what's the best way to fix it or get rid of it?

Discuss.

11/11/2006 3:21:57 PM

Very carefully.

11/11/2006 3:28:38 PM

I wonder how many people would willingly say "Fine, keep the money I've paid in. Just don't take any more."

I know I would.

we wouldn't be contributing any more to the system, but what we've paid so far would just be a gift, because the system would never have to support us.

11/11/2006 3:30:28 PM

1. We must fully protect the current Social Security system for those on it and those going on it in the next 10 to 15 years
2. Stop taxing senior’s benefits and end the Social Security earnings penalty
3. Use the Social Security surplus to help phase in a new Social Security system of personal retirement accounts for younger workers
4. Stop Washington from raiding the Trust Fund by taking it off-budget
5. Start right away, while we still have time.

and dont let the government invest our money in the stock market

11/11/2006 3:37:52 PM

fact of the matter remains is that social security is not broken. It's a classic ploy being used by both parties.

11/11/2006 3:40:03 PM

Take it all to Vegas and hope for the best.

11/11/2006 3:49:43 PM

Lockbox.

11/11/2006 4:41:00 PM

^^^ well, i contend that it's broken due to its very existance, but regardless, it's pretty well agreed upon that it's going to be out of $$$ within our lifetimes if nothing changes.

nobody who's paid into it should lose that money, with the exception of people like me who would voluntarily seperate themselves from it and forfeit their contributions to date.

[Edited on November 11, 2006 at 4:43 PM. Reason : ^^^]

11/11/2006 4:43:10 PM

thats not well agreed upon

[Edited on November 11, 2006 at 4:47 PM. Reason : .]

11/11/2006 4:47:04 PM

Quote :

"well, i contend that it's broken due to its very existance"

Doesn't follow.

11/11/2006 4:47:40 PM

Quote :

"At the present time, Social Security revenues are greater than outlays, but as the baby-boom generation continues to age, outlays will grow substantially faster than revenues. CBO projects that outlays will begin to exceed revenues in 2019 and that the Social Security trust funds will be exhausted in 2046. (All years referred to in this report are calendar years.) SSA would then no longer have the legal authority to pay full benefits. In the years following trust fund exhaustion, payable benefits would be substantially lower than scheduled benefits because annual outlays would be constrained to equal annual revenues."

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/socialsecurity.cfm#pt2

11/11/2006 5:01:14 PM

Quote :

"well, i contend that it's broken due to its very existance, but regardless, it's pretty well agreed upon that it's going to be out of $$$ within our lifetimes if nothing changes."

That is going off the assumption that the amount of money paid inot the trust fund will stay stagnant. The fact remains more people are paying into it. furthermore, Social Security is just that, it's a safety net for America so we can avoid another fucking depression, or in the case of one soften it's blow.

11/11/2006 5:03:39 PM

Quote :

"I wonder how many people would willingly say "Fine, keep the money I've paid in. Just don't take any more." I know I would. we wouldn't be contributing any more to the system, but what we've paid so far would just be a gift, because the system would never have to support us. "

agree with this

11/11/2006 5:11:30 PM

Let me clarify: I'm not opposed in the least to a safety net.

I just believe that you should be able to opt out of it if you demostrate that you're taking appropriate steps to ensure your own financial safety and welfare. Social Security severely damages my ability to save and invest on my own and take far better care of myself than Uncle is going to do for me.

11/11/2006 5:12:33 PM

Quote :

"I just believe that you should be able to opt out of it if you demostrate that you're taking appropriate steps to ensure your own financial safety and welfare. Social Security severely damages my ability to save and invest on my own and take far better care of myself than Uncle is going to do for me."

Because in time of depression, people like you lose everything and become a burden upon the state. Investments aren't guaranteed safety net. Investments are gambles and if depression strikes, then your investments become worthless.

11/11/2006 5:14:49 PM

Quote :

"I wonder how many people would willingly say "Fine, keep the money I've paid in. Just don't take any more.""

Where do I sign?

11/11/2006 5:17:31 PM

you sign up when you expatriate yourself.

11/11/2006 5:19:05 PM

AMISH

11/11/2006 5:19:57 PM

Quote :

"Because in time of depression, people like you lose everything and become a burden upon the state. Investments aren't guaranteed safety net. Investments are gambles and if depression strikes, then your investments become worthless."

When the depression hits, where is the money for social security going to come from?

11/11/2006 5:34:54 PM

logic and reason have no place here.

11/11/2006 5:37:31 PM

Quote :

"Because in time of depression, people like you lose everything and become a burden upon the state."

First of all, that would only be an issue in a scenario like the Great Depression, or if you didn't have a wisely diversified nest egg.

I mean, yes, it could happen...but monkeys could fly out of my ass.

