Kerry's Social Security "Plan"

[crazytimes]

Or rather LACK THEROF. I got a kick out of hearing Kerry talk about Social Security. Essentially his plan is to wait until the problem gets worse, then gather experts and talk about it.

Great plan Kerry!

Now tell me why I, as a 19 year old, should have to pay into a system for the next 46 years and have no control over it when EVEN THE SSA says that benefits WILL HAVE TO BE CUT or SS taxes will HAVE TO BE RAISED....unless we start to address this issue NOW.

Of course Bush's plan will be costly. Social Security is ALREADY COSTYL (SS and Medicare combined were $474 BILLION in 2003).
But like he said, if we do nothing the cost will be much greater.

The idea of WAITING until problems happen and THEN trying to deal with them is DANGEROUS.

And then Kerry said that Bush's "tax cuts for the rich" would "allow SS to last through 2075." How in the world could they allow SS to last that long? Is he on CRACK or what? That doesn't make an OUNCE OF LOGICAL SENSE!

[mrbowler]

RETIREMENT-SOCIAL SECURITY
Bush: Give younger workers the option of putting part of their payroll tax into personal retirement accounts, giving them a chance to make a higher return on that investment in return for smaller Social Security benefits.

Kerry: Opposes partial privatization of Social Security. Would require companies switching to cheaper lump-sum pension plans to offer retiring workers the choice of staying with traditional company pension.


Here is a interesting view-point:

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

"Ignoring transition costs – If 2% of workers' pay that now goes to Social Security went instead into private accounts, money for the benefits of today's retirees, widows, orphans, and disabled workers would have to come from somewhere else. Taxpayers would have to fork over an extra $1 trillion over the next 10 years."

"Ignoring higher administration costs – Keeping track of everyone's individual investments, and paying all the brokerage and investment fees would cost far more than administering Social Security. That's money for Wall Street, not workers' retirement."

[crazytimes]

This is exactly why the government should have NEVER gotten involved in funding peoples retirement. It was a stupid idea to begin with.

Survivor and disability benefits are fine, but this was a stupid program to begin. Thank you very much My. Roosevelt!

Did you know though...when SS was first started, most people DIDN'T like the retirement benefits? They thought it was more important to help children and whatnot.

[ShainaT]

Crazytimes...you'll be lucky to ever see a penny of SS no matter who holds the office of President.

[luvmetender]

For so many people that don't save at all for their retirement, this is all they will have. For me, this has been a lifesaver. I have survivor benefits and would have been out on the street without it.

[bobbcat]

This is exactly why the government should have NEVER gotten involved in funding peoples retirement. It was a stupid idea to begin with.

I could not agree more. Even so, SS was never intended to be anything more than a supplement to an already existing pension plan or some other type of retirement plan. Even FDR looked at it that way. Too many people took it to mean though, that gov't was going to step in and they would not have to worry about it.

I don't approve of most any program that encourages people to live off the backs of other people. It just isn't right. People need to stop and think whenever considering the merits of any gov't funded program that it is a taxpayer funded program. Where is the pride that comes from the fact that you wouldn't expect other people to pick up the tab for you? These liberal policies of having govt' fund these sorts of things has eroded this pride and independence among far too many people. It's insane.

[luvmetender]

Originally Posted by bobbcat

I don't approve of most any program that encourages people to live off the backs of other people.

HELLO??? I am getting the money that my late husband contributed from his own paycheck, the MAXIMUM amount every year he worked, btw. That statement was ignorant.

[bobbcat]

Get off it, luv. My statement does not even encompass your case or those like yours.

[crazytimes]

Originally Posted by luvmetender

For so many people that don't save at all for their retirement, this is all they will have. For me, this has been a lifesaver. I have survivor benefits and would have been out on the street without it.

See survivor and disability benefits are EXCELLENT parts of social security. Frankly I WOULD pay to keep those up because I think they are important programs. I have NO problem funding these programs because I think it is a moral responsibility.

I also believe it is important ot take care of the eldery, BUT the program has become so flawed. Bobbcat is right, SS was only intended to supplement, but the problem is, who has anything left over to save! The government has raised SS taxes I believe 42 times since it's inception!

After income taxes, state taxes, social security taxes, medicare taxes. Then monthly bills, loans, groceries. Who has anything substantial leftover that they could put into savings? I know sure I don't.

And heck I bet my ING Direct Orange Account (which is EMPTY lol) gets a better rate of return than the money I pay into social security.

[mrbowler]

Originally Posted by crazytimes

I also believe it is important ot take care of the eldery, BUT the program has become so flawed. Bobbcat is right, SS was only intended to supplement, but the problem is, who has anything left over to save! The government has raised SS taxes I believe 42 times since it's inception!

After income taxes, state taxes, social security taxes, medicare taxes. Then monthly bills, loans, groceries. Who has anything substantial leftover that they could put into savings? I know sure I don't.

And heck I bet my ING Direct Orange Account (which is EMPTY lol) gets a better rate of return than the money I pay into social security.

Yes crazy I think it was something like social security was earning around 2% rate of return.
Bobbcat makes a good point about it being a supplement-difficult choices will need to be made. Something like 39% of seniors would live in poverty if they didn't have social security.

[chippers21]

Originally Posted by luvmetender

HELLO??? I am getting the money that my late husband contributed from his own paycheck, the MAXIMUM amount every year he worked, btw. That statement was ignorant.

Sorry luv but I am afraid if you added up all the money your late husband contributed it it more than likely a much smaller dollar amount than you will eventually receive from Social Security. It is only logical. Social Security taxes were much lower in past years and it takes a lot more dollars now to sustain those folks who contributed. The taxes were not saved and added to by interest. They were spent. Your benefits are based on your late husbands income, but do not have anything to do with the dollar amount he paid into the system.
As our society ages we will have fewer and fewer taxpayers to pay into the system and more and more recipients. It will take higher and higher taxes to support the system. Very unlikely that it is sustainable.

[chippers21]

Suggestion to all you non-savers: Pay into your retirement fund BEFORE you pay anything else. Have it taken out just like withholding for taxes. You will then be forced to live on what is left. Hubby has done that for years. We have not had a new car since 1976, but we survive just fine. 4 kids to college and all.

[luvmetender]

Social Security is forced savings. Do you really think that the average American has their own retirement portfolio? Yeah, sounds good in theory, but ain't gonna happen. Oh, and the market is below 10,000 right now. Savings accounts are paying about 1%. Where are all these awesome investment opportunities going to come from?

[monkee]

Originally Posted by luvmetender

Social Security is forced savings. Do you really think that the average American has their own retirement portfolio? Yeah, sounds good in theory, but ain't gonna happen. Oh, and the market is below 10,000 right now. Savings accounts are paying about 1%. Where are all these awesome investment opportunities going to come from?

Anyone can open an IRA, you don't have to be an investment genius.

As for 1% return? I look at it this way. By the time I retire, I will most likely get NOTHING from Social Security because it will be gone. Do I get my money back? Nope. I think I'd rather have my original money with a 1% return than a big fat nothing.