If we privatize social security

AbuskedtiAbuskedti Posts: 1,917
edited January 2008 in A Moving Train
it will provide an enormous boost to the economy

it is a relatively short term fix.. and bad for the elderly..... but we are a short term nation...

there are not many things that will save this economy - Social Security is a huge resource!

of course that will require some tax increase since the govt has gotten accustomed to spending social security revenue on wars and such.
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • Pacomc79Pacomc79 Posts: 9,404
    Abuskedti wrote:
    it will provide an enormous boost to the economy

    it is a relatively short term fix.. and bad for the elderly..... but we are a short term nation...

    there are not many things that will save this economy - Social Security is a huge resource!

    of course that will require some tax increase since the govt has gotten accustomed to spending social security revenue on wars and such.


    Well said, there is a giant hole right now where all that money is supposed to be. It should be doing nothing but earning interest instead it's being used as soon as it comes in just like another tax.

    It'd make a lot of sense either to let an investment group do it or to let people invest thier own money. Imagine just having to dump that portion of a paycheck into a high yield savings account that you couldn't access until a certain age then you could choose to get it all then or annuitize payments (and if you died before that time it would be given back to your family) The problem of course is again irresponsible people would burn though it quickly and screw themselves.

    It would put a ton of money back into the economy and it would also increase the deficit in the short term. The next president is going to have to force a balanced budget (perhaps consider an amendment forcing a balanced budget) and start using any surplus to pay down the deficit.
    My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
  • NewJPageNewJPage Posts: 3,311
    why is social security only taxed up to $88,000 of someone's income? can anyone explain this to me?
    6/26/98, 8/17/00, 10/8/00, 12/8/02, 12/9/02, 4/25/03, 5/28/03, 6/1/03, 6/3/03, 6/5/03, 6/6/03, 6/12/03, 6/13/03, 6/15/03, 6/18/03, 6/21/03, 6/22/03, 7/12/03, 7/14/03, 10/3/04, 10/5/04, 9/9/05, 9/11/05, 9/16/05, 5/16/06, 5/17/06, 5/19/06, 6/30/06, 7/23/06, 8/5/07, 6/30/08, 8/23/09, 8/24/09, 5/4/10, 5/7/10, 9/3/11, 9/4/11, 10/11/13, 10/17/14, 8/20/16
  • jeffbrjeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    NewJPage wrote:
    why is social security only taxed up to $88,000 of someone's income? can anyone explain this to me?


    Why is the government in charge of mismanaging retirement funds at all?

    To answer your question, it is because the amt paid in social security benefits are capped as well. Someone making 400,000/yr isn't going to be receiving a $20,000/mo social security check.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    The Social Security fund should have more money in it than any gov't program.

    Almost every singly working American pays money into this fund every single paycheck. Think about how enormous this fund is.

    And this reminds me of what I heard a few days ago..

    President Reagan set an arbitrary cap on the anount of SS claims...like 20% or some random percentage, were going to be denied. The one thing George Bush part 1 did was to go back and pay out all those claims that had been unpaid for 10 years...and guess what-there was enough money in the fund to pay 10 years of unanswered claims and pay the current ones.

    The case workers didn't get caught up until 2000, but the money was there and is there. The idea that social security is going bankrupt is absurd-the money is going somewhere...probably paying off the countries massive debt.
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    NewJPage wrote:
    why is social security only taxed up to $88,000 of someone's income? can anyone explain this to me?


    Good question, it makes it a regressive tax, and 1 that gets the highest percentage of lower and middle class taxes.

    So basically the american taxation system is regressive, those who have more pay less.
  • jeffbrjeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    Commy wrote:
    Good question, it makes it a regressive tax, and 1 that gets the highest percentage of lower and middle class taxes.

    So basically the american taxation system is regressive, those who have more pay less.

    There is a cap on both sides of the equation, both incoming and outgoing. And this isn't supposed to be a tax. It is a coerced contribution to a retirement fund.

    Someone earning a higher salary while working is going to have more money in retirement, whether publicly or privately funded. Put more in, get more out. That's the way any retirement plan (social security, 401k, under the mattress, gold coins) works.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • AbuskedtiAbuskedti Posts: 1,917
    Commy wrote:
    The Social Security fund should have more money in it than any gov't program.

    Almost every singly working American pays money into this fund every single paycheck. Think about how enormous this fund is.

    And this reminds me of what I heard a few days ago..

    President Reagan set an arbitrary cap on the anount of SS claims...like 20% or some random percentage, were going to be denied. The one thing George Bush part 1 did was to go back and pay out all those claims that had been unpaid for 10 years...and guess what-there was enough money in the fund to pay 10 years of unanswered claims and pay the current ones.

    The case workers didn't get caught up until 2000, but the money was there and is there. The idea that social security is going bankrupt is absurd-the money is going somewhere...probably paying off the countries massive debt.

    We do not save any of that money.. every year it is spent on defense etc.. .as soon as the payouts are larger than revenue our government is left with the problem of how to pay it back..
  • The majority of SS payments today go to pay SS claims today. So the money that should be invested for us goes straight out. That's where the fear comes in, where will our payments come from? As the relative population of elderly grows the income flows from the working generation won't cover our needs.