The dire consequences that are a remote possibility of doing it my way don't come close to outweighing the more moderate but nearly certain loss that is incurred by doing it your way. I'm not saying to completely throw caution to the wind and absolutely go for broke at every opportunity--but I am saying that it's ridiculous to play "not to lose" rather than to play to win.

yes, at some point, the risk does outweigh the potential for gain. that's why my portfolio isn't composed completely of pink sheet stocks bought on margin. that's why I get up the nerve to venture outside of my house every day. what I advocate is well within the realm of the potential justifying the risk.

[Edited on November 11, 2006 at 5:45 PM. Reason : asfasdfasd]

11/11/2006 5:42:05 PM

let people opt out, but require that a requisite amount of funding go into IRAs. Make those capital-gains tax-free (I mean, Social Security isn't taxed, so fair's fair). Make the opt-out funding requirement greater than what would be taken out for Social Security (since you're concerned about increased risk...if you lose money, but have enough to lose, you're still ok).

People like me who are going to be worth many millions of dollars at retirement are not the ones likely to be a burden on society. People who save nothing and expect Uncle to do it all for them and take care of them with Social Security are the ones who are going to be a burden.

11/11/2006 6:06:06 PM

Quote :

"People like me who are going to be worth many millions of dollars at retirement are not the ones likely to be a burden on society. People who save nothing and expect Uncle to do it all for them and take care of them with Social Security are the ones who are going to be a burden."

I guess you don't understand how thi society functions. The odds of you retiring a millionaire are close to nothing.

11/11/2006 6:08:38 PM

lockbox

11/11/2006 6:10:02 PM

I would guess that you have no concept of how compound interest and my investment plan functions, because the odds of me retiring as a millionaire are all but a foregone conclusion. the question is simply how many millions it will be.

11/11/2006 6:10:11 PM

Ditto for me

11/11/2006 6:28:40 PM

Quote :

"People who save nothing "

thats impossible, its take out automatically

11/11/2006 6:40:46 PM

retiring with a million dollars places you above a large portion of the population but no where near the top.

If you make alittle over 100,000 a year with proper investing it can be done but by no means makes you rich. Any salary lower than that would be next to impossible

[Edited on November 11, 2006 at 6:49 PM. Reason : http://www.jmooneyham.com/rich.html this site as some stuff]

11/11/2006 6:43:10 PM

his salary is below that, but im pretty sure that its still possible. i mean a million dollars (assuming we are talking assets) isnt that much

11/11/2006 6:46:38 PM

over a period of 40 years yes

but then you're 60

11/11/2006 6:49:47 PM

you want to retire before that?

11/11/2006 6:53:40 PM

Quote :

"If you make alittle over 100,000 a year with proper investing it can be done but by no means makes you rich. Any salary lower than that would be next to impossible"

I disagree. Start young, and you can end with a mill easy.

START RIGHT NOW!

11/11/2006 7:27:05 PM

Quote :

"thats impossible, its take out automatically"

obviously from the entire context i meant saving anything besides what's extorted from you by the government.

Quote :

"retiring with a million dollars places you above a large portion of the population but no where near the top."

concur

i wouldn't retire with less than a million, though.

Quote :

"If you make alittle over 100,000 a year with proper investing it can be done but by no means makes you rich. Any salary lower than that would be next to impossible"

if you make six figures and don't retire a millionaire, you're a fucking buffoon unless you (A) had some unusual hardship as an extenuating circumstance, or (B) were lower middle class for most of your career, then started making decent money late in the game. even then, if you play your cards right, most people should be able to retire as millionaires.

Quote :

"his salary is below that, but im pretty sure that its still possible. i mean a million dollars (assuming we are talking assets) isnt that much"

yeah, my salary is about half that right now (maybe SLIGHTLY more). and no, a million dollars in total assets ain't really shit. My goal is to have a $1,000,000 investment portfolio by age 50.

Quote :

"I disagree. Start young, and you can end with a mill easy. START RIGHT NOW!"

Yep. From the perspective of an early 20-something, the roads to being a millionaire and the roads to being mired in the middle of the middle class forever are far closer than many of you who haven't done the math imagine.

[Edited on November 11, 2006 at 8:00 PM. Reason : asfasdas]

11/11/2006 7:43:25 PM

Quote :

"what's the best way to fix it or get rid of it?"

Wait till 2018ish, s.s will be gone.

11/11/2006 8:10:40 PM

Quote :

"Because in time of depression, people like you lose everything and become a burden upon the state. Investments aren't guaranteed safety net. Investments are gambles and if depression strikes, then your investments become worthless."

SS does nothing to prevent this. SS is a pay as you go system that depends on government revenue in some form or another. Currently it is paid by the payroll tax but another Great Depression would reduce payroll reciepts by at least 30%, probably more.

