Good decision by Bush and company

[billvon 3,008]

Never let it be said that Bush and company doesn't sometimes listen to people who know what they're talking about:

"Treasury Secretary John W. Snow indicated Wednesday that the White House would accept a Social Security overhaul that does not divert the program’s payroll taxes into personal retirement accounts, a major shift in the administration’s position."

From www.cq.com.

Now if we can just keep this sudden open-mindedness going.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

a Social Security overhaul that does not divert the program’s payroll taxes into personal retirement accounts.

Yeah, how dare they think that we should have ownership over our own retirement payroll deductions. The nerve of some people!

[billvon 3,008]

>Yeah, how dare they think that we should have ownership over our
>own retirement payroll deductions.

You know, that's a good idea. We SHOULD have a way to control where payroll deductions for retirement go! That way we could choose to invest in a high risk fund when we're young, and switch to a lower-risk one when we're old. And it should be tax-free to encourage its usage. And it should be voluntary. Have some very basic government-administered system in case the stock market crashes (so seniors don't starve to death when the market tanks) but otherwise have people rely on their own tax-free retirement accounts!

Oh wait. We have them. They're called 401k's. Looks like Bush and co have realized that, fortunately.

[kelpdiver 2]

No, only some of us have 401ks. The rest have only IRAs.

The Democrats have been disgraceful on this subject - brave enough to bitch about Bush's solution while offering nothing of their own. The claim that we have until the 30s or 40s is bullshit - in 15 years SS will start to drain the treasury rather than add to it. There is no lockbox, no trust fund. Just funny money accounting.

Personally, I think it's time to stop pretending about SS and just add 12.4% to the tax rate. Just as charging Americans the true price of gas would make for better decisions on foreign policy, knowing that all our SS money goes directly to supporting deficit spending now would help on budget policy. We might be less willing to spend hundreds of billions on Iraq, or hundreds of millions on bad art.

Then increase the IRA limit to the same as that of the 401k for those who don't have access to the latter.

[tonyhays 86]

How 'bout letting young people opt out of social security entirely?

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

[kallend 2,030]

Beer!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

a Social Security overhaul that does not divert the program’s payroll taxes into personal retirement accounts.

Yeah, how dare they think that we should have ownership over our own retirement payroll deductions. The nerve of some people!

Via corporations...... me for one.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

How 'bout letting young people opt out of social security entirely?

Because there has to be some form of SS. We would have people dying in the streets if we did not.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Plus this week the Bush admin mentioned they would consider less of a hard line with Iran and more diplomacy.

Maybe you can teach an old dog new tricks?

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

How 'bout letting young people opt out of social security entirely?

Because there has to be some form of SS. We would have people dying in the streets if we did not.

Really??? From what? How many people were dying in the streets before Social Security?

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Quote

How 'bout letting young people opt out of social security entirely?

Because there has to be some form of SS. We would have people dying in the streets if we did not.

Some form of SS? When I'm old enough to be able to use it, I doubt there is going to be any money left at the current rate the gov't is spending it.

If the money I'm paying right now for SS was put into a private account, I think I'd have a much better return after 45 years than I would leaving it in the gov't hands.

[cbain 0]

Quote

Quote

How 'bout letting young people opt out of social security entirely?

Because there has to be some form of SS. We would have people dying in the streets if we did not.

There's no way I'm going to get SS by the time I get old enough. Why not make it optional for all. Then if you think you need SS because you can't be bothered to save for yourself and you want the government to do it, then you can donate. But if I want to take the risk and invest some other way, why not let me. If I end up blowing it all away and not saving then it'll be me dying on the streets but that was my risk to take.

Christina

[billvon 3,008]

>How many people were dying in the streets before Social Security?

Thousands. In 1933, 100 people died in NYC alone of starvation. Do a search on "starvation 'great depression' "

[wmw999 2,460]

Some people cannot work as they get older, or they cannot work enough to maintain a living wage.

Some younger people want to advance into the jobs that are held by the older people.

Some older people don't have families, others have families who resent taking care of them, or who can't afford it.

Rather than just telling them to die, social security is a way to share the cost of maintaining among society as a whole, and to have people contribute to that maintenance themselves as well.

