Social Security (SSI)....

Social Security (SSI).... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Griswold -> Social Security (SSI).... (1/16/2008 7:13:27 PM)
http://channels.isp.netscape.com/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1131&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20080116%2F2129835147.htm&sc=1131&floc=NI-ne3 Clinton wants to raise the taxable base as does Obama. The Republicans insist everything's fine for now....and no one dares raise the age limit. Why is the age limit (when you can take Social Security) such a sacred cow? Currently you can take early SSI at age 62.....and the typical starting year is still 65 (I think for those born after 1959, it got moved to 66 or 67...I don't remember)...but you can wait longer and get more per month (I believe I heard that the benefit stops increasing at age 70). When SSI first started, the average lifespan was under 60 (so very few were even expected to get a check!!!)....today it's over 75, with many living in to their 90's. People are healthier today than then....and most people, either by choice or need...work through their late 60's or early 70's. What the heck would be so bad about moving the mandatory age from let's say 66, and moving it up one year every 2 calendar years birth date. So, for those born after 1960, your first year you could get it would be 67....for those born after 1962, age 68, those born after 1964, age 69 and those born after 1966, age 70. Kinda seems like an easy fix to me...that wouldn't truly be all that painful in the long run.

Amaros -> RE: Social Security (SSI).... (1/16/2008 7:26:58 PM)
Uh, Social security is the only government program that's in the Black - the "emergency" is that if they don't start taking in more payroll taxes they won't be able to keep borrowng from the surplus and they'll have to raise income taxes to fund the general budget which is so fucking deep in the Red now, even raising taxes to Ninties levels probobly won't make a dent for a while, particularly after Eight years of infrastructure neglect and underfunding basic research, an energy policy based on handouts to corporate campaign doners and hiring mercenaries at $800 a day to protect them, for doing... very little apparently - all while floating the economy on a sea of consumer debt - and the resulting, predictable, recessionary forces that are beginning to manifest. It's just throwing good money after bad. It's not about social security, it's about corporatist politics.

Amaros -> RE: Social Security (SSI).... (1/16/2008 7:30:47 PM)
Of course anybody responsible enough to tell you this straight up has a snowballs chance in hell of getting elected, what with the popularity of the republican free ride meme.

FangsNfeet -> RE: Social Security (SSI).... (1/16/2008 8:43:00 PM)
Fuck Social Security. It's not like it's enough for anyone to actually live off of anyways. I'd rather not pay into the damn thing. I doubt that I wouldn't even get half of what I put in after I retire. Social Security became flawed ever since the avearge life expectency jump past 65. When FDR came up with Social Security and the citizens right to collect after turning 65, the average life expectency of a male was 62. In theory, only a few of us where to live long enough to collect thus giving Uncle Sam a fat wallet.

Archer -> RE: Social Security (SSI).... (1/16/2008 8:50:58 PM)
Republicans really just want it to go ahead and fail, reach a crisis point so they can privatize it. I'm not sure I disagree with the idea of privatizing it anyway, at least then it would not be a shelll game they play with our money.

Nosathro -> RE: Social Security (SSI).... (1/16/2008 8:53:33 PM)
Actually Social Security was never intended to make retirement comfortable. It was a great political move that made FDR popular. Social Security is also not a great way to save for retirement..for every dollar they take....when you get back about 31 cents. As noted when it start the average age life ended at around 60..63 so few were able to collect. Now with people living longer and the baby boomers getting to retirement age some say out of every 10 people 7 will be retired and that make the other 3 having to work harder to continue funding Social Security.

Termyn8or -> RE: Social Security (SSI).... (1/16/2008 11:38:15 PM)
I can't believe this, but it is too late now to really respomd. Tomorrow, well that is actually today and I gotta work. So later. T

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Social Security (SSI).... (1/17/2008 1:21:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer ...at least then it would not be a shelll game they play with our money. Unless you are an investments market insider, it would still be a shell game. If it was invested via our paper money system, that's another hidden shell game. Sometimes it seems that one's more normative gains do little more than keep up with inflation, and still it is taxed as a gain. http://www.slate.com/id/2164050 [8\|] Yikes, suddenly I feel as if I was speaking like a Republican. Can't have that...!

