MonsterMarK, please address this.
- Thread starter barry2952
- Start date
barry2952 said:
hmm....wasnt that a whole big stink not too long ago? TAX THE WEALTHY! WE DONT WANT TO PAY TAXES!!!! , and the libs followed blindly...now you say...HELP THE WEALTHY! THEY NEED IT, THEY SAVE US ALL. EVEN WHEN WE SLAM THEM AND MAKE THEM PAY MORE!
MonsterMark,
I'm still waiting. You were pretty fast to criticize but you've not responded with your plan for SS. Waiting for the President to make up your mind for you?
Out of curiosity. Are you one of the 75% polled that wants to pay for shoring up SS by eliminating benefits for the wealthy?
I have a plan. Why don't we let people opt out of the system? It would cost me the $200,000 I've already put in but I'll save more than that by not supporting a system that won't be there when I am eligible.
Are you counting on SS? From what I know about you, I think not. You'll have put away enough to live a comfortable lifestyle. Unfortunately, your four sons will be paying for mistakes, you supported, made today.
I'm still waiting. You were pretty fast to criticize but you've not responded with your plan for SS. Waiting for the President to make up your mind for you?
Out of curiosity. Are you one of the 75% polled that wants to pay for shoring up SS by eliminating benefits for the wealthy?
I have a plan. Why don't we let people opt out of the system? It would cost me the $200,000 I've already put in but I'll save more than that by not supporting a system that won't be there when I am eligible.
Are you counting on SS? From what I know about you, I think not. You'll have put away enough to live a comfortable lifestyle. Unfortunately, your four sons will be paying for mistakes, you supported, made today.
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
Barry wrote: "Are you counting on SS? From what I know about you, I think not. You'll have put away enough to live a comfortable lifestyle. Unfortunately, your four sons will be paying for mistakes, you supported, made today."
Haha,You know better. And my kids won't be paying for anybodies mistakes.
Sorry about not getting to this. I have been busy with the election scandal in Milwaukee and that has alot higher priority.
OK, here goes.
Let’s suppose that Congress doesn't allow workers to invest part of their Social Security taxes in private accounts. I still see a problem with Social Security. It’s headed into bankruptcy because future retirees are being promised a lot more money than current retirees are getting. SS sucks up about 4-5% of the economy right now. Right now, 48 million are getting checks averaging about $15,000 per year. 20 years from now, SS will pay more than $19,000/yr to 84 million. That will be almost 6% . By 2055, 50 years out, it will be paying out $25,000.
AND, these numbers are already adjusted for inflation, so people are being promised more than current retirees are getting.
Within 75 years, the SS deficit will be $27 trillion. In people terms, more than $100,000 for every working family.
A lot of people are going to be retiring soon. Something like 77 million. In the next couple of years. And they are expected to live a lot longer. In less than 100 years, US life expectancy has gone from 77 to 84.
If you need proof that our current system is headed for disaster, look no further than to France and Germany. An aging populace and huge government spending has led to stagnation and double-digit unemployment over there.
The more you increase the benefits, the more you encourage people to NOT save for their own retirement, but rather, live for the day. SS was intended to be a safety net, not a sole source of income.
Even the Democrats admit that Social Security faces huge long-term deficits. It’s just that THEY want to be the ones to fix it. In simple terms, politics at its worst.
Bush said to leave the 55 and over crowd alone. I agree. They paid in and they don’t have the time to build additional private savings or develop alternate sources of income for retirement.
Countries like Britain and Sweden have personal retirement accounts and changed their rate of growth for benefits to be paid out. This is something that Germany now admits it must do.
I want to tackle this problem now so MY kids don’t have to face it down later on. So Barry, you got that part wrong. I won’t pass on a problem to my kids.
Ask yourself this question. Why does the government have a personal retirement account for federal employees and we can't/don't?
The Feds' is called the Thrift Savings Plan. Federal employees can make contributions into five broadly based investment funds, tax-deferred, like a 401(k). Why can't we have the same thing using a portion of our own money?
So what would I do?
Unlike the Democrats, Republicans in general, and conservatives in particular (ME) usually offer a solution, not just hot air.
Keep the 55 and over crowd under today's Social Security program.
Steer the younger folks into private investment accounts, using a portion of THEIR money, (note the emphasis on ‘their’), into a plan similar to the Thrift plan. Make it tax deferred.
I might bump the tax rate ceiling to $100,000, but that’s it. And keep the benefit guarantee. If an individual outperforms the system, he gets to keep it all. But maybe add a safety net if the personal accounts fall short of the guaranteed benefits.
I am still having trouble with the proposed annuities that the money would be converted in to. Have to get back to that topic sometime later. I don't like how it is currently proposed to be handled. Too easy for the government to grab it when you die.