Should we save? Yup. Some people don't. There are lots of people working in the skydiving industry who aren't saving towards retirement, I'm sure. And people can save for their retirement now, in addition to or even without social security. It's nice when it can be tax-deferred, but, well, that's a favor, not a requirement.

Sometimes a small cost up front is better than a big one later. Sometimes contributing to that small cost for someone else is better than being socked for "your share" of the big one later.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>Yeah, how dare they think that we should have ownership over our
>own retirement payroll deductions.

You know, that's a good idea. We SHOULD have a way to control where payroll deductions for retirement go! That way we could choose to invest in a high risk fund when we're young, and switch to a lower-risk one when we're old. And it should be tax-free to encourage its usage. And it should be voluntary. Have some very basic government-administered system in case the stock market crashes (so seniors don't starve to death when the market tanks) but otherwise have people rely on their own tax-free retirement accounts!

Oh wait. We have them. They're called 401k's. Looks like Bush and co have realized that, fortunately.

There is only one problem with your equation.

Yeah, we can already initiate a 401k or IRA on our own. But the problem is, so much is taken out of our paychecks for social security (SS) that we don't have the disposable income left over to be able to invest it. If you eliminated the social security deduction, then I'd be all for this type of investment.

But the politicians ain't never gonna take their hands out of our wallets completely. So the prudent, realistic thing to do is to give us the voluntary choice to invest a percentage of that SS deduction into something for ourselves, that the politicians can't touch.

[billvon 3,008]

>Yeah, we can already initiate a 401k or IRA on our own. But the
>problem is, so much is taken out of our paychecks for social security (SS)
> that we don't have the disposable income left over to be able to invest it.

My federal taxes are 4 times what the SS deduction is; my state taxes are 50% more. If you want more money, then you have two much better targets than SS.

But your observation does lead to a good reason that we MUST always have some form of SS. You say you can't pay X% of your salary to an IRA because that X% is taken out by SS, which is fair enough. There are people making X% less than you. If they are like you in other ways, that means they can't pay into ANY voluntary plan; they just can't afford it. So there always must be a bare-minimum system to keep those people from starving. Not to buy gas for their SUV or pay for premium cable, but just enough to keep them from starving or getting evicted.

And if you want a better life when you retire - invest yourself.

>But the politicians ain't never gonna take their hands out of our wallets
> completely. So the prudent, realistic thing to do is to give us the
>voluntary choice to invest a percentage of that SS deduction into
> something for ourselves, that the politicians can't touch.

No, the prudent, realistic thing is to put YOUR money into YOUR IRA or 401k to save for YOUR retirement. Expecting the government to do a better job is silly. And the excuse "well, they're gonna take our money anyway" is even sillier. You would be raising holy hell if a democrat said that.

[TheAnvil 0]

Quote

My federal taxes are 4 times what the SS deduction is; my state taxes are 50% more. If you want more money, then you have two much better targets than SS.

If SS is so miniscule in comparison and all SS taxes are spent out of the general fund anyway, then why does a mere 2% or so of the supposedly miniscule SS tax going into a private account for an individual create such animosity among the left?

Quote

But your observation does lead to a good reason that we MUST always have some form of SS.

Bush's plan provides this.

Quote

You say you can't pay X% of your salary to an IRA because that X% is taken out by SS, which is fair enough. There are people making X% less than you. If they are like you in other ways, that means they can't pay into ANY voluntary plan; they just can't afford it. So there always must be a bare-minimum system to keep those people from starving. Not to buy gas for their SUV or pay for premium cable, but just enough to keep them from starving or getting evicted.

Bush's plan provides this.

Quote

And if you want a better life when you retire - invest yourself.

Bingo!

Quote

No, the prudent, realistic thing is to put YOUR money into YOUR IRA or 401k to save for YOUR retirement.

Ahem. The $$ confiscated in the name of SS by the government belongs to whom, if not the people that earned it?

The mere 2% or so of the SS taxes proposed by GWB to be diverted to private accounts would be $ that the Congress would forever lose control of and therefore not be able to spend at will. I think that a good thing.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[billvon 3,008]

>If SS is so miniscule in comparison and all SS taxes are spent out of the
> general fund anyway, then why does a mere 2% or so of the supposedly
> miniscule SS tax going into a private account for an individual create such
>animosity among the left?

