How would you deal with Social Security? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Kalibah · 10-22-2004, 06:16 PM

Okay much like the " How would you solve increasing drug prices"
We have had civil discussions on the problems of drug prices, and what solutions we could take to help lower them. Everyone had something worthwhile it offer- and I (atleast) have a better understanding of the issue, whats a stake, WHY its a problem, and steps towards fixing it. It was nice being able to talk issues, not canidates.

That in mind
Lets talk social security.

Same ground rules as before.

Im not asking whos social security plan iis best. I'm simply asking what you would do.

While refraining from pimping canidates, maybe we might be able to have more civil conversations. It might not seem political if we cut out the politicians, I think it is... I hope others agree.

I say this because in other threads on these issues it resorts to " Bush hasnt done anything" or " Kerrys plan is unrealistic" ... and that gets us no where.
If you want to promote or diss canidates, there are plenty of other threads for that.

So just lay out your plan or thoughts- afterall it is a political issue

COULD WE PLEASE NOT MENTION CANIDATES

Social Security is going to be a major problem for the up-and coming generation, when baby boomers hit retierment age- i envision all hell breaking loose. Back in highschool, when talking about retirment one of my teachers mentioned that he had to plan as if he was not going to get a dime.

Is that too cynical?

So , what can we do to fix it now- and what would be a good thing to do in the future? Is privitazing parts of it for the newest generation the way to go? With Enron type companies and their shareholders, one could imagine the chaos that would insue if come retirment time those nice stocks were worth nada...

fuzyfuzer · 10-22-2004, 07:14 PM

i think it's time to take a look into the past. when social secerity was inacted people were only expected to live on social security for one or two years. maybe it's time to raise the eaarliest age of retirmen to 70-73, that would put much less strain on the system and return it to what it was intended to be. people really need to get it out of there mind that social security is there retiment plan, it really should be almost nothing, mayb e just a little extra so you can have an even cushier retirment. this may be hard for some people to accept since it will be a very drastic change but it somthing very simple that will more or less solve the problem in my eyes.

irateplatypus · 10-22-2004, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuzyfuzer

i think it's time to take a look into the past. when social secerity was inacted people were only expected to live on social security for one or two years. maybe it's time to raise the eaarliest age of retirmen to 70-73...

that's a quick solution... but what do you say to the people who have been paying social security since they were 15 and expect to begin receiving their benefits here soon? sorry, wait another 5-8 years?

i don't know about you, but if i'm going to have a sizeable portion of my paycheck taken for a fund i have no choice but to contribute to... i expect more than just a couple years of financial cushion. 50 years of giving to social security for a meager government check right before I die is a raw deal anyway you slice it.

shortynickel · 10-22-2004, 08:20 PM

several years ago it was said that when i am old enough to be able to go on SS i will have to be close to 85...and i am 25 now...that in a way doesnt surprise me but diffentely doesnt make me feel good lol. Good thing that i dont worry about how i am gonna make it that long working full time hehe

arch13 · 10-22-2004, 10:00 PM

At the end of the revolutionary war, Hamiltons plan for debt assumption (Congress assuming the colonies war debt, followed by each state paying it down equally) was a raw deal to the mid-atlantic states who had paid off most of their debt as opposed to northern states, S.C., and Georgia. Hamilton reached compromise by lending his support to the location of the nations capital in the Mid-Atlantic.

So what does that mean to this disccusion?

Limiting, changing, or disolving Social Security (SS) would be a raw deal to some, somewhere, no matter how it is done. "You can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time.". The GAO's numbers are very real, and have stayed consistend (modified for inflation) since Reagan. At it's current state SS will die under the weight of the baby boomers. That isn't my opinion, it's the conclusion of 15 years of study by the Genral Accounting Office of the United States.

My opinion would be that I cannot justify spending that much money as a taxpayer.

Quote:

The $53 trillion is what federal, state and local governments need immediately — stashed away, earning interest, beyond the $3 trillion in taxes collected last year — to repay debts and honor future benefits promised under Medicare, Social Security and government pensions. And like an unpaid credit card balance accumulating interest, the problem grows by more than $1 trillion every year that action to pay down the debt is delayed.
-USA Today

The system was designed as a saftey net, not a full on retirment fund.

So if social security was to be disolved, how could a compromise be reached?
I submit the following.

