Greenspan throws hot SS potato
Alan Greenspan suggests indexing the Social Security eligibility rules to life expentancy and using a different COLA rate. Everyone avoids it like the plague.
This has to play into the conspiratorial "starve-the-beast" theory of Republicans gutting the gov't entitlement programs, I can almost believe it myself, almost. How can it not with AG suggesting that future gov't deficits - Republican presidents have had budget deficits every single year but 1 for the last 16 years of rule - will need to be controlled in some way, and a way to do it would be to restructure Medicare and Social Security programs. He can't even bring himself to say that increasing taxes is another good way to do it.
But the two suggestions, raising the eligibility rules and COLA increase rates, should at least be in play. I think it make sense to raise eligibility rules in accordance with life expectancy. For the COLA rates, I only think they should be fair but don't know what fair is as of yet. Instead all the politicians don't have any guts to talk about them in a favorable way.
There will be a time that something has to be done. When that sometime arrives, it's sure to be a doubly costly and inefficienct solution... sigh.
This has to play into the conspiratorial "starve-the-beast" theory of Republicans gutting the gov't entitlement programs, I can almost believe it myself, almost. How can it not with AG suggesting that future gov't deficits - Republican presidents have had budget deficits every single year but 1 for the last 16 years of rule - will need to be controlled in some way, and a way to do it would be to restructure Medicare and Social Security programs. He can't even bring himself to say that increasing taxes is another good way to do it.
But the two suggestions, raising the eligibility rules and COLA increase rates, should at least be in play. I think it make sense to raise eligibility rules in accordance with life expectancy. For the COLA rates, I only think they should be fair but don't know what fair is as of yet. Instead all the politicians don't have any guts to talk about them in a favorable way.
There will be a time that something has to be done. When that sometime arrives, it's sure to be a doubly costly and inefficienct solution... sigh.
Comments
Originally posted by HOM
I for one don't expect SS to be around when I retire in 40 years. Does anybody under 50 really think they are getting a piece of the pie? SS is the largest pyramid scam of all time. Let's see, I pay a bunch of money now in the hopes that 60 years later I'll get a lot more then I put in.
You mean as #487872389239 down the pyramid, I might not get my $500 2x2000 MHz Power Mac G5?
Originally posted by HOM
I for one don't expect SS to be around when I retire in 40 years. Does anybody under 50 really think they are getting a piece of the pie? SS is the largest pyramid scam of all time. Let's see, I pay a bunch of money now in the hopes that 60 years later I'll get a lot more then I put in.
You know this is a pyramid scheme that would actually work assuming the country continues to grow.
At any rate, the coffers of the SS fund are raided yearly anyway...
Originally posted by billybobsky
You know this is a pyramid scheme that would actually work assuming the country continues to grow.
At any rate, the coffers of the SS fund are raided yearly anyway...
There really are no "coffers". And Cosmo is right...it was never intended to become what it has. The problem is that now our population is addicted to it, and I'm not sure it could ever be ended.
As far as benefits, you can bet on this: If people are denied benefits in the future, there is going to massive outrage, lawsuits and general chaos. What we need to do is fix the system by funding it differently (national sales tax or other alternative).
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/28/politics/28BUDG.html
President Bush's new tax and spending plan would produce deficits of $2.75 trillion over the next 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office reported Friday in the first detailed analysis of the White House budget.
If there were no changes in taxes and if spending increased only at the rate of inflation, the deficit would be about $2 trillion over the next 10 years, the budget office reported today. But the new estimate is $737 billion higher, primarily reflecting Mr. Bush's desire to make permanent the tax cuts due to expire by 2011.
Three years ago, the budget office forecast budget surpluses totaling $5.6 trillion for the 10-year period ending in 2011.
But we know how unimportant numbers are to Bush...
Basically, everyone would have their own "accounts", and it would be mandatory to put a certain amount of money in.
Then the money would be invested in a semi-conservative way and interest added to your account.
Each day, if you'd like, you could fire up your web browser and go see how much money you have waiting for your retirement. If you died without getting all that is yours, it would still be your property, so you could name a person in your testament to receive it.
Needless to say, it would not be possible for the government to put their hand in that coffer. Rising population, medical costs, whatever are a non-issue with this method.