Here’s my biggest problem with all of this. Social Security simply is promising younger workers benefits that it will be unable to pay as currently set up! That's the truth. So something has to change, right? So we agree that change has to happen. At least it is a starting point.
Even the SS trustees in their own 2004 report project a forced benefit cut of 27% in 35 years when Social Security’s Trust Fund runs out of redeemable Treasury bonds.
My opinion is that personal accounts help change that equation. Money in a personal account would/could grow more quickly than money ‘saved’ in the traditional system. Therefore, benefits would be higher than is possible under the traditional system alone. It’s pretty simple to understand. Just look up compounded interest on the Net and type in a few formula numbers. You’ll be amazed at the results.
All this screaming about benefits cuts by Bush because of the personal accounts is all B.S.
Democrats subtract the money that would be going into the current system and at the same time, ignore the money saved and invested in the personal accounts. So if you see numbers coming from the Dems, don’t believe them. They are not being truthful.
I love how every other word out of a Democrat now is risky this and risky that. IMHO, doing nothing is far more risky.
We need a system that is more in line with the future obligations that are being promised. We need a system that allows young workers the opportunity to invest in these private accounts if THEY SO CHOOSE as a way to achieve better results with their money and as a hedge against the evil government squandering all the money in SS.
After all , it is Social Security that takes YOUR MONEY from you and gives you a horrible return on that money and then may or may not give it back to you. And chances are, if you are successful, they will have set up a means test so that if you were responsible with how you ran your life, they will simply say too bad, you don’t need your money. Just watch, that will be what the Dems come up with. Means testing. Just another term for class warfare.
Haha,You know better. And my kids won't be paying for anybodies mistakes.
Sorry about not getting to this. I have been busy with the election scandal in Milwaukee and that has alot higher priority.
OK, here goes.
Let’s suppose that Congress doesn't allow workers to invest part of their Social Security taxes in private accounts. I still see a problem with Social Security. It’s headed into bankruptcy because future retirees are being promised a lot more money than current retirees are getting. SS sucks up about 4-5% of the economy right now. Right now, 48 million are getting checks averaging about $15,000 per year. 20 years from now, SS will pay more than $19,000/yr to 84 million. That will be almost 6% . By 2055, 50 years out, it will be paying out $25,000.
AND, these numbers are already adjusted for inflation, so people are being promised more than current retirees are getting.
Within 75 years, the SS deficit will be $27 trillion. In people terms, more than $100,000 for every working family.
A lot of people are going to be retiring soon. Something like 77 million. In the next couple of years. And they are expected to live a lot longer. In less than 100 years, US life expectancy has gone from 77 to 84.
If you need proof that our current system is headed for disaster, look no further than to France and Germany. An aging populace and huge government spending has led to stagnation and double-digit unemployment over there.
The more you increase the benefits, the more you encourage people to NOT save for their own retirement, but rather, live for the day. SS was intended to be a safety net, not a sole source of income.
Even the Democrats admit that Social Security faces huge long-term deficits. It’s just that THEY want to be the ones to fix it. In simple terms, politics at its worst.
Bush said to leave the 55 and over crowd alone. I agree. They paid in and they don’t have the time to build additional private savings or develop alternate sources of income for retirement.
Countries like Britain and Sweden have personal retirement accounts and changed their rate of growth for benefits to be paid out. This is something that Germany now admits it must do.
I want to tackle this problem now so MY kids don’t have to face it down later on. So Barry, you got that part wrong. I won’t pass on a problem to my kids.
Ask yourself this question. Why does the government have a personal retirement account for federal employees and we can't/don't?
The Feds' is called the Thrift Savings Plan. Federal employees can make contributions into five broadly based investment funds, tax-deferred, like a 401(k). Why can't we have the same thing using a portion of our own money?
So what would I do?
Unlike the Democrats, Republicans in general, and conservatives in particular (ME) usually offer a solution, not just hot air.
Keep the 55 and over crowd under today's Social Security program.
Steer the younger folks into private investment accounts, using a portion of THEIR money, (note the emphasis on ‘their’), into a plan similar to the Thrift plan. Make it tax deferred.
I might bump the tax rate ceiling to $100,000, but that’s it. And keep the benefit guarantee. If an individual outperforms the system, he gets to keep it all. But maybe add a safety net if the personal accounts fall short of the guaranteed benefits.
I am still having trouble with the proposed annuities that the money would be converted in to. Have to get back to that topic sometime later. I don't like how it is currently proposed to be handled. Too easy for the government to grab it when you die.
Here’s my biggest problem with all of this. Social Security simply is promising younger workers benefits that it will be unable to pay as currently set up! That's the truth. So something has to change, right? So we agree that change has to happen. At least it is a starting point.
Even the SS trustees in their own 2004 report project a forced benefit cut of 27% in 35 years when Social Security’s Trust Fund runs out of redeemable Treasury bonds.