Overhual Medicare. By compensating for the lose of SS with a comprehensive medical coverage system Decrease medical patents back to the 15 year maximum they where in the 1970's, allowing the fast tracking of medical technolgy into Generic eqiuvilents. Reinvest in emergency rooms to make them competative and cheaper via volume to private doctors. Make the system of medical treatment in this country as good as the baby boomers remeber in their youth.
Possabilities include:
-the classification of pharmacutical kickbacks to doctors for name brand over generic prescriptions as unethical by liscence standards.
-The classification of such drugs as viagra as "quality of life", make them incompatable for coverage. (Currently, doctors use emotional distress as a medicare condition to bill medicare for erectile disfunction perscriptions your paying for)

Because a nearly 1/3rd of SS is currently spent on some form of health, move the focus away from retirment, and towards concentrating of a large portion of SS's cost. A concetrated Medicare could purchase in bulk and at discount to a higher degree than most of the fortune 500 companies in the Dow, outmanuvering the private sector and creating competition against the private sector at once. Allowing Medicare to act a competing business would still leave the markets of Pediatrics and practicioning on those under 65 intact, while making the private sector intensly aware that a failure to be competative will simply cause the defection of their clients once they reach eleigability.

If entire fortune 500 companies provide medical service to 60% of the public for less than a total market of $500 Billion, then an additional $1 Trillion injected into the system with a 1% tax (as opposed to 2.5% now) could cover the remaining 40% plus overlap in facilities investment to the 60% currently possesing insurance of some form. They key is allowing the market to govern by treating Medicare as a NFP business that does not have to be governed by low bidder or socialy corret polcies governing most government business, allowing true market competition.

GIve them assumption, but also give them the Potomac.

thefictionweliv · 10-22-2004, 10:39 PM

Social Security should be eliminated all togethor. Cut the losses. In the end it puts more money in peoples pockets and into intrest earning investment funds which is better for the economy, which is better for the government. Right now Social Security is being used by the government as a piggy bank to borrow from to save their asses. Eliminating Social Security allows a free market society to play out as it should with people making their own choices and mistakes with their money. If I don't plan my retirement right and I have to work until I'm 83, thats my ass, thats the choices I've made, I've dug my whole. The hit that the goverment will take is the whole they've already dug from stealing from it for so long. The government can help deffer the cost by also allowing a free market economy to play out like it should by not bailing out the airline industry and subsidizing businesses. The debt incurred by the war on Iraq should be deffered by taxes/exports/oil/ect. from those benifiting under the new democracy.

No one except those under 16 will get a fair deal out of the elimination because they paid some in however social security has never been a fair system. Not getting rid of Social Security in the name of progress is like not getting rid of typewriters for computers cause there is already too many typewriters.

Quote:

i think it's time to take a look into the past. when social secerity was inacted people were only expected to live on social security for one or two years. maybe it's time to raise the eaarliest age of retirmen to 70-73...

I agree with this as another method to deffer costs as well.

Quote:

that's a quick solution... but what do you say to the people who have been paying social security since they were 15 and expect to begin receiving their benefits here soon? sorry, wait another 5-8 years?

Social Security was a broken system and a lie one should have seen through from the moment they started paying it. Think the goverment stashes your money away and doesn't touch it? Wrong, remember the whole lock box talk that went out the window? The government has been treating Social Security like an extra bonus for them forever.
I certainly am not counting on this system for my retirement. I'm going to play the capitalist game, try and earn a decent wage, put money away for a rainy day, and when my ass hits 65 I'm looking to myself for a way to stay at home, I'm not looking towards the government, I'm not looking for a handout, I'm looking to myself.

Kalibah · 10-22-2004, 11:19 PM

Totally right. There is no social security 'fund' or bank account- they hand it out as they get more taxes.

If we raise retirment to 70-73 how does that bode for the workforce?
It would clearly have impact on the workforce- and a negative one at that.

Not to overgenerlize- because I believe that there are some that Can ( and some that DO) work til that age - but a large majority are using walkers, are cranky, etc.

I suppose it depends on the industry in question though...

I love how senators/goverment officials are talking about SS but they have their own SEPERATE plan. Senators get full salary for life IIRC. Thats part of the problem. We gotta cut the baggage ...

flstf · 10-23-2004, 01:36 AM

Several changes worth considering:

Eliminate all benefits from the plan except retirement benefits for workers and their spouses. No death benefits for minors, this isn't a life insurance policy. No disability benefits, this isn't a medical policy.

Make all workers participate in the plan including all government employees, congresspersons, teachers. etc... Put everyone on the same playing field.