Cause if the stock market crashed, the people who spent their lives contributing to social security would starve. SS should be a backup only that is independent of the stock market, so that senior citizens do not starve/get evicted when it tanks (which it does with regularity.)

>The mere 2% or so of the SS taxes proposed by GWB to be diverted to
> private accounts would be $ that the Congress would forever lose control
> of and therefore not be able to spend at will. I think that a good thing.

You really think the government will do a better job investing your money than you will? Well, if that's the case, why think small? Put 50% of your paycheck into the government's hands and let them invest it for you. I'm sure you'll be rolling in dough in no time.

[TheAnvil 0]

You haven't read much about GWB's plan, have you? If so you've skipped large parts dude.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[MC208B 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

How 'bout letting young people opt out of social security entirely?

Because there has to be some form of SS. We would have people dying in the streets if we did not.

Really??? From what? How many people were dying in the streets before Social Security?

ROFLMAO!!! Good one

[Muenkel 0]

I personally am all for partial privatization of SS. However, what does concern me is the fact that many people do not know the first thing about investing. I would hope the govt. or employers would provide education in this area. But how much would that cost?

I know what GWB is proposing is optional and folks can stay with the system as it is. My concern is that many people are ignorant when it comes to finances. Just because they are ignorant in these areas, I do not want to see them unprovided for in their retirement.

I do see pros and cons on both sides of this issue.

Chris

_________________________________________
Chris

[billvon 3,008]

> I do not want to see them unprovided for in their retirement.

That is my primary concern. We already have good (I think) programs for people to save for retirement themselves, in the form of 401k's or IRA's. As you mentioned, people can be foolish investors, and thus I think SS needs to remain a very low risk system intended to be a backup to someone's voluntary investment plans.

If there is enough 'excess' in social security that people can take their money from the regular account and put in some sort of personal, optional account, then just reduce everyone's SS deduction by that amount and let them put it in an IRA. (Or, if you can reduce SS deductions by say 30%, reduce it by 25% and use the remaining 5% to keep the smaller SS system solvent.)

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

That is my primary concern. We already have good (I think) programs for people to save for retirement themselves, in the form of 401k's or IRA's. As you mentioned, people can be foolish investors, and thus I think SS needs to remain a very low risk system intended to be a backup to someone's voluntary investment plans.

If there is enough 'excess' in social security that people can take their money from the regular account and put in some sort of personal, optional account, then just reduce everyone's SS deduction by that amount and let them put it in an IRA. (Or, if you can reduce SS deductions by say 30%, reduce it by 25% and use the remaining 5% to keep the smaller SS system solvent.)

I am in total agreement.

Considering what I hear coming out of Congress, there is going to have to be some sort of compromise between the Administration and Congress in order to have some form of privatization.

Chris

_________________________________________
Chris

[Gawain 0]

Funny how the President pointed out that any sound ideas would be worth considering in his SOTU address.

I happen to agree with the personal retirement accounts, but am not closed to other ideas. The system has to go through more changes.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

And if you want a better life when you retire - invest yourself.

Here's a retirement program that is already doing what Bush is proposing, and doing very well with it. Railroad workers have their own retirement system, outside of Social Security:

"White House officials and members of Congress looking for a way to invest some Social Security money in the stock market might check out a little-known federal retirement program that covers railroad workers.

A portion of the pensions paid by the 70-year-old Railroad Retirement Board comes from a fund that invests in Wall Street. The fund returned 13.3 percent last year and nearly 20 percent in 2003 — far more than the earnings from the Treasury bonds that are the backbone of Social Security.

Congress overhauled the RRB system in 2001 for reasons eerily similar to the current debate over Social Security. The railroad pension program was facing insolvency because of an escalating number of retirees and a shrinking number of workers — the same demographic trends in the Social Security system.

In trying to find a way to increase RRB revenues without raising taxes, Congress changed investment rules so that up to 65 percent of the railroad system's trust funds could be invested in the stock market. The changes involved "collective investment" of the funds rather than individual investment."

Full Story