My opinion is that personal accounts help change that equation. Money in a personal account would/could grow more quickly than money ‘saved’ in the traditional system. Therefore, benefits would be higher than is possible under the traditional system alone. It’s pretty simple to understand. Just look up compounded interest on the Net and type in a few formula numbers. You’ll be amazed at the results.
All this screaming about benefits cuts by Bush because of the personal accounts is all B.S.
Democrats subtract the money that would be going into the current system and at the same time, ignore the money saved and invested in the personal accounts. So if you see numbers coming from the Dems, don’t believe them. They are not being truthful.
I love how every other word out of a Democrat now is risky this and risky that. IMHO, doing nothing is far more risky.
We need a system that is more in line with the future obligations that are being promised. We need a system that allows young workers the opportunity to invest in these private accounts if THEY SO CHOOSE as a way to achieve better results with their money and as a hedge against the evil government squandering all the money in SS.
After all , it is Social Security that takes YOUR MONEY from you and gives you a horrible return on that money and then may or may not give it back to you. And chances are, if you are successful, they will have set up a means test so that if you were responsible with how you ran your life, they will simply say too bad, you don’t need your money. Just watch, that will be what the Dems come up with. Means testing. Just another term for class warfare.
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
barry2952 said:
And you know darn well how much that money would be worth when you retired even if invested tax-free in the most conservative of investment vehicles. It would be worth 10 times what the goverment will be giving you.
You've ignored my question. The President says that those under 40 can put away funds that they control. Those over 55 are unaffected. Those 41 to 54 get their benefits reduced. You don't see a problem?
BTW we agree on a lot of points but I think you are dreaming if you think your kids won't be burdened by the largest increase in size of government in the last 100 years. I thought Republicans were for fiscal responsibility and smaller government.
BTW we agree on a lot of points but I think you are dreaming if you think your kids won't be burdened by the largest increase in size of government in the last 100 years. I thought Republicans were for fiscal responsibility and smaller government.
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
I have not been able to come up with your age numbers. Therefore I did not comment. I haven't seen anything written where it says that people between the ages of 41 to 54 can't participate.barry2952 said:
On a side note, I always recommend to anybody I share advice with that they start their own company. Any kind of business. It is the best tax shelter available to the common man yet few people take advantage of it.
Well, you're kinda right. If we don't do anyhting about it now, the government will be taking 18% total out of their checks to support Social Security. If I remember correctly, when the program was started, the government only took 2%.barry2952 said:
Give anybody their 12% they are donating now, teach them how to use and invest it and nobody will need the government handout when it is time to retire.
FreeFaller
USAF LS8
Bryan, good point on the Thrift Savings Plan. As a federal employee it is my choice to put money away into TSP or not. I do and feel that it would be idiotic not to. You have a choice in the plan of High, Medium and Low risk investing. I chose Low risk since I am still young and have plenty of time to save. I also put money into Savings Bonds which if you start young is an excellent way to save money for the future. All of these things added to my retirement pay from the USAF and SS should set me up to be fairly comfortable later in life. I still to this day do not understand people who say they are too poor or don't make enough money to save for the future. It's all a matter of poor planning. You have a guy who has no good job to speak of but has five kids... I myself know that I cannot affort to have children or a huge house or a 60" plasma HDTV so I don't buy/have these things. I live within my means and plan accordingly. I feel no sorrow for someone who lives for today with no thought of the possibility of tomorrow.
Somewhere along the line people started to think that SS would and should pay for your car, house, cable bill...where did this idea come from?
My point being that the first step in Social Security Reform is to educate people on what SS is meant to do. I think there are alot of misconceptions out there as to how the system works and that is where most of your resistance to change and the whole steal from the rich give to the poor mentality comes from.
Did any of that make sense??? Oh well, I'll post it anyway...
Somewhere along the line people started to think that SS would and should pay for your car, house, cable bill...where did this idea come from?
My point being that the first step in Social Security Reform is to educate people on what SS is meant to do. I think there are alot of misconceptions out there as to how the system works and that is where most of your resistance to change and the whole steal from the rich give to the poor mentality comes from.
Did any of that make sense??? Oh well, I'll post it anyway...
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
It will only make sense to the people that are sensible.FreeFaller said:
Look, you made great points but you have to understand that we have to overcome the disinformation crowd that is the media and the vast portion of what is now considered the Democratic Party. They are the country's great lie.:Bang
They do not want the common man to better his life because if that were to happen, there would be no purpose in life for people like Nancy Pelosi, Edward Kennedy and Hillary Clinton, much less people like Dan Rathernot and Michael Moron.
And if you are a young gun, my advice would be for you to step up into the higher risk stuff. You have plenty of time to recover if things go bad. But don't get me wrong, slow and steady usually wins the race.
On a lighter note, it is good to see Hillary as the frontrunner with 40% for the Dem nomination.