Encourage more babies to keep the worker/retiree ratio up, LOL. I read somewhere that when SS started there were somehing like 10 workers for every retiree and now there are only about 3 to 1.

I am of the baby boom generation and will be collecting SS in a few years. I have no doubt that the millions of us boomers will get all we are promised and more. We will be 20% or so of the population and no polititian will deny us if they want to get elected. When retirees were only 10% of the population polititians wouldn't mess with them. It's unfortunate but old folks vote often and frequently, and I fear that the young will be taxed up the wazoo.
That being said I also feel that if I could have invested my 40 years (and my employers contribution) of SS payments in a mutual fund, I would be in a lot better shape than I am now.

I think that raising the retirement age will mean less jobs for the young folks just getting started and less room for advancement for those already employed. Someone should run the numbers and see if it is really beneficial.

hammer4all · 10-23-2004, 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kalibah

Social Security is going to be a major problem for the up-and coming generation, when baby boomers hit retierment age- i envision all hell breaking loose. Back in highschool, when talking about retirment one of my teachers mentioned that he had to plan as if he was not going to get a dime.

Is that too cynical?

Yes. It's not that big a deal. Conservative pundits are just running around with their heads chopped off trying to frighten the people into cutting it or privatizing it. We have almost 50 years to figure something out.

Quote:

It's not as if the current system is in crisis, either, despite what conservatives claim. The most recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office found that, even if no changes are made, the program will be able to pay full benefits to its retirees until 2053. If the country can turn its economy around, and wages start growing faster than inflation, than the outlook for Social Security will continue to improve -- since payroll revenue will rise faster than benefit payouts, which are index to the cost of living. With 50 years to go, there should be plenty of time to patch up the program in a fairly painless manner -- Peter Diamond and Peter Orszag outlined one such solution in Boston Review earlier this year.

The CBO's relatively healthy projections haven't stopped the programs critics from spinning the numbers. Most famously, on February 25, Alan Greenspan argued that the massive budget deficits would necessitate deep cuts in Social Security (along with other spending programs.) Of course, as Harry Holzer noted, it was Greenspan himself who, in 1982, advocated a payroll tax increase in order to build up a trust fund to ensure Social Security's solvency. During the 1990s, the government used this surplus to shore up its general budget projections and pay down the deficit. But as a program, Social Security still owns the surplus it built up -- the surplus is simply "owed" to the program by the federal government. Those who claim, as Greenspan does, that Social Security is now running a "deficit" are simply being disingenuous. As the CBO report makes clear, if you count the surplus that Greenspan helped create, Social Security will be solvent for half a century.

Of course, that means the general budget is running a greater deficit than is usually reported. For that, blame the tax cuts, not entitlements. As Jonathan Chait has pointed out in The New Republic, the deficits for Social Security and Medicare combined over the next 75 years amount to 2.2 percent of GDP. At the same time, the Bush tax cuts will cause a revenue loss also equal to 2.2 percent of GDP over that period. Social Security could be easily shored up, if we got our priorities straight. This is not to say we don't need to reform our entitlement programs -- we certainly do -- but it's dishonest to say that the programs are hopelessly bankrupt and drastic measures are needed.

The Folly of Social Security Privatization

thefictionweliv · 10-23-2004, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hammer4all

Yes. It's not that big a deal. Conservative pundits are just running around with their heads chopped off trying to frighten the people into cutting it or privatizing it. We have almost 50 years to figure something out.

And liberals are scaring us into not privatizing it by saying it will create trillions of dollars in national debt by doing so. If we can just let the benifits run out for the next 50 years than privatizing it should be no problem. I want more control over my money and how I invest it, IMO those who think SS actually works should bear the cost of it. Its a flawed system in its state and I can't wait to see it fall.

hammer4all · 10-23-2004, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thefictionweliv

And liberals are scaring us into not privatizing it by saying it will create trillions of dollars in national debt by doing so. If we can just let the benifits run out for the next 50 years than privatizing it should be no problem. I want more control over my money and how I invest it, IMO those who think SS actually works should bear the cost of it. Its a flawed system in its state and I can't wait to see it fall.

Maybe because it would! As the article points out, there is a huge initial cost that would have to be born by someone before transferring everything over to a privatized system.

