How to Deal with Social Security

[chaplainson]

The 2007 budget total is about 2.77 trillion dollars, of which 581 Bil dollars is spent on Social Security. That's 21% of the budget, and that goes up every year. (whitehouse.gov/omb/budget)

My solution would be to find a way to replace the current program with one that doesn't rely on todays workforce to pay for today's retired.

Other solutions are to raise the Social Security Tax, lower benefits, and others, but these really just delay the inevitable fact that Social Security is a huge drain on resources.

I realize that the program was enacted during the Great Depression in order to help the disabled and elderly. It is a great program that has worked very well for many years, but with todays people living longer, the program is falling apart.

What do you think is a solution to this problem? Should Social Security be ended because of the problems that will arise by trying to end it or modify it in fifteen to twenty years when benefits outweigh taxes taken in?

[SoylentGreen]

There are those who cannot assist themselves, the elderly, the mentally and physically sick people, single mothers and unemployed.
Those who live below the poverty line will all ways be there and they can either be given assistance or left to rot.
Left to themselves they create social problems, like slums and crime.
Families under financial distress break apart, there is abuse and children grow up learning that a gun and belonging to a gang is there only choice.
So then the tax dollar gets spent on building more prisons and more police and emergrncy services to deal with it.

It would be better to spend the tax dollar on welfare. But not just as a hand out that is futile and accomplishes nothing.
It should be welfare with a purpose such as giving better education and creation of jobs that give people a chance to improve their situation.
Suitable housing so they don't have to live on the street and affordable legal defence to help empower them against injustice .
We can ignore them and throw them in jail when they become a nuisance or we assist them to get out of the poverty trap. Either way the tax dollar gets spent.
In the long run to assist them will reduce the number of those below the poverty line and increase the number who pay taxes. And that is what will create a better and safer society for all of us.

[chaplainson]

I agress Soylent that a different type of welfare would be more beneficial as a whole to this country. Social Security is doing it's job of keeping elderly out of the poverty level, but they've gone to work, and really they should be responsible enough to save for their own future, and the money spent, as you said, helping those in poverty to get out of it so that they can help themselves when they retire in the future.

[Mozart1220]

Quote by: chaplainson The 2007 budget total is about 2.77 trillion dollars, of which 581 Bil dollars is spent on Social Security. That's 21% of the budget, and that goes up every year. (whitehouse.gov/omb/budget) My solution would be to find a way to replace the current program with one that doesn't rely on todays workforce to pay for today's retired. Other solutions are to raise the Social Security Tax, lower benefits, and others, but these really just delay the inevitable fact that Social Security is a huge drain on resources. I realize that the program was enacted during the Great Depression in order to help the disabled and elderly. It is a great program that has worked very well for many years, but with todays people living longer, the program is falling apart. What do you think is a solution to this problem? Should Social Security be ended because of the problems that will arise by trying to end it or modify it in fifteen to twenty years when benefits outweigh taxes taken in?

Maybe we should stop the government from stealing from the trust fund, and SS would be alot better off.

[chaplainson]

Maybe we should stop the government from staeling from the trust fund, and SS would be alot better off.

Here's the strange and ironic truth about Social Security's Trust Fund. It's all government money anyway. The Trust fund would get spent doing something for the government, because you know the governmnet isn't going to take extra dollars and put them in a bank account to gain interest, they spend the money on something else and then "owe" the trust fund their money back. But the money comes back from the government, so technichally the government owes the value fund lots of money, so SS won't really go bust until i think 35 years from now, but once it starts to go negative is when it goes down the drain, because if the government has to pay back the value fund, they'll just borrow from someone else.

[SoylentGreen]

Saving for your future isn't all that easy. There are a lot of people who have jobs that only pay minimal wage and these jobs are necceassary.
Like those who care the disabled and cleaning jobs.
With that kind of income you can barely cope with day to day survival let alone save.
Then you get the woman who marries with all the expectations and promises of a good life only to have the bastard skip out after a few kids have been born and she is stuck with the responsibility of raising them.
The best part of her working life is gone and by the time the expense of raising the kids is over she is considered to old and to out of touch or experience to get a decent paying job.
Not every one can afford to save and if they were paid enough to save no one would be able to afford to give them jobs.
But now we have better medicines and more active older people who are lasting longer and can do much more than just retire. So perhaps we should be looking at differnt ways of treating our elderly and not just retiring them when they reach a certain age.

