Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Dec 31, 2012 14:28:06 GMT -5
Everyone wants to raise the retirement age for the young folks. Eff that. If we're going to raise the age to fix the system raise it on everybody. Fairness, everyone sacrificing for the common good, etc., etc. We've already raised the age on us young folks once. If I have to work until I'm 70, grandma and grandpa can work until at least 66 instead of 65.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Dec 31, 2012 14:28:09 GMT -5
True, but I don't think that really matters. After all, nothing is written in stone. In my lifetime, the government arbitrarily withdrew Silver certificates from circulation. If the government can arbitrarily decide to renege on their promise to exchange paper money for silver, then nothing is guaranteed.
It matters because you have no legal and/or constitutional claim to receive Social Security benefits.
Money is merely a medium of exchange. We've been off the gold standard for over 40 years.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Dec 31, 2012 14:29:22 GMT -5
Everyone wants to raise the retirement age for the young folks. Eff that. If we're going to raise the age to fix the system raise it on everybody. Fairness, everyone sacrificing for the common good, etc., etc. We've already raised the age on us young folks once. If I have to work until I'm 70, grandma and grandpa can work until at least 66 instead of 65. I am 57 and my full SS retirement age for SS is 66 and 3 months... it's already been raised... cant say I know what the age is for younger people.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Dec 31, 2012 14:31:52 GMT -5
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, VB. I might raise the retirement age a little for people under 50 years old. I disagree with raising the retirement age. The fact we live longer, does not mean our bodies are deteriating at a later age than our parents did. Most Americans are simply unable to physically do the same job at 68 that they were doing at 63, especially if it is a physical job. We will create far more health issues for seniors by requiring them to work later in life, thus effecting Medicare bills down the road even more than we do now. As I approach retirement age, I can feel the difference in my body myself, and my job is not considered a physical one. Yes, it is true that people are living longer but may not be able to work longer. But SS was not designed to be the sole means of support for a retiree for 30+ years. It was designed as a suppliment for a few years. If we want to keep supporting retirees for 30+ years, then we need to fundamentally look at retirement and what it means.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Dec 31, 2012 14:31:57 GMT -5
Mine is 67 right now.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Dec 31, 2012 14:33:58 GMT -5
Yes, I could support the spousal benefit it was treated as a IRA. If you have a spouse that doesn't work, you could have the option to pay more into SS in order to get the spousal benefit later. But if you don't then you don't. I'm always for mroe choices. ...would/could that apply for all dependents? for every dependent, the worker pays more into SS to account for the increased benefit? eta quote box
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 14, 2024 13:01:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2012 14:51:43 GMT -5
Spousal benefit helps to even out for families with one working spouse. Ie. two individuals with their own 50k annual salary will bring home significantly more SS than a single with 100k... You could possibly solve this with allocation choice? Ie. Similar to how i can put $ in a spousal Ira even if I have no income... Giving each individual credits that act as their base, but even then? Not sure if it would work out.. Hmmm, interesting idea. Yes, I could support the spousal benefit it was treated as a IRA. If you have a spouse that doesn't work, you could have the option to pay more into SS in order to get the spousal benefit later. But if you don't then you don't. I'm always for mroe choices. But the one spouse paying SS taxes on a single 100k income ALREADY pays the same as two singles making 50k... But he would DRAW less than the two singles. That is one of the reasons why we have spousal benefits. It wouldn't be paying more, but splitting allocation...
|
|
vandalshandle
Senior Member
Never give a sucker an even break, or smarten up a chump...
Joined: Oct 12, 2011 20:34:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,005
|
Post by vandalshandle on Dec 31, 2012 15:04:19 GMT -5
Everyone wants to raise the retirement age for the young folks. Eff that. If we're going to raise the age to fix the system raise it on everybody. Fairness, everyone sacrificing for the common good, etc., etc. We've already raised the age on us young folks once. If I have to work until I'm 70, grandma and grandpa can work until at least 66 instead of 65. They raised it to 66 years ago. I was born in 1944, and my full retirment age was age 66.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Dec 31, 2012 15:28:14 GMT -5
I disagree with raising the retirement age. The fact we live longer, does not mean our bodies are deteriating at a later age than our parents did. Most Americans are simply unable to physically do the same job at 68 that they were doing at 63, especially if it is a physical job. We will create far more health issues for seniors by requiring them to work later in life, thus effecting Medicare bills down the road even more than we do now. As I approach retirement age, I can feel the difference in my body myself, and my job is not considered a physical one. Yes, it is true that people are living longer but may not be able to work longer. But SS was not designed to be the sole means of support for a retiree for 30+ years. It was designed as a suppliment for a few years. If we want to keep supporting retirees for 30+ years, then we need to fundamentally look at retirement and what it means. "suppliment for a few years" Is that the Government euphemism for early death because you never reached 70?