At this point the SS trust fund kicks in but this must be paid for by other government receipts. Unfortunately the rest of the tax system is even more pro-cylical that the payroll tax - so you have even less here.

In the event of a Great Depression the SS is just as vulnerable as any other security measure. Perhaps the only thing that would work is foreign investment - however the US is such a big market that a massive depression here is likely to spark a world wide depression.

Fortunately we are pretty sure we know what causes depressions and pretty sure we can stear clear of them

11/11/2006 8:51:31 PM

Quote :

"Perhaps the only thing that would work is foreign investment - however the US is such a big market that a massive depression here is likely to spark a world wide depression."

yeah, globalization has largely rendered that strategy obsolete.

11/11/2006 9:15:06 PM

Quote :

""I wonder how many people would willingly say "Fine, keep the money I've paid in. Just don't take any more."""

I'm In.

Quote :

"people like you lose everything and become a burden upon the state. "

The State is a burden on the people.


The Social Security ponzi scheme is also the ultimate Death Tax since you lose everything you paid in during your life when the grim reaper comes a callin'.

11/11/2006 10:26:27 PM

Quote :

"If you make alittle over 100,000 a year with proper investing it can be done but by no means makes you rich. Any salary lower than that would be next to impossible"

11/11/2006 10:33:16 PM

No comment Dentaldamn?

12/1/2006 6:59:33 PM

Quote :

""Fine, keep the money I've paid in. Just don't take any more." "

I have had this attitude for years. Truthfully, I would continue to pay in at the current rate, knowing that I would never benefit if only they would agree to trash the piece of shit.

The best way to fix it is a combination of privatization, raising the earnings limit, raising the tax rate, lifting the age for full retirement, increasing the penalty for early retirement, allowing the administration to invest in more volatile securities.

I'd rather they scrap it, but that's how they can fix it.

12/1/2006 8:17:39 PM

Quote :

"Because in time of depression, people like you lose everything and become a burden upon the state. Investments aren't guaranteed safety net. Investments are gambles and if depression strikes, then your investments become worthless. "

Perhaps you aren't familiar with investing. People close to retirement diversify risk, so that a depression is not going to make their investments worthless.

Even the great Depression was a decline of only ~40%.

That is certainly not "worthless"

12/1/2006 8:33:33 PM

Social security is some stupid shit. Hey lets distribute money not based on income but on age! At the end of the day it's just a redistribution from the young to the old. I'm totally for govt. redistribution of wealth from the haves to the have nots, but that isn't social security. They should do away completely with the social secuity system and funnel the money into a program that distributes based solely on need. I really don't see the reasoning with the idea that the govt should pay you money just because you're old and still living. If you have need then you should be taken care of, regardless of age, and if you don't need then you shouldn't be receiving my money in the mail every month!

12/1/2006 9:20:43 PM

Where did this little pup come from?

12/1/2006 9:38:42 PM

Quote :

"If you have need then you should be taken care of, regardless of age"

Psh, go to Europe, I'm tired of paying for the lazy/poor/stupid

12/1/2006 9:57:56 PM

Quote :

"I'm totally for govt. redistribution of wealth from the haves to the have nots"

it just makes my head want to explode

12/1/2006 10:19:22 PM

Oh noes, someone disagrees with your political views!

12/1/2006 11:33:37 PM

oh look the privileged are getting angry!

12/1/2006 11:35:03 PM

I never like the idea of the Government giving money to rich people, and oddly enough Social Security pays more the richer you are (thankfully there is a cap). That doesn't make sense to me, the rich need help less, so we help them more?

Therefore, it is my opinion that Social Security should write the same size check to everyone, regardless of how much you paid in. We would take a fair middle-class size check and make it universal (peg it to go up every year to inflation, works either way). The average joe will not notice the difference, some poor folks will get a larger check, and the only harmed individuals are those that can afford it.

This would end the Social Security Crises, make the system simple and easy to understand, increase social justice, hell: it might even be politically popular. What does everyone say?

12/2/2006 9:03:19 AM

Quote :

"That doesn't make sense to me, the rich need help less, so we help them more? "

Help? That's an odd way to look at a program that rapes a pretty big chunk of your earnings each year (twice as much if you're self-employed).

While I don't necessarily have a problem with your program in general, "help" is a disgusting way to describe what social security does. That's like saying my savings account helps me.

The only problem I have with doing what you suggest is that when we run low on funds they're going to want to raise the taxable roof. I just don't think it is fair to charge progressive taxes and then start charging a tax that it is impossible for them to recover in payments in addition.

12/2/2006 9:24:20 AM

^^ most reasonable thing you have ever said.

I'LL BUY THAT FOR A DOLLAR!!

12/2/2006 9:30:57 AM