Welfare question

Quote from oldtime:

there's plenty to fight over. Almost everybody wants more than the bare neccessities. It's a moot point anyway. We already decided as a country we don't want people to be hungry, sick or homeless. So all now we are arguing about is how to implement it.

People are already guaranteed a retirement income from social security, yet everyday they are in there buying stocks because they want more. Why has the stock market not collapsed?

All this bitching is small minded. We are just fighting over the crumbs, food, shelter, education, healthcare, which everybody needs anyway. And we all agree they do, and when we don't get more than the bare minimum we blame them.

I'd rather have all the deabeats sitting at home waiting for their next government check. Then I'd know when somebody comes to me for a job, he really wants to work and get ahead.
More...

Old people get $2Trillion a year of gov't assistenace for the 'necessities', and you act is if its peanuts. That attitude is why we are in huge fiscal trouble. We simply cannot afford your economics and your understanding of humans is poor. More than half out there would rather sit at home than work if you gave them food, medical care, and paid their mortgage. People would quit working in masses and noone would come to you looking for work.

Secondly if people always want more, then why the hell don't old people work? most of them don't have money for stocks.

All this bitching?? yet if we don't do as you say then what exactly do you call your complaints?
 
Quote from Mav88:

Old people get $2Trillion a year of gov't assistenace for the 'necessities', and you act is if its peanuts. That attitude is why we are in huge fiscal trouble. We simply cannot afford your economics and your understanding of humans is poor. More than half out there would rather sit at home than work if you gave them food, medical care, and paid their mortgage. People would quit working in masses and noone would come to you looking for work.

Secondly if people always want more, then why the hell don't old people work? most of them don't have money for stocks.

All this bitching?? yet if we don't do as you say then what exactly do you call your complaints?
More...
maybe so, but at least when you buy a hamburger the employees would say "Thank You"

I really don't care that much about deadbeats, as long as they are not homeless, hungry and sick.

I have bigger problems than going around worrying about who is getting a free ride (if you want to call sitting around at home without even enough money to buy a cigarette and a beer a "ride".)
 
Quote from oldtime:

maybe so, but at least when you buy a hamburger the employees would say "Thank You"

I really don't care that much about deadbeats, as long as they are not homeless, hungry and sick.

I have bigger problems than going around worrying about who is getting a free ride (if you want to call sitting around at home without even enough money to buy a cigarette and a beer a "ride".)
More...

I wouldn't care either, except for the fact that I have to pay for them and the federal budget is a catastrophic mess with social welfare poised to send us all to the poor house... no you're right, other than that I have bigger worries
 
Quote from brokerboy:

i don't have a problem with social benefits but if you don't believe the youth of america does not get left the debt of ss and medicare your dreaming. do you really think the system can continue for the youth when it takes about 4 workers to cover 1 person on ss? we are not even touching medicare yet. the US debt has run up to 16 tillion now and a college education for 200k does not even promise a decent job. when you bought a house 40 years ago it was a years pay but how it can be 10 years pay. you now need 2 incomes in a lot of homes to cover bills but 40 years ago one typically covered that. your not looking at how you set up the world for the next generation that's more of the point i am trying to make. also the people receiving the ss hold most of the wealth age wise. i am just pointing that its not a perfect system for everybody and it really was created at a time when the poorest class were the elderly. i believe in helping the poor i just don't see it as a perfect system like you do i guess.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/11/07/the-rising-age-gap-in-economic-well-being/

also the interest word is a joke because they used that money to benefit you for roads, bridges, and whatever federal programs that were needed. your taxes never covered the government spending on people and people who were not even born have to pay those bills in the future. so your interest from ss is not even close to the interest owned to US bond holders like china.

ps i am not a republican i am very liberal and even share socialist views of caring for people.
More...

Thank you so much for that link to the Pew Foundation Research. Quite disturbing demographics.

Here is something that may help somewhat with understanding what is going on with Social Security these days:

"XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXX

The Hon. Roger Wicker
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Wicker:

I am again writing in regard to a matter of considerable concern. In previous correspondence you stated that current workers in the Social Security system support those already retired. This seems at odds with my own understanding of how Social Security is designed, which is that retirees pensions come first from their own contributions plus interest and secondarily from the contributions plus interest of retirees who died before reaching their actuarial death age, and not from current workers.

Since current Social Security contribution dollars are fungible with Trust dollars, naturally the Trustees could apply current contributions first toward pension payments and then redeem bonds to make up any shortfall if revenue from current contributions is insufficient to cover current liabilities; as it would be when the number of current workers is fewer than the number of retired workers.

In a climate of large deficits in the discretionary budget, it is understandable that Congress may attempt various measures to slow the rate at which the Treasury must redeem the Trust's bonds, since the money needed to redeem the bonds must be borrowed. This is not, however, due to any defect in the design of Social Security. To imply that current pensions come from current workers' contributions, as your correspondence has implied, without a full explanation, is misleading in my opinion, as it suggests Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, which it most definitely is not!

Naturally, an unfavorable ratio of current workers to retirees adds indirect pressure to the deficit in the discretionary budget, because it occasions the Treasury to borrow still more in order to pay the Trust what is owed to it. However, and I think you would agree, the need to pay what is owed to retirees is not related to the deficit as cause and effect.

If I am incorrect about any of this, I would very much appreciate your letting me know. I am concerned that some in Congress are telling their constituents that current workers are supporting retirees, which is untrue. Paying retires first from current revenues and secondarily from Treasury redemption of Trust bonds using fungible Social Security dollars certainly does not constitute support of retirees by current workers.