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Dec 31, 2012 15:31:34 GMT -5
Vandals, you also have to remember the Government has raised the rates citizens and the businesses have paid into SS over the years to compensate for longer life spans, so technically they do expect longer life spans and had supposedly solved the insolvency issue.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Dec 31, 2012 15:35:58 GMT -5
When SS was founded most people didn't even make it to 65. It wasn't really a retirement benefit at all. It was only for those that lived an unusually long time and might have outlived their savings. You would have already been retired before you hit SS eligibility if you were rich, and if you were poor you never really planned on retiring (at least like we currently envision it). You worked until you couldn't anymore then moved in with family. SS benefits for poor folks were a way to keep you from being completely destitute if you couldn't work anymore and had no family to move in with.
As we got healthier and started living longer we started looking at 65 as retirement age instead of really old age, the way we view like 85 now.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 14, 2024 13:01:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2012 15:46:27 GMT -5
When SS was founded most people didn't even make it to 65. It wasn't really a retirement benefit at all. It was only for those that lived an unusually long time and might have outlived their savings. You would have already been retired before you hit SS eligibility if you were rich, and if you were poor you never really planned on retiring (at least like we currently envision it). You worked until you couldn't anymore then moved in with family. SS benefits for poor folks were a way to keep you from being completely destitute if you couldn't work anymore and had no family to move in with. As we got healthier and started living longer we started looking at 65 as retirement age instead of really old age, the way we view like 85 now. Meh...that is sort of true, but a generalization. One of my great grandfathers lived to 96...and the family legend is that he smoked and drank well into excess. What has to be done about SS is a sense of certainty...when can people expect it, you don't keep raising the age limit every two years or so. Some sense of certainty, that people can build their lives around...
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Dec 31, 2012 15:50:53 GMT -5
One of my uncles died at 18. What's your point?
One anecdote doesn't disprove a statistic. The average life expectancy when SS was founded was less than 65. It wasn't a benefit that they expected everyone to get, or to get for a long time. It was only for those at the end of their lives, or who lived unusually long lives for the time. It was to keep old folks out of poverty at the end of their lives, not the sole source of their retirement.
|
|
vandalshandle
Senior Member
Never give a sucker an even break, or smarten up a chump...
Joined: Oct 12, 2011 20:34:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,005
|
Post by vandalshandle on Dec 31, 2012 17:03:14 GMT -5
One way or the other, SS is the easiest problem that we have to fix.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Dec 31, 2012 17:09:38 GMT -5
Hmmm, interesting idea. Yes, I could support the spousal benefit it was treated as a IRA. If you have a spouse that doesn't work, you could have the option to pay more into SS in order to get the spousal benefit later. But if you don't then you don't. I'm always for mroe choices. But the one spouse paying SS taxes on a single 100k income ALREADY pays the same as two singles making 50k... But he would DRAW less than the two singles. That is one of the reasons why we have spousal benefits. It wouldn't be paying more, but splitting allocation... I'm not sure I quite follow you on splitting the allocation and how two 50k earners draw more than 1 100k earner showing "that's why the spousal benefits is there." The point is when SS was enacted it was common for women to not work and rely on their husband's SS income. That's not really the case anymore. Furthermore, it further puts a drain on the system because you got people drawing from SS that never paid into it. In this sense it's like a welfare check. Now, I'm fine with survivor's benefits, but if your spouse is still alive and you never worked, you should have to get along on that income, just like if they were working. No extra benefit for having a stay at home spouse. In 30 years, women will probably be outearning men.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Dec 31, 2012 17:11:04 GMT -5
One way or the other, SS is the easiest problem that we have to fix. Yes, actually, it is easy to fix. All we gotta do is tinker with the main factors, retirement age, SS tax, and benefits paid out until the system balances itself. The problem is, people won't like the result.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 31, 2012 17:58:18 GMT -5
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 31, 2012 18:07:20 GMT -5
True, but I don't think that really matters. After all, nothing is written in stone. In my lifetime, the government arbitrarily withdrew Silver certificates from circulation. If the government can arbitrarily decide to renege on their promise to exchange paper money for silver, then nothing is guaranteed. It matters because you have no legal and/or constitutional claim to receive Social Security benefits. Money is merely a medium of exchange. We've been off the gold standard for over 40 years. This is the crux of the issue here- there are literally no beneficiaries because SS is NOT an insurance policy nor is it an annuity. People think they've "paid in" but the truth is no one has ever "paid in" a penny to Social Security. Because Social Security doesn't actually exist. It's just another law, like all the others that Congress can change on a whim. www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Dec 31, 2012 18:17:50 GMT -5
When SS was founded most people didn't even make it to 65. It wasn't really a retirement benefit at all. It was only for those that lived an unusually long time and might have outlived their savings. You would have already been retired before you hit SS eligibility if you were rich, and if you were poor you never really planned on retiring (at least like we currently envision it). You worked until you couldn't anymore then moved in with family. SS benefits for poor folks were a way to keep you from being completely destitute if you couldn't work anymore and had no family to move in with. As we got healthier and started living longer we started looking at 65 as retirement age instead of really old age, the way we view like 85 now. And the rather large elephant in the room is the shift from defined benefit to defined contribution-AKA the end of pensions and the replacement by an obscure tax section never intended to function that way. Don't know about the rest of you but my older relatives pretty much all had pensions- people I know now none of us have them- and in worse situations are people that had them and the company stole them, allowing the C-shits to retire in wealth and leaving the workers to whatever the PBGC gives them- which is another bullshit government bailout. Ask a retired airline employee about it- maybe one from United.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 14, 2024 13:01:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2012 18:43:30 GMT -5
"Social Security is already out of money."