[SoylentGreen]

The government can't be trusted to save for you its just not where there priority is.
There should be schemes where people can save for themselves.
Say 1 to 5% of your wages go into a bank saving scheme which is then topped up by an equal amount by your employer.
And the employer should pay this on a compulsory basis after all it is your life and energy that you are putting into making their business profitable.
And the government should also put into the savings through a tax break for those who choose to enter into the scheme.
That gives people an incentive to save and in the long run is a better way to spend the tax dollar.
It does have the problem though in that employers will say its a pay rise for the worker and those on low income will still find it difficult to save.

[Zeebadee]

You all seem to forget one thing: The money in SS is mine. My wages have been reduced by the amount of my employers contribution, and I have been taxed for years to pay into this Ponzi scheme. All I'd really like to have is my own money back. The vote-buying politicians have opened up payouts for all kinds of things SS was never intended to pay for. Just give me back my money, never mind checks every month until I die.

Of course, you realize that the government has no legal obligation to pay you a single dollar of all that they have stolen from you, right? They can change the system and keep ALL your money if they want, and there's nothing you could do about it.

[Heather]

Quote by: SoylentGreen The government can't be trusted to save for you its just not where there priority is. There should be schemes where people can save for themselves. Say 1 to 5% of your wages go into a bank saving scheme which is then topped up by an equal amount by your employer. And the employer should pay this on a compulsory basis after all it is your life and energy that you are putting into making their business profitable. And the government should also put into the savings through a tax break for those who choose to enter into the scheme. That gives people an incentive to save and in the long run is a better way to spend the tax dollar. It does have the problem though in that employers will say its a pay rise for the worker and those on low income will still find it difficult to save.

Roth IRA's are designed with something like what you've mentioned in mind. Employers do not contribute to it, however, every American citizen below X amount of income (I forgot the exact number) can have one. There are advantages as well with a Roth IRA to help these lower income people get on their feet, such as interest free home loans, borrowing against your initial contributions without penalty, etc.

[Klio]

Quote by: chaplainson The 2007 budget total is about 2.77 trillion dollars, of which 581 Bil dollars is spent on Social Security. That's 21% of the budget, and that goes up every year. (whitehouse.gov/omb/budget) My solution would be to find a way to replace the current program with one that doesn't rely on todays workforce to pay for today's retired. Other solutions are to raise the Social Security Tax, lower benefits, and others, but these really just delay the inevitable fact that Social Security is a huge drain on resources. I realize that the program was enacted during the Great Depression in order to help the disabled and elderly. It is a great program that has worked very well for many years, but with todays people living longer, the program is falling apart. What do you think is a solution to this problem? Should Social Security be ended because of the problems that will arise by trying to end it or modify it in fifteen to twenty years when benefits outweigh taxes taken in?

If the government would keep their sticky fingers off it, it would be all right.

Social Security is not welfare and it's not a handout. That was earned money, and they should do the same thing with that money that the CEOs of the big corporations do, so it would increase in value, and then they should leave it the hell alone, for the people who earned the money in the first place.

[Mozart1220]

Quote by: chaplainson Here's the strange and ironic truth about Social Security's Trust Fund. It's all government money anyway. The Trust fund would get spent doing something for the government, because you know the governmnet isn't going to take extra dollars and put them in a bank account to gain interest, they spend the money on something else and then "owe" the trust fund their money back. But the money comes back from the government, so technichally the government owes the value fund lots of money, so SS won't really go bust until i think 35 years from now, but once it starts to go negative is when it goes down the drain, because if the government has to pay back the value fund, they'll just borrow from someone else.

If you take something and don't give it back, it's STEALING. Reagan "borrowed" from the trust fund, and promised to pay it back "when we've balanced the budget".

We all know how THAT went don't we?

Now they want to take it and invest it in the stock market. great. Enron on a national level.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: chaplainson Here's the strange and ironic truth about Social Security's Trust Fund. It's all government money anyway.

