with your money it should be nobody's problem but yours. The plan sounds fine, right up until to realize that a large segment of our population are financial imbeciles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:12:12 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We have to have a solution that we can SELL to the American voter. Unless it involves "more free stuff" you'll have better luck selling ice to Eskimos. That really is the truth.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:15:11 AM EDT
[#37]
Just give me an option on my tax return to "opt out" of Social InSecurity. They can keep what I've put into the scam so far. But I don't want to put any more in and I don't want a SS check ever. The amount of money I waste every paycheck via SS can be better spent or invested elsewhere. Heck, can you imagine how much debt you could pay off if you didn't have to pay for SS?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:16:08 AM EDT
[#38]
The problem with ending SS is there isn't any money to pay back the people who you want to make whole, all that money has to come from people who are paying the SS tax.
The "taper off" ideas always forget or mistake that, perhaps because the math is a little harder to grasp. When younger people start paying less, the older people start receiving less, there isn't any buffer and it doesn't change the magnitude of the default at all, it only shifts some of it to younger workers. It will never be politically viable because you're asking everyone to take a loss. There are tens of trillions of perceived wealth that doesn't actually exist yet. The only way to avoid default and/or enslaving younger people to pay benefits to older ones is to monetize the obligations of the program, and take the loss in currency depreciation. No matter how you go about it the loss that has to be realized to end the program is the same, the total obligations of the program. That seems pretty self-evident to me but every time we have a SS thread the majority of proposals seem not to recognize it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:16:21 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
TODAY: Those 55 and up continue as planned except the age to begin collecting is set at 65. Those 45-54 will receive 80% of their projected monthly ammount and the age to begin collecting is set at 67. Those 40-44 will receive 60% of their projected monthly amount and the age to begin collecting is set at 69. Those 35-39 will receive an option to opt out instantly and no longer pay into the system OR collect 35% of the projected monthly amount and the age to begin collecting will be 71. Those 34 and younger are opted out and will not pay into the system. Seems good enough! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:16:38 AM EDT
[#40]
The idiots who think SS is a great idea are the same idiots who think getting
a big refund from the IRS because they had to much tax taken out throughout the year is a great idea. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:18:03 AM EDT
[#41]
We would end up with GOP Savings. You have to sign up or pay a fine. If you like your current bank you can keep it.
If we stopped foreign aid and some of the pork barrel projects SS would be paid for. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:18:29 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is the exact argument liberals make. This is why I am libertarian. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No. Expect people to act like people. I'm not going to say I'm an expert on human nature, but from my observations the vast majority of people do things because they have to or are forced to. That's why we have laws and police to enforce them. This is the exact argument liberals make. This is why I am libertarian. I personally have no problem watching people die because they have no food or medical care. But most of the population does. So some sort of system needs to exist to at least give the appearance that there is a 'safety net' of sorts. Voters who believe in personal responsibility are outnumbered by those who don't. That is our reality. That's why the OP asked for: We have to do something that will be supported by the majority of the voters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:18:35 AM EDT
[#43]
Pay people out of the Social Security pocket. Pay people out of the Welfare pocket. Does it really matter? Anyway you slice it, you're still gonna pay. No politician in his right mind would support disenfranchising tens of millions of voters. We're not a nation of savers and nobody is going to let these people starve. If you think otherwise, you're a fool. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:19:19 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. Expect people to act like people. I'm not going to say I'm an expert on human nature, but from my observations the vast majority of people do things because they have to or are forced to. That's why we have laws and police to enforce them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What do you think?
I think the taper would have to be much slower than that, say 4% per year. So it would go 96%, 92%, 88%, 84%, etc. That would do it over a 25 year period. The replacement would be a mandated by law 401K system where the 4%, 8%, 12%, etc. would go into a 401K plan that could not be borrowed or touched in any other way. So the first year, 96% of the SS tax would go to SS and 4% into the 401K plan. We would have to rename the plan 401K-B to distinguish it from a regular 401K plan. People are procrastinators and most will wait until the last minute to save or not save at all. Then they still become a burden. If you don't force people to save, then they will not do so. So this way the person controls their money more directly and it is less of a pyramid scheme. I would pass a law that if you died, the 401K-B money would be inherited by your heirs but be taxed. If the heir transferred it into their own 401K-B plan, it would transfer tax free. It would promote savings. I would also create a 401K-H health savings plan where pre-tax dollars could be put into a fund to use for health care and slowly eliminate Medicare. Medicaid would remain in some form but I have plans for that as well.