Originally posted by Gon
I think there really should be a "Social Security coffer".
Basically, everyone would have their own "accounts", and it would be mandatory to put a certain amount of money in.
Then the money would be invested in a semi-conservative way and interest added to your account.
Each day, if you'd like, you could fire up your web browser and go see how much money you have waiting for your retirement. If you died without getting all that is yours, it would still be your property, so you could name a person in your testament to receive it.
Needless to say, it would not be possible for the government to put their hand in that coffer. Rising population, medical costs, whatever are a non-issue with this method.
Than why not have a private system? Why does the government need to tell me how much money I need to save. Actually, with being a teacher...I already have to contribute 7.5% of my salary as is. Granted, my benefit is going to be great when I retire...but I should also be forced to pay into the federal system?
Originally posted by chu_bakka
http://www.cafeshops.com/atrioshorse...?zoom=yes#zoom
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/28/politics/28BUDG.html
President Bush's new tax and spending plan would produce deficits of $2.75 trillion over the next 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office reported Friday in the first detailed analysis of the White House budget.
If there were no changes in taxes and if spending increased only at the rate of inflation, the deficit would be about $2 trillion over the next 10 years, the budget office reported today. But the new estimate is $737 billion higher, primarily reflecting Mr. Bush's desire to make permanent the tax cuts due to expire by 2011.
Three years ago, the budget office forecast budget surpluses totaling $5.6 trillion for the 10-year period ending in 2011.
But we know how unimportant numbers are to Bush...
The problem with that thinking is that revenue will not stay constant. When Reagan cuts taxes, revenue doubled over about 8 years, even though the rates went down. Secondly, this is a prediction, not fact. I agree that we need to get spending under control. However, the tax cuts aren't the problem. If anything, those cuts prevented a deeper and longer recession. SPENDING is the problem, and that is one major criticism I have of Bush.
Originally posted by SDW2001
There really are no "coffers". And Cosmo is right...it was never intended to become what it has. The problem is that now our population is addicted to it, and I'm not sure it could ever be ended.
As far as benefits, you can bet on this: If people are denied benefits in the future, there is going to massive outrage, lawsuits and general chaos. What we need to do is fix the system by funding it differently (national sales tax or other alternative).
Listen SDW ( and I speak from some authority here since my mom worked for SS for 25 years ) I was told by my mom when I was 18 that it was rotten from the core out ( even then ) so don't depend on it when you're of eligible age because it probably won't be around. That's 15 years from now.
So it was screwed back then. This latest thing by Greenspan is just another log on the fire. SS funds have been diverted almost regularly to other things. That's why it doesn't work anymore.
Another article about the "free-Lunch" SS personal accounts myth.
SDW... we're in a hole because of Bush's tax cuts... it's that simple.
And yeah we know what the alterior motive of tax cuts are... starve the beast. But the beast isn't discretionary spending... it's healthcare, SS and the Defense budget. Which Bush has no idea how to or any intention of really touching in any constructive way.
So while most 1st world nations have solid healthcare systems, modern public transportation and retirement systems... we get over priced drugs, $2000 MRI's, our retirees dying lonely and neglected and the Comanche Helicopter.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
Social Security was NEVER meant to be what it's become. It was originally intended to be a SUPPLEMENT to the retirement that workers already planned for themselves. Too many people now use that as their sole source of income, which is just flat wrong.
Do you have any evidence that this is true? My understanding is that more people today are saving for retirement with their 401Ks and such than ever before.
So hate Bush all you want but fixing the system has nothing to do with increasing taxes or getting someone new in the White House. Unless that new person will take on the Democrats scare tactics get SS reformed for real.
Originally posted by Scott
What the Bush Haters don't get is that the problem with SS has nothing to do with tax cuts or spending or anything to do with the budget. The problem is a system that relies on current taxes to pay for retirement of a large section of the population. Now that the boomers are ready to retire we don't have enough wage earners to pay for their retirement.
So hate Bush all you want but fixing the system has nothing to do with increasing taxes or getting someone new in the White House. Unless that new person will take on the Democrats scare tactics get SS reformed for real.
