My main problem with SS is being FORCED to contribute and not being able to opt-out and control my own money. I can out-out of my companies retirement plan, SS should be the same way. The government can't be trusted to fix our roads and bridges why would I want them in control of my quality of life?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Things Social Security Won't Tell You
- Thread starter OnClose
- Start date
My main problem with SS is being FORCED to contribute and not being able to opt-out and control my own money. I can out-out of my companies retirement plan, SS should be the same way. The government can't be trusted to fix our roads and bridges why would I want them in control of my quality of life?
Quote from OnClose:
1. It was not my intention to plagiarize, the SmartMoney banner wouldn't copy/ paste.
2. I can't understand how the SS program isn't unconstitutional. Were being forced by the Gov to pay in to some "retirement" program that we can't opt out of, it's worse than a Ponzi scheme.
3. Is their any way to not pay in to this so I can invest my money like I want?
become a member of US congress. they don't pay social security taxes.
Quote from OnClose:
Lol, Haiti is way too hot for me. But seriously I have family members who live off SS and it's not a lot of money. These people contributed all their adult lives to get these small checks, it just seems to me there has to be a better way to invest that SS money.
There is a better way to invest it. It would be difficult, however, to get the needed changes approved. If the Trustees were free to invest in high grade sovereign and corporate bonds world-wide, not just be captive to the U.S. economy, and also invest in dividend paying equities world wide, which would provide a good measure of inflation protection, the Trust could do better than it does now, and still maintain safety of principle. The Norwegian public retirement system operates this way via their central bank, and they do quite well. (Norway has no debt. They borrow to ameliorate cash flow ups and down, but they have no net debt.)
The operating expenses for Social Security are a little high in my opinion, being about 10%. I think this might be cut to about 5% with some innovations. Of course we have to accept that there are a lot of financially inept folks on social security that need a lot of hand holding, and the social security offices spread out over the nation provide the needed services. But a reasonable goal would be to reduce expenses by a few percent.
All in all however -- the data is available on the internet-- the return on social security contributions is quite good when adjusted for risk, especially for lower wage earners. My concern is with the credit worthiness of the U.S. going forward, and with inflation, which often follows heavy deficits that can't be repaid without some monetizing.
Medicare and medical costs are another kettle of fish altogether. It upsets me when people lump medicare together with social security. The latter program is sound, except for the problems well explained by lindq which have nothing to do with social security itself, and needs only minor tweaking. The former could be in a real mess if something concrete is not done to bring medical costs under control.
Quote from Eight:
Privatization is what we had before Social Security, people had to do their own saving and investing. Privatization has been great for other countries. Usually there is a choice between going in to the privatized plan or the socialism plan and usually the workers that choose the privatized route pass up the income that the socialism ones will have after only eight years... Democrats threw an absolute shit-fit when Bush talked about privatization. It was like when Bork got nominated to the Supreme Court... People on Social Security are basically in the poor house. That's the result of the Democrats after all their decades with their stranglehold on the media, education systems, etc...
Do all countries force their citizens to contribute to some form of retirement program or is it optional?
Quote from piezoe:
There is a better way to invest it. It would be difficult, however, to get the needed changes approved. If the Trustees were free to invest in high grade sovereign and corporate bonds world-wide, not just be captive to the U.S. economy, and also invest in dividend paying equities world wide, which would provide a good measure of inflation protection, the Trust could do better than it does now, and still maintain safety of principle. The Norwegian public retirement system operates this way via their central bank, and they do quite well. (Norway has no debt. They borrow to ameliorate cash flow ups and down, but they have no net debt.)
The operating expenses for Social Security are a little high in my opinion, being about 10%. I think this might be cut to about 5% with some innovations. Of course we have to accept that there are a lot of financially inept folks on social security that need a lot of hand holding, and the social security offices spread out over the nation provide the needed services. But a reasonable goal would be to reduce expenses by a few percent.
All in all however -- the data is available on the internet-- the return on social security contributions is quite good when adjusted for risk, especially for lower wage earners. My concern is with the credit worthiness of the U.S. going forward, and with inflation, which often follows heavy deficits that can't be repaid without some monetizing.