I believe you are wrong. Expect people act like adults they may just do that. We have thousands of years of history of most people acting like adults. Some will not save, probably same people who don't have jobs today. Frankly I don't give a shit if we pile them up at the landfill and make tasty green wafers out of them. No. Expect people to act like people. I'm not going to say I'm an expert on human nature, but from my observations the vast majority of people do things because they have to or are forced to. That's why we have laws and police to enforce them. Based on that I think you should change your avatar... That's not living free. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:19:58 AM EDT
[#45]
I would vote for you!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:20:35 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I personally have no problem watching people die because they have no food or medical care. But most of the population does. So some sort of system needs to exist to at least give the appearance that there is a 'safety net' of sorts. Voters who believe in personal responsibility are outnumbered by those who don't. That is our reality. That's why the OP asked for: Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No. Expect people to act like people. I'm not going to say I'm an expert on human nature, but from my observations the vast majority of people do things because they have to or are forced to. That's why we have laws and police to enforce them. This is the exact argument liberals make. This is why I am libertarian. I personally have no problem watching people die because they have no food or medical care. But most of the population does. So some sort of system needs to exist to at least give the appearance that there is a 'safety net' of sorts. Voters who believe in personal responsibility are outnumbered by those who don't. That is our reality. That's why the OP asked for: We have to do something that will be supported by the majority of the voters. I don't think that's much of a compromise towards improvement. Just another system that can be abused. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:21:55 AM EDT
[#47]
As someone who's paid into it for 30 years I'd want some sort of fair renumeration for my 'investment'. I'd also want a commensurate raise from my employer equal to the share they pay to assist in my own private retirement savings.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:23:49 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The problem with ending SS is there isn't any money to pay back the people who you want to make whole, all that money has to come from people who are paying the SS tax. The "taper off" ideas always forget or mistake that, perhaps because the math is a little harder to grasp. When younger people start paying less, the older people start receiving less, there isn't any buffer and it doesn't change the magnitude of the default at all, it only shifts some of it to younger workers. It will never be politically viable because you're asking everyone to take a loss. There are tens of trillions of perceived wealth that doesn't actually exist yet. The only way to avoid default and/or enslaving younger people to pay benefits to older ones is to monetize the obligations of the program, and take the loss in currency depreciation. No matter how you go about it the loss that has to be realized to end the program is the same, the total obligations of the program. That seems pretty self-evident to me but every time we have a SS thread the majority of proposals seem not to recognize it. And ultimately, the problem there is that there aren't enough people paying tax already. Reducing the amount they pay sure won't fix it lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:24:11 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The problem with ending SS is there isn't any money to pay back the people who you want to make whole, all that money has to come from people who are paying the SS tax. The "taper off" ideas always forget or mistake that, perhaps because the math is a little harder to grasp. When younger people start paying less, the older people start receiving less, there isn't any buffer and it doesn't change the magnitude of the default at all, it only shifts some of it to younger workers. It will never be politically viable because you're asking everyone to take a loss. There are tens of trillions of perceived wealth that doesn't actually exist yet. The only way to avoid default and/or enslaving younger people to pay benefits to older ones is to monetize the obligations of the program, and take the loss in currency depreciation. No matter how you go about it the loss that has to be realized to end the program is the same, the total obligations of the program. That seems pretty self-evident to me but every time we have a SS thread the majority of proposals seem not to recognize it. You would have to taper the payouts before tapering the taxes. It will ONLY be politically viable if you ask everyone to take a loss. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:24:44 AM EDT
[#50]
As always, O_P is a wise man. Tapering off is the only way.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