It's not out of money, it's spending more than it takes in. Big difference. But we did it to ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Dec 31, 2012 18:53:04 GMT -5
"Social Security is already out of money." It's not out of money, it's spending more than it takes in. Big difference. But we did it to ourselves. It's a distinction without a difference(a Peter Schiff line).... SS is out of money, $5 trillion in trust funds exist no where but in worthless govt non-negotiable treasuries. The money is gone. If these "securities" are "cashed in", the govt has to float more debt.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Dec 31, 2012 18:54:59 GMT -5
This is the crux of the issue here- there are literally no beneficiaries because SS is NOT an insurance policy nor is it an annuity. People think they've "paid in" but the truth is no one has ever "paid in" a penny to Social Security. Because Social Security doesn't actually exist. It's just another law, like all the others that Congress can change on a whim.http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Dec 31, 2012 19:19:16 GMT -5
One way or the other, SS is the easiest problem that we have to fix. Hell, all the tax issues and even revenue issues are easy to fix. You just have to keep every tax law simple, and written in 250 words or less. And their should also be a law requiring this procedure.
|
|
dumdeedoe
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 3, 2011 7:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 755
|
Post by dumdeedoe on Dec 31, 2012 23:11:34 GMT -5
Baby boom was over by 1964 and after that birth rates drop to 66% of that rate. SS currently has a 2.7 trillion dollar surplus that is the cushion. The surplus should outlast the 18 year baby boom, then start re accumulating surplus afterwards. www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a3.htmlAnd to fix medicare throughout the boom years it would take just a 3% payroll tax increase to stabilize that entitlement. Then after the boomers are taken care of we could redact that tax and be fine.... The other solution is to cut it by the negative amount. Or since it is a trust fund, there are no laws keeping it from issuing bonds and generating revenue on its own... The Congressional Budget Office predicts the Medicare Trust Fund will decline from $220 billion at the end of 2012 to $67.6 billion by the end of 2022. That decline includes $178.2 billion of draw downs from the trust fund over 10 years. That comes out to a 17.8 billion a year draw. 3 percent across the board payroll tax 1.5% from you and 1.5% from your employer would cover that amount and keep the fund solvent.. Politics make simple solutions impossible. and every simple problem a crisis.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jan 1, 2013 0:39:12 GMT -5
Baby boom was over by 1964 and after that birth rates drop to 66% of that rate. SS currently has a 2.7 trillion dollar surplus that is the cushion. The surplus should outlast the 18 year baby boom, then start re accumulating surplus afterwards. www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a3.htmlAnd to fix medicare throughout the boom years it would take just a 3% payroll tax increase to stabilize that entitlement. Then after the boomers are taken care of we could redact that tax and be fine.... The other solution is to cut it by the negative amount. Or since it is a trust fund, there are no laws keeping it from issuing bonds and generating revenue on its own... The Congressional Budget Office predicts the Medicare Trust Fund will decline from $220 billion at the end of 2012 to $67.6 billion by the end of 2022. That decline includes $178.2 billion of draw downs from the trust fund over 10 years. That comes out to a 17.8 billion a year draw. 3 percent across the board payroll tax 1.5% from you and 1.5% from your employer would cover that amount and keep the fund solvent.. Politics make simple solutions impossible. and every simple problem a crisis. It is true that there is a surplus, but the surplus is in Treasury bonds which the US government has to make good on, so yes there is 2.7 trillion asset but is offset by a 2.7 trillion liability, so effectively there is no trust fund.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 1, 2013 0:40:25 GMT -5
Baby boom was over by 1964 and after that birth rates drop to 66% of that rate. SS currently has a 2.7 trillion dollar surplus that is the cushion. The surplus should outlast the 18 year baby boom, then start re accumulating surplus afterwards. www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a3.htmlAnd to fix medicare throughout the boom years it would take just a 3% payroll tax increase to stabilize that entitlement. Then after the boomers are taken care of we could redact that tax and be fine.... The other solution is to cut it by the negative amount. Or since it is a trust fund, there are no laws keeping it from issuing bonds and generating revenue on its own... The Congressional Budget Office predicts the Medicare Trust Fund will decline from $220 billion at the end of 2012 to $67.6 billion by the end of 2022. That decline includes $178.2 billion of draw downs from the trust fund over 10 years. That comes out to a 17.8 billion a year draw. 3 percent across the board payroll tax 1.5% from you and 1.5% from your employer would cover that amount and keep the fund solvent.. Politics make simple solutions impossible. and every simple problem a crisis. There's no trust fund. There's no money anywhere to pay for these programs. There's a big pile of I.O.U.'s from a government that saw it's credit rating drop 2 points in the last four years.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 1, 2013 0:57:09 GMT -5