Quote:

The biggest problem with the plan, as countless analysts have pointed out, is easy to see. The Social Security program is currently funded by payroll taxes from the current generation of workers, who pay into system so that the government can pay out benefits to retirees. In essence, every generation owes a debt to the previous generation: we pay for our parents' and grandparents' retirement, just as they paid for their parents and grandparents. And so on. If young workers were allowed to divert their savings into a private account, there would be fewer funds to pay for this generation of retirees, even though those workers have already paid into the system.

So if the government wanted to divert payroll taxes for all workers under, say, the age of 30, it would have to come up with additional money to pay those retirees over the age of 30. Economists estimate that the transition could cost at least $1 trillion -- money that the government just doesn't have, especially in the wake of mounting deficits. The alternative is to either raise existing payroll taxes, or cut future benefits, neither of which Bush is proposing. So the president can claim that he can magically fix the system, but his math just won't work out.

daswig · 10-23-2004, 05:16 PM

I'd say have half of the payments made go to paying off today's recipients, and the other half go into personal accounts for the people paying into the system now, with the balance payable when they retire.

The way it's set up now, it's a giant pyramid scheme sanctioned by the government. It can only keep working as long as there are more and more people paying into it over time.

If I got half out of what I put into SS, I'd be a happy camper. As it is now, money that should be going to my retirement is going to other people's retirement, there's virtually no chance that there will be any left for me when I retire, and that sucks.

MSD · 10-23-2004, 09:50 PM

Offer an opt-out program so that anyone who chooses to remove him/herself from the system can do so easily. Sell off government assets as government functions are privatized in order to keep current recipients funded.

If this sounds like it was quoted directly from the Libertarian Party website, you're , as I found a solution I liked when I heard their position on the issue.

cthulu23 · 10-23-2004, 10:35 PM

MrSelfDestruct,

I work at a large southern university that has "opted out" (according to human resources) of social security for all of it's employees. Staff MUST chose some sort of retirement plan of which SS is a single choice. I had never heard of such a thing before working here so I'm not sure exactly what the phrase "opt-out" means and what sort of institutions are eligible. If I had chosen SS as my retirement plan than 6.2% of my income would be allocated towards SS. I am not sure if I or my employer is paying additional SS taxes.

Is anyone here familiar with this "opt-out" program? HRM says we have "opted out" but I'm not sure exactly what this means. My internet payroll deposit slip simply reads: "federal taxes," which is less than enlightening.

thefictionweliv · 10-24-2004, 11:22 AM

There is enough useless government expenses, programs that can be use to nullify the cost of eliminating social security as I stated before. Elimination is progress, every year we don't get rid of this is a step further back.

10-22-2004, 06:16 PM	#1 (permalink)
Kalibah Insane Location: Padded Playhouse	How would you deal with Social Security? Okay much like the " How would you solve increasing drug prices" We have had civil discussions on the problems of drug prices, and what solutions we could take to help lower them. Everyone had something worthwhile it offer- and I (atleast) have a better understanding of the issue, whats a stake, WHY its a problem, and steps towards fixing it. It was nice being able to talk issues, not canidates. That in mind Lets talk social security. Same ground rules as before. Im not asking whos social security plan iis best. I'm simply asking what you would do. While refraining from pimping canidates, maybe we might be able to have more civil conversations. It might not seem political if we cut out the politicians, I think it is... I hope others agree. I say this because in other threads on these issues it resorts to " Bush hasnt done anything" or " Kerrys plan is unrealistic" ... and that gets us no where. If you want to promote or diss canidates, there are plenty of other threads for that. So just lay out your plan or thoughts- afterall it is a political issue COULD WE PLEASE NOT MENTION CANIDATES Social Security is going to be a major problem for the up-and coming generation, when baby boomers hit retierment age- i envision all hell breaking loose. Back in highschool, when talking about retirment one of my teachers mentioned that he had to plan as if he was not going to get a dime. Is that too cynical? So , what can we do to fix it now- and what would be a good thing to do in the future? Is privitazing parts of it for the newest generation the way to go? With Enron type companies and their shareholders, one could imagine the chaos that would insue if come retirment time those nice stocks were worth nada...