Here's the strange and ironic truth about that: No it isn't.

All working people contribute to SS, it doesn't come from the government. We deposit a percentage of our wages directly into it. Our wages are lowered by the amount that our employers contribute to the system. It isn't "government money" at all, it's our own money supposedly held in trust by the government. Yeah, sure, we can trust the government, can't we??

[Mozart1220]

And there is a reason it's called a "trust fund"

IT ISN'T TO BE USED FOR ANYTHING BUT SOCIAL SECURITY.

[chaplainson]

I agree with Soylent that not all people can save for their future, however all people are required to pay into SS. i think the number is 7%. SS WAS a good program, but now it's just falling apart as benefits are rising quickly.

All working people contribute to SS, it doesn't come from the government

Misunderstanding, I know that SS is all the workers money paying the retired now, but the extra "goes into a trust fund" that the government controls, so at that point it's "their money," in other words they're handling it, and then borrowing from themelves, and then they'll pay back themselves, and the debt will rise, just not from SS but from paying back SS, which means that it will be SS problem.

There are advantages as well with a Roth IRA to help these lower income people get on their feet, such as interest free home loans, borrowing against your initial contributions without penalty

It's for this reason that I think a new system should be put into effect, where instead of the workers now are paying for the retired now, you force the workers to put a certain percentage of their paycheck (We put 7% into SS, so if we made it equal, they would have the same money now as before) into a Roth IRA type account, which they would not be allowed to touch until they retire. At that time, the government, who hasn't touched the account, because it's not theirs, would turn over the keys to the worker, who can see exactly how much money he/she has, and there you go, the government has no liability.

I have a slightly more in depth system in mind, if anyone wants me to take the time to write it out I will.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: chaplainson I agree with Soylent that not all people can save for their future, however all people are required to pay into SS. i think the number is 7%. SS WAS a good program, but now it's just falling apart as benefits are rising quickly.

The contributions are 15.3%, 7.65% from the employee and 7.65% from the employer. I think it's fair to say that the employer contributions are really deducted from wages, so in effect all contributions are from the employee.

Quote by: chaplainson Misunderstanding, I know that SS is all the workers money paying the retired now, but the extra "goes into a trust fund" that the government controls, so at that point it's "their money," in other words they're handling it, and then borrowing from themelves, and then they'll pay back themselves, and the debt will rise, just not from SS but from paying back SS, which means that it will be SS problem.

The misunderstanding is yours. It isn't "their money", it's ours, deducted directly from our paychecks. "Trust fund" means that they hold it in trust for us, it doesn't mean it becomes their money. I control some of my bosses money, I don't think he'll agree that it becomes mine, or that I can decide to "borrow" it whenever I want. The government isn't "borrowing" the money from themselves, they are stealing it from us. They take our money and replace it with sub-par interest rate bonds, and pay it back with devalued dollars later, if at all.

[xyzer]

Hey guys there is no "trust fund". That 'inconvenient truth' came out of the global warming fanatic,Gores, mouth. It's no more than an obligation to pay you out of the general fund when you retire. The federal money machine is nothing more than a big system of incoming tax dollars offset by direct payments and IOUs. Social Security payments are both.

I read that when it was conceived it took contributions from some 30 people to eventually pay off one retiree. It is now down to something like 5 contributors. With baby boomers coming closer to retirement it's soon going to be in the red.
Solutions? Raise the contribution percentages. Allow contributors to use some of their contributions for private investment.(zee touches on that) Devise a new system.

What has been done in the past few years, by a cowardly do nothing Congress, is nothing. I also fault Bush. He didn't push hard enough for reform. Nor did Clinton.
It is an important issue and demonstrates how inefficient our congress has become. They seem more interesteed in the Iraq War than they are in solving our internal problems?

[Mozart1220]

RossPerot(who should have been president) said that if we took the money we put into Social Security, and put it in a regular bank account, unable to be touched until retirement, we could get back as much as five times the amount the government allows us.

I don't trust the stock market, especially since it's run by money grubbing corporate thieves. Bank accounts scare me too, but not nearly as much.