The solution to the problem is simple. What is not simple is convincing a growing number of people that constitute what can only be described as the "Moron Vote" that the two political parties have their heads up their asses and there really IS a problem. And that's a tough sell, because part of reaching the moron voter involves the moron voter coming to the conclusion they've been a moron- some of them for decades. Nobody likes to admit they've been had. It's fun to party- and party, we did. We threw piles of cash at every problem- real, or imagined- that you can think of for the last 60 years, and now the money has run out- the credit limit is a lot closer than anyone realizes to being reached, interest rates are about to rise, the currency is going to go into a steep decline, if it doesn't outright collapse-- and we simply don't have the time required to reverse the dumbing down of the populace and save the country. I think we are in an irreversible decline-- a nose dive from which we can, but sadly will not, pull out of. There are too many people willing to put their own short-sighted selfish interest, and their cherished myths above the good of the country, or even ironically their own good. It's simply too much to ask that enough people develop an enlightened self-interest, and long term vision for the country's ultimate recovery in time to stop the decline. 2013 is going to be a very, very tough year for a whole lot of people who have just been sleep walking along. I believe we've reached the end-- and all it's going to take is a nudge. Just a little push.
And that's without a major event. This country couldn't take a 9.11.01 style hit-- and that was mild compared to what some people and nations have in 7 store for the US. People underestimate the fact that we have enemies at all. People underestimate our enemy's capabilities, and their determination. I don't think there's an American alive today that thinks for a second that ANY day could be the day that 1, 3, 5, or 7, or 20 US cities could go dark simultaneously under an nuclear and/or EMP attack.
I don't think Americans think there could be a famine- hint: we're in one now. It's global. There are already food riots in several countries, and the US is quite literally out of reserves- we've got no food.
I don't think Americans think there could be a plague-- planned or otherwise.
So, we're supposed to get enough of these people who are nothing but worthless mouth-breathing brain stems to figure out that SS is broke? Doubtful.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jan 1, 2013 1:01:44 GMT -5
Think of the SS trust fund as your 401k plan, you divert 10% of your money into the 401k. The 401k just gives you the money back (which you spent immediately ) and you give IOU'S back to the 401k.
Now you decide to retire, but you can't because in order for you to draw down on the 401k, you have to make good on them, which you can't if you retire, so you are screwed.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 14, 2024 13:01:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2013 10:05:31 GMT -5
"SS is out of money, $5 trillion in trust funds exist no where but in worthless govt non-negotiable treasuries."
SF, as someone who has worked on Wall Street, you know that junk securities pay high interest rates and safe securities pay low interest rates. US Gov't debt is still the safest on the planet. Same as the US dollar being the safest currency. When the global recession hit, where did people put their money? In dollars and US gov't debt.
"The money is gone. If these "securities" are "cashed in", the govt has to float more debt. "
You can't "cash in" gov't debt. It get's paid off as it matures, and that happens every day. The amount of debt the US gov't has to float has absolutely nothing to do with Social security. Heck, the fact that they can pay out benefits faster than money rolls in is proof positive that they can access the trust fund money.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 1, 2013 11:24:23 GMT -5
"SS is out of money, $5 trillion in trust funds exist no where but in worthless govt non-negotiable treasuries." SF, as someone who has worked on Wall Street, you know that junk securities pay high interest rates and safe securities pay low interest rates. US Gov't debt is still the safest on the planet. Same as the US dollar being the safest currency. When the global recession hit, where did people put their money? In dollars and US gov't debt. "The money is gone. If these "securities" are "cashed in", the govt has to float more debt. " You can't "cash in" gov't debt. It get's paid off as it matures, and that happens every day. The amount of debt the US gov't has to float has absolutely nothing to do with Social security. Heck, the fact that they can pay out benefits faster than money rolls in is proof positive that they can access the trust fund money. It only gets "paid off" if the money is there. And this is the whole problem- there's no money. If a pension fund manager were to do the same with pension funds as our Congress did with SS, which again- is NOT a pension, insurance program, or annuity- that pension fund manager would be in jail.
|
|