Exactly.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/mov...es/000379.html
Another article about the "free-Lunch" SS personal accounts myth.
SDW... we're in a hole because of Bush's tax cuts... it's that simple.
And yeah we know what the alterior motive of tax cuts are... starve the beast. But the beast isn't discretionary spending... it's healthcare, SS and the Defense budget. Which Bush has no idea how to or any intention of really touching in any constructive way.
So while most 1st world nations have solid healthcare systems, modern public transportation and retirement systems... we get over priced drugs, $2000 MRI's, our retirees dying lonely and neglected and the Comanche Helicopter.
Oh my god. This is really how you see the world, isn't it? Our healthcare system is the finest on the world. People from EVERYWHERE on the planet come here to get medical treatment. Oh, sure...it's horribly expensive and it needs to be fixed in many places, but don't paint it as some kind of third-world system.
As for public transit, fine, we don't have it. But, for one thing....this nation is geographically much, much larger. It's not really feasible, especially when factoring in the rather independent American lifestyle. And by the way, have you seen the taxes in those other nations? Taxes are utterly absurd...over 50% on many cases. They're socialized democracies.
Finally...your "lonely dying" retiree comment is very telling of your absurd liberal mindset. It is NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S responsibilty to provide people with a retirement. The whole concept of retirement is relatively new anyway....it shouldn't be something that is just accepted and expected. No one has a right to retire. Those who save and work and plan should retire...not every Joe Blow who happens to think he deserves it.
Just thought I would throw that out there and see if anyone actually reads these posts.
To fix the system requires a massive overhaul of its monetary resources. Privatizing the system will not work simply because the boom bust cycle of business is not necessarily conducive to maintaining the health of retired persons. There needs to be a buffer and if the federal government still maintains a recommended age of retirement it needs to provide for the eventuality of people being forced to retire without the monetary resources to support themselves... otherwise the entire concept of SS is trash... (although it can be said that most societies have methods for caring for its elders...)
Originally posted by billybobsky
I never said it was Bush's tax cuts that were doing SS in and while I may be styled a bush-hater (its a badge of honor you know), I think everyone here would agree that the problem with SS lies with the retiring boomers and in about twenty years the retiring boomlet will be the common cause of woes. The system was designed on the principle that the population would always increase at a rate such that it could afford to put out to pasteur the retiring seniors but many factors have contributed to this system failing not the least of which is the astounding increase in life expectancy. So unless we start eating our seniors we are all screwed....
Just thought I would throw that out there and see if anyone actually reads these posts.
To fix the system requires a massive overhaul of its monetary resources. Privatizing the system will not work simply because the boom bust cycle of business is not necessarily conducive to maintaining the health of retired persons. There needs to be a buffer and if the federal government still maintains a recommended age of retirement it needs to provide for the eventuality of people being forced to retire without the monetary resources to support themselves... otherwise the entire concept of SS is trash... (although it can be said that most societies have methods for caring for its elders...)
Well I read your post...including the "eating seniors" part.
It's not about elder care. It's about guaranteed retirement being bullshit to begin with. We should only support those who cannot physically and/or mentally provide for themselves. Social Security should be a much smaller program used by those who are truly in need. It shouldn't take 12% in payroll taxes and pay a shitty benefit at what will be at least age 70 for people like me.
That being said, the program will probably continue to be structured as it is b/c so many are dependent on it. So, we need to fund it differently. What do you guys think of the national sales tax idea? We could replace payroll taxes completely, giving employees and immediate raise which would be taxed when they buy goods....which in itself would stimulate the economy. Thoughts?
The problem with using a sales tax (and perhaps in some respects its benefit) is that it disconnects the money going into social security from the money earned by people. Yet so many people avoid paying the wage tax that wouldnt be able to avoid paying a sales tax...
Edit: BTW, I have yet to see whether a dollar spent by the government is less effective in stimulating the economy than a dollar spent by a consumer. While there is the argument of choice involved (and this is where I find sticky arguments on both sides -- i tend to think that the market is a horrible system for securing things that are of benefit to people in general and not as individuals...), the argument of economic value of a government's dollar and a person's dollar hasn't been fully evaluated and in all honesty it probably doesn't make a difference who spends the money.