Medicare and medical costs are another kettle of fish altogether. It upsets me when people lump medicare together with social security. The latter program is sound, except for the problems well explained by lindq which have nothing to do with social security itself, and needs only minor tweaking. The former could be in a real mess if something concrete is not done to bring medical costs under control.
So we have to rely on politicians to do the right thing to fix this, I won't hold my breath. It's definitely a good program for my grand parents, they don't know anything about investing so it saves their butts.
Quote from OnClose:
I hope your not serious cus that would REALLY piss me off.
Yes they do. Since 1984. Google "do congressmen pay social security".
http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html
Q5: Is it true that members of Congress do not have to pay into Social Security?
A: No, it is not true. All members of Congress, the President and Vice President, Federal judges, and most political appointees, were covered under the Social Security program starting in January 1984. They pay into the system just like everyone else. Thus all members of Congress, no matter how long they have been in office, have been paying into the Social Security system since January 1984.
Quote from piezoe:
OK, I am tired of this bullshit. I did NOT say the article was inaccurate, I said it was "trash."
I gives an entirely biased view of the Social Security System.
Here are a few facts.
1. Social security is not a Ponzi Scheme. It's absurd to suggest that. It is based on sound actuarial principles. When you've identified any true Ponzi Scheme that's based on sound actuarial principles, please do let me know.
2. The Trustees have determined that as of the last summary report an increase in the contribution rate from 12.5 % to 14.5% is needed to keep the system sound and account for changing demographics. That's 2 cents additional contribution per dollar of earned income up to the cap.
3. Currently there is a two and one-half trillion dollar surplus in the Trust fund. The money in that fund belongs to those who have contributed and that's why this is one of the programs that is called an entitlement. You are entitled to that money.
4. In the S.S. system those who die early subsidize those who live longer than would be expected from an actuarial standpoint. Lifespans are increasing and this is one of the reasons a change in the contribution rate is required.
5. Because of the insurance aspect of social security, you will have to contribute significantly less per month into social security than you would to any conceivable private, defined contribution plan to assure the same benefit for life! What you give up for this very substantial benefit that all contributors receive is an estate if you should die relatively young. Your unused contribution will not be returned to your estate, but instead used to subsidize the retirement of others. This is a huge benefit to the country, because it makes it possible for low wage earners to have at least a subsistence income after they are too old to work. These same workers could never afford a privately funded plan.
6. The only significant problem faced by social security is that the government has borrowed from the trust fund by selling it government bonds, put the borrowed money into the discretionary budget, and then spent it, mainly on wars. Now, as the Trust will need to start redeeming its bonds, the government, because it is running a deficit, has no money to pay to the Trust what it is owed. The government will have to borrow to pay its debt to the Trust and won't be able to borrow any more from the Trust because going forward the contributions will not produce a surplus, at least not for a number of years. This of course will lead to inflation; hence dollars paid back to the Trust will have less buying power than the dollars lent. In this way Social Security recipients will be cheated and end up subsidizing endless U.S. wars.
I am so sick and tired of this nonsense drivel about social security. Wall Street has been out to kill it for years, for obvious reasons. Then we have absurd media articles such as the above.
It is fine to be philosophically opposed to Social Security. If you are, say so say and be done with it. But for God's sake stop this nonsense.
No offense, but if the article was trash, the above is 6-day old cow manure surrounded by flies.
Whether you want to call it a Ponzi scheme is really a moot point. There's an article on the SS site trying to distance it from Ponzi. It has a definite "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" ring to it if you read between the lines.
Like Ponzi schemes, early SS recipients got something for practically nothing. Later recipients are likely to get less and less. One sign is zero COLAS for beneficiaries even as real inflation has kicked into high gear the last couple of years. You can't get around that. And true Ponzi schemes are at least voluntary. Madoff didn't force anyone to pay taxes into his operation.