I also want to take this opportunity to encourage you to act as soon as possible to adopt the Trustees recommendation –see the 2011 Trustees summary report – of a 2 cent/dollar increase in the contribution rate. Delaying this will only make it more costly to adjust later. It is unwise, in my opinion, to try and reduce the rate of Trust bond redemption by increasing the retirement age because this will aggravate an already unfavorable shift in worker age-demographics.

In seeking remedies for over expenditure I urge you to focus on the two areas directly related as cause and effect to long term deficits, defense and medical costs. These are the two areas that are grossly out of whack with what other industrialized nations spend. Short term deficit causes related to recession, such as stimulus money, will largely take care of themselves provided Congress wisely uses the increased revenue that will attend a recovery from recession.

May you and your family enjoy a merry and safe holiday season.

Sincerely yours,

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXX"
 
I hear ya, especially about the "delaying it will only make it harder later"

we're the greatest damn country on the face of the earth, and we can't even run a simple retirement program?

maybe they will fix social security after they raise the price of a postage stamp another 2 cents

good or bad, almost everybody likes it, especially if you are getting older, or have a relative you care about who is

shit man, if you ever play poker at one of those Indian casinos, they have a "Bad Beat" prize awarded to all the players at the table. Nobody complains that ideologically it is not fair. Same with social security. It's just the booby prize that we pay to all those that played the game
 
Oldtime, I truly like your way of expressing yourself. A little on the folksy side occasionally, but heartfelt and true to the bone. I particularly like "... just the booby prize that we pay to all those that played the game." I think that sums up the situation very nicely. Well put.
 
Quote from piezoe:

Oldtime, I truly like your way of expressing yourself. A little on the folksy side occasionally, but heartfelt and true to the bone. I particularly like "... just the booby prize that we pay to all those that played the game." I think that sums up the situation very nicely. Well put.
More...
laugh if you want. Capturing the "folksy" side is much more difficult than capturing what they teach at Harvard.

I've been trading a long time man.

and I'm not still alive because I've listened to what the "experts" said.

But I will be the first to admit, occasionally they are right

And if you go against them hard, you will lose your ass
 
Quote from Mav88:

It's quite clear that SSI is a bad deal for young people.

For workers full time, there is private disability insurance. For your familiy there is life Insurance. I'm not sure why you want to pretend that gov't is the only option.

In my case the numbers are staggeringly bad. My lifetime contribution (assuming work to 65, which I am not doing btw) would be near $450K, that's raw unadjusted. If you assume a modest 3% annual return had I kept the money, then it's closer to $600K.

The maximum payout is $2513 a month (which I will NOT get), I would need to live to 81 just to break even on principle, however I could purchase an annuity (age 65 with 50% survivorship) that pays $3000 a month with $600K even at todays crappy rates. There is no debate here despite your claims, SSI is a raw deal for young people who pay a lot into it.

To get the maximum of $2500 a month, you would have to pay the maximum from age 21 to age 66. Hardly anyone does that, but let's take a hypothethical 21 year old today. Assume that incomes and payouts are flat. He pays $12,500 a year for 45 years, that's $562,500. With a 3% compounded annual return it's $1.2M in the bank. With $1.2M he could buy an annuity that pays $6K a month. What a shitty deal.

You claim it's a great deal for people who earn less, prove it with numbers.
More...
Mav, here are some differing points of view I though might interest you. They are all from a simple Web search, so you might prefer doing your own.

Social Security’s ROI
By Jennie L. Phipps · Bankrate.com
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Posted: 9 am ET

Monday was my 61st birthday -- one year away from retirement, or least one year away from the right to collect a small amount of Social Security.

I was thinking about this retirement planning milestone when I stumbled on an Associated Press story published Monday that said: "A married couple retiring last year after both spouses earned average lifetime wages paid about $598,000 in Social Security taxes during their careers. They can expect to collect about $556,000 in benefits, if the man lives to 82 and the woman lives to 85, according to a 2011 study by the Urban Institute, a Washington think tank."

The piece continued, quoting people both defending and reviling the program, but I couldn't get past those initial numbers. They looked wrong. So I called Richard Johnson, who is the director of retirement policy for the Urban Institute, and asked him to explain how it worked.

Johnson said that the AP story leaves out some key parameters. In order for a couple to be getting back less than they put in, they'd both have to have earned the average income on which Social Security is based over the last 40 years -- no breaks. If during those 40 years, they had put the money they'd paid in Social Security payroll taxes into an account returning a steady 2 percent interest, then they would have accumulated more than they would be eligible to receive -- unless they live to be older than 82 and 85.

Johnson said, "These numbers are based on prototypical people, and those people aren't common. In fact, they are very rare. We have numbers that look at the entire population's experience and in general, most people are doing much better."

The typical worker born between 1951 and 1955 at full retirement age will get back at least 17 percent more in benefits than he contributed in taxes. A worker born after 1956 will get back at least 15 percent more than he contributed.

"Social Security remains a good deal for most people approaching retirement," Johnson says.

and this one is especially interesting:

http://www.angrybearblog.com/2009/03/social-security-return-on-investment.html

Or this from WJS:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704073804576023890972991846.html

There are countless other such articles, and of course the most reliable source -- the one I can't recommend too highly-- is:

socialsecurity.gov

It pays in both real dollars and cents and in piece of mind to become well- informed. Happy reading Mav!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top