10-22-2004, 07:14 PM	#2 (permalink)
fuzyfuzer Insane Location: st. louis	i think it's time to take a look into the past. when social secerity was inacted people were only expected to live on social security for one or two years. maybe it's time to raise the eaarliest age of retirmen to 70-73, that would put much less strain on the system and return it to what it was intended to be. people really need to get it out of there mind that social security is there retiment plan, it really should be almost nothing, mayb e just a little extra so you can have an even cushier retirment. this may be hard for some people to accept since it will be a very drastic change but it somthing very simple that will more or less solve the problem in my eyes. __________________ "The difference between commiment and involvment is like a ham and egg breakfast the chicken was involved but the pig was commited" "Thrice happy is the nation that has a glorious history. Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat." Theodore Roosevelt

10-23-2004, 10:35 PM	#14 (permalink)
cthulu23 Banned	MrSelfDestruct, I work at a large southern university that has "opted out" (according to human resources) of social security for all of it's employees. Staff MUST chose some sort of retirement plan of which SS is a single choice. I had never heard of such a thing before working here so I'm not sure exactly what the phrase "opt-out" means and what sort of institutions are eligible. If I had chosen SS as my retirement plan than 6.2% of my income would be allocated towards SS. I am not sure if I or my employer is paying additional SS taxes. Is anyone here familiar with this "opt-out" program? HRM says we have "opted out" but I'm not sure exactly what this means. My internet payroll deposit slip simply reads: "federal taxes," which is less than enlightening. Last edited by cthulu23; 10-23-2004 at 10:52 PM..

10-22-2004, 08:20 PM	#4 (permalink)
shortynickel Addict Location: Central PA	several years ago it was said that when i am old enough to be able to go on SS i will have to be close to 85...and i am 25 now...that in a way doesnt surprise me but diffentely doesnt make me feel good lol. Good thing that i dont worry about how i am gonna make it that long working full time hehe

10-22-2004, 11:19 PM	#7 (permalink)
Kalibah Insane Location: Padded Playhouse	Totally right. There is no social security 'fund' or bank account- they hand it out as they get more taxes. If we raise retirment to 70-73 how does that bode for the workforce? It would clearly have impact on the workforce- and a negative one at that. Not to overgenerlize- because I believe that there are some that Can ( and some that DO) work til that age - but a large majority are using walkers, are cranky, etc. I suppose it depends on the industry in question though... I love how senators/goverment officials are talking about SS but they have their own SEPERATE plan. Senators get full salary for life IIRC. Thats part of the problem. We gotta cut the baggage ...

10-23-2004, 01:36 AM	#8 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	Several changes worth considering: Eliminate all benefits from the plan except retirement benefits for workers and their spouses. No death benefits for minors, this isn't a life insurance policy. No disability benefits, this isn't a medical policy. Make all workers participate in the plan including all government employees, congresspersons, teachers. etc... Put everyone on the same playing field. Encourage more babies to keep the worker/retiree ratio up, LOL. I read somewhere that when SS started there were somehing like 10 workers for every retiree and now there are only about 3 to 1. I am of the baby boom generation and will be collecting SS in a few years. I have no doubt that the millions of us boomers will get all we are promised and more. We will be 20% or so of the population and no polititian will deny us if they want to get elected. When retirees were only 10% of the population polititians wouldn't mess with them. It's unfortunate but old folks vote often and frequently, and I fear that the young will be taxed up the wazoo. That being said I also feel that if I could have invested my 40 years (and my employers contribution) of SS payments in a mutual fund, I would be in a lot better shape than I am now. I think that raising the retirement age will mean less jobs for the young folks just getting started and less room for advancement for those already employed. Someone should run the numbers and see if it is really beneficial.

10-23-2004, 05:16 PM	#12 (permalink)
daswig Banned Location: BFE	I'd say have half of the payments made go to paying off today's recipients, and the other half go into personal accounts for the people paying into the system now, with the balance payable when they retire. The way it's set up now, it's a giant pyramid scheme sanctioned by the government. It can only keep working as long as there are more and more people paying into it over time. If I got half out of what I put into SS, I'd be a happy camper. As it is now, money that should be going to my retirement is going to other people's retirement, there's virtually no chance that there will be any left for me when I retire, and that sucks.

10-23-2004, 09:50 PM	#13 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	Offer an opt-out program so that anyone who chooses to remove him/herself from the system can do so easily. Sell off government assets as government functions are privatized in order to keep current recipients funded. If this sounds like it was quoted directly from the Libertarian Party website, you're , as I found a solution I liked when I heard their position on the issue.

10-24-2004, 11:22 AM	#15 (permalink)
thefictionweliv Insane	There is enough useless government expenses, programs that can be use to nullify the cost of eliminating social security as I stated before. Elimination is progress, every year we don't get rid of this is a step further back.