Sound actuarial values? I guess the sound actuaries have been asleep at the wheel since the 1930s. Back then, life expectancy was just over 65. While life expectancy has increased significantly, the full retirement age has only been raised by a whopping one year. In addition, SS started with 16 contributors for every recipient. It's now down to fewer that 3. How sound is that? Demographics can be a female dog sometimes.
Of course, apologists will just scream for tax hikes. The initial tax was a 2% employer/employee split. Now it's 12.4 percent, maxing out at $13,234. An inflation-adjusted incrase of only 800 percent. Wow. I guess we'll just keep hiking those taxes since nothing else can sustain it?
Oh, and that trust fund....
http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/09/news/economy/social_security_value.fortune/index.htm
It may have some legal value, but no economic value. If it did, why did Obama go into that pathetic spiel about not being able to pay SS benefits if the debt ceiling weren't raised? Obviously, that was slimeball demagougery at its worst, but if there were really $2.6 trillion of real assets, even his closest allies would've called him on that one.
It's not sustainable. Forget trying to defend it with sophistry and lies. Some programs like Medicare are even worse, but none will make it in the long run.
MKTrader, i'm afraid you don't know much about the Social Security system, how it is set up and how it works. May I refer to the .gov web site, especially the Trustee's reports, and there are also many other factual sites where you can learn and not be subjected to Wall Street nonsense, if you care to. From the very beginning the system was set up to be actuarially sound. It is very likely one of the few government programs that has worked over the years exactly as intended and done very well. Wall street has been trying to kill it for years. For your sake and mine, and everyone else, let's hope they don't succeed.
By the way if you depend on the popular media for your information you're certain to be misled. Social security, for many, is a tremendous bargain. And I would add that even for those who die an untimely early death it is still a good risk/reward trade-off. I highly recommend it to you.
By the way. I used to think just as you do until I delved into the facts. The facts completely changed my mind. I was wrong, and I now understand how important the Social Security system is to a cohesive society, and what a good deal it is for all of us.
Hope you have a great trading day.
P.S. I am cognisant of the problem posed for social security by irresponsible government expenditures in the discretionary budget --i.e., endless wars. But to suggest that is the fault of Social Security would be no different than blaming the bank for foreclosing on you after you lost all your money in a casino.
By the way if you depend on the popular media for your information you're certain to be misled. Social security, for many, is a tremendous bargain. And I would add that even for those who die an untimely early death it is still a good risk/reward trade-off. I highly recommend it to you.
By the way. I used to think just as you do until I delved into the facts. The facts completely changed my mind. I was wrong, and I now understand how important the Social Security system is to a cohesive society, and what a good deal it is for all of us.
Hope you have a great trading day.
P.S. I am cognisant of the problem posed for social security by irresponsible government expenditures in the discretionary budget --i.e., endless wars. But to suggest that is the fault of Social Security would be no different than blaming the bank for foreclosing on you after you lost all your money in a casino.
Hahahaha, piezoe, you just have no idea do you
Quote from piezoe:
MKTrader, i'm afraid you don't know much about the Social Security system, how it is set up and how it works. May I refer to the .gov web site, especially the Trustee's reports, and there are also many other factual sites where you can learn and not be subjected to Wall Street nonsense, if you care to. From the very beginning the system was set up to be actuarially sound. It is very likely one of the few government programs that has worked over the years exactly as intended and done very well. Wall street has been trying to kill it for years. For your sake and mine and everyone else, lets hope they don't succeed.
By the way if you depend on the popular media for your information you're certain to be misled. Social security, for many, is a tremendous bargain. And I would add that even for those who die an untimely early death it is still a good risk/reward trade-off. I highly recommend it to you.
By the way. I used to think just as you do until I delved into the facts. The facts completely changed my mind. I was wrong, and I now understand how important the Social Security system is to a cohesive society, and what a good deal it is for all of us.
Hope you have a great trading day.
P.S. I am cognisant of the problem posed for social security by irresponsible government expenditures in the discretionary budget --i.e., endless wars. But to suggest that is the fault of Social Security would be no different than blaming the bank for foreclosing on you after you lost all your money in a casino.