    That money also gets pilfered for wars and other government "needs" but I do believe the majority does at least stay within social security.
    When Jesus said "Love your enemies" he probably didn't mean kill them...

    "Sometimes I think I'd be better off dead. No, wait, not me, you." -Deep Toughts, Jack Handy
  • AbuskedtiAbuskedti Posts: 1,917
    SilverSeed wrote:
    The majority of SS payments today go to pay SS claims today. So the money that should be invested for us goes straight out. That's where the fear comes in, where will our payments come from? As the relative population of elderly grows the income flows from the working generation won't cover our needs.

    That money also gets pilfered for wars and other government "needs" but I do believe the majority does at least stay within social security.

    now that is closer to evened out - the majority goes to social security..

    but for the early years - when people paid in and nothing was paid out...

    that was all spent on other government priorities.
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    jeffbr wrote:
    There is a cap on both sides of the equation, both incoming and outgoing. And this isn't supposed to be a tax. It is a coerced contribution to a retirement fund.

    Someone earning a higher salary while working is going to have more money in retirement, whether publicly or privately funded. Put more in, get more out. That's the way any retirement plan (social security, 401k, under the mattress, gold coins) works.



    Coerced contibution to a retirement fund...mm. It is way more than that. Without social security we would have millions more homeless wandering the streets, millions of people in need going without care. You can say get a job, but many of these people have tried, many times, and simply cannot function in a work environment. And some are too old it is a retirement fund as well. But google schizophrenia, imo.

    As for it being bankrupt, that is bullshit. "The program has an “extremely solid” base that will provide benefits until 2037, even under the “pessimistic” assumptions of a 1.7% average annual growth rate to estimate the projections...". According to a Nader site.

    Taking 1$ from someone with 5$ hurts more than taking 1$ from a guy with 10$. Which is what the social security tax does. It is regressive, as are most taxes..sales, property...to name a few.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Abuskedti wrote:
    it will provide an enormous boost to the economy

    it is a relatively short term fix.. and bad for the elderly..... but we are a short term nation...

    there are not many things that will save this economy - Social Security is a huge resource!

    of course that will require some tax increase since the govt has gotten accustomed to spending social security revenue on wars and such.

    I think privatizing SS is a great idea. raising taxes is not. (spending needs to stop)
  • they need to just do away with Social Security all together. If you can't be responsible with your money all your life and have things paid for by the time you get old....you'll learn by being homeless in your golden years. Problem solved!
    "It's all happening"
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    they need to just do away with Social Security all together. If you can't be responsible with your money all your life and have things paid for by the time you get old....you'll learn by being homeless in your golden years. Problem solved!
    Except its more than a retirement fund. And with the classs war going on its nearly impossible for the lower class to save. But other than that..
  • Commy wrote:
    Except its more than a retirement fund. And with the classs war going on its nearly impossible for the lower class to save. But other than that..

    maybe that will wake the lower class up, and get them to the election polls.
    "It's all happening"
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 17,117
    NewJPage wrote:
    why is social security only taxed up to $88,000 of someone's income? can anyone explain this to me?

    $96,500 is actually the cap...



    the real reason is americans are collectively dumb... the entire tax code is tilted towards the wealthy... it is blatant... and we just keep swallowing it down

    obama and edwards are the only 2 major candidates that have openly said they would raise the cap... because it is a no branier on how to fix the system, and make the SS tax fair and progressive

    it is a crime that I pay basicaly the same amount into social security as Bill Gates and Alex Rodriguez


    in a democracy, you get the leadership you deserve
  • AbuskedtiAbuskedti Posts: 1,917
    jlew24asu wrote:
    I think privatizing SS is a great idea. raising taxes is not. (spending needs to stop)

    very conservative of you.... so if we privatize social security right now.. how will you honor the committment to those that have had social security withheld for the last 100 years without social security revenue?
  • Abuskedti wrote:
    very conservative of you.... so if we privatize social security right now.. how will you honor the committment to those that have had social security withheld for the last 100 years without social security revenue?


    you can't enforce it the next business day. You have to give people some notice and time to prepare for it. Say cap off people 35 and under so they have time to build up their accounts for when they retire.
    "It's all happening"
  • AbuskedtiAbuskedti Posts: 1,917
    you can't enforce it the next business day. You have to give people some notice and time to prepare for it. Say cap off people 35 and under so they have time to build up their accounts for when they retire.

    we are close to the point where revenues are equal to benefits payable. We can not stop paying benefits - so if people under 35 stop paying into social security, that money will have to be replaced somehow.
  • Abuskedti wrote:
    we are close to the point where revenues are equal to benefits payable. We can not stop paying benefits - so if people under 35 stop paying into social security, that money will have to be replaced somehow.

    fund that instead of a pointless war, perhaps?
    "It's all happening"
  • fanch75fanch75 Posts: 3,734
    NewJPage wrote:
    why is social security only taxed up to $88,000 of someone's income? can anyone explain this to me?

    I believe it's $90k for 2008 (not that it's that big of a difference). However, an earner only gets benefits up to that cap of $90k....benefits earned later are based on that maximum, not the $150k or $1 million or whatever that earner actually makes.
    Do you remember Rock & Roll Radio?
Sign In or Register to comment.