Archer -> RE: Social Security (SSI).... (1/17/2008 5:32:17 AM)
Sorry but I'll take the 20 or 30 year average from most any reputable 401K confirmed as all mine over the miniscule payback you can expect by the time I get to the age I can collect SSI. Additionally I'll take the fact that MY money in MY account can be passed along to my family when not if I die ahead of schedule. 20 or 30 year averages for reputable 401K's have consistently outpaced inflation by considerable margins. Considering that there has only been one small section of time when 401K's on the whole were really kinda ugly. And that was short lived and the money lost was all return on investment and no principle in all but a very few cases. They ae still considered in most cases to be mostly low risk. Considering that with a 401K the taxes are only on the withdrawn amount if you are accessing it after retirement the tax consequences are minimal. Withdrawing what you need to live on would trigger no real tax consequence for most people. The Slate article shows that it's tax policy that makes savings and investment tough, 401K's and other tax defered and things like a Roth401K which is post tax investment and not taxed again except on any gains which then are taxed as a 401K defered until withdrawl assumed to be during retirement. If you took the same 14% of gross paycheck (SSI including match from employer) from the very first day of employment and mandated it to be invested in a diversified and high ranked 401K not an ESOP (the worst of the 401K types) one would have several million by the time they retired at 60 or 65.

Sanity -> RE: Social Security (SSI).... (1/17/2008 5:44:11 AM)
Yeah, quick, make some problem worse with someone else's money. You'll be feeling better in no time at all! quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro [8\|] Yikes, suddenly I feel as if I was speaking like a Republican. Can't have that...!

pahunkboy -> RE: Social Security (SSI).... (1/17/2008 6:18:37 AM)
A modest increase is needed. Also surcharge all workers of NAFTA too. and make either a means test- and or- the tax to go on all income. no cut off at 39k a year.

Amaros -> RE: Social Security (SSI).... (1/17/2008 7:24:09 AM)
Ironically, a guest worker program would have generated enough taxes to both shore up SS and tighten the border - as is, it's more money out of pocket, they still crsos the border and they're still not paying income or payroll taxes.

Amaros -> RE: Social Security (SSI).... (1/17/2008 7:27:58 AM)
Also, just because SS doesn't cover some people Green fees, doesn't mean other people don't depend on the extra income - people who have worked in service industries with sustenance wages and no benefits.

Real0ne -> RE: Social Security (SSI).... (1/17/2008 7:42:21 AM)
ya gotta make between 15 to 18% just to keep even with inflation. a lot of employers do not match anymore. Many people are having sagging 401k right now and lost everything they gained for the whole year. finally there are hidden taxes in401k's paid by the funds.

Owner59 -> RE: Social Security (SSI).... (1/17/2008 8:23:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FangsNfeet Fuck Social Security. It's not like it's enough for anyone to actually live off of anyways. I'd rather not pay into the damn thing. I doubt that I wouldn't even get half of what I put in after I retire. Social Security became flawed ever since the avearge life expectency jump past 65. When FDR came up with Social Security and the citizens right to collect after turning 65, the average life expectency of a male was 62. In theory, only a few of us where to live long enough to collect thus giving Uncle Sam a fat wallet. And if some unfortunate turn of events should take your health,money,family and home,can we leave your poor ass in the ditch,to rot? Didn`t think so..... SSI is not an investment plan.It`s an insurance policy that everyone pays into.And will pay out if you`re unable to work and would otherwise go into poverty and/or homelessness. There are millions of Americans who don`t have a 401K,or stocks or a vacation house(s).There are millions and millions of Americans,who don`t have anything.No savings,no home ownership,or assets of any kind,who live hand to mouth. The folks who want to get rid of SSI, couldn`t care less about the millions of sick/ill,disabled,and elderly,etc.,who without SSI,would be fucked.As long as they didn`t have to actually see them or hear about them,...fuck`m. They have no clue ,that they aren`t that far from the cliff`s edge themselves,and need the "safety net",just like everyone else.

Archer -> RE: Social Security (SSI).... (1/17/2008 11:02:12 AM)
I have no problem with a safety net, I have problems with the way the government manages the safety net's finances more than anything else. Had they taken and held the funds in anything other than Government Bonds (T-bills etc) then the government couldn't have spent the money and it would be there and solvent for many more decades. The General Fund owes the SSI billions of dollars. I have yet to figure out how they even could pay it back. If any Insurance company had done the same thing with the money that the Government has done the corporate officers would all be in jail. Owner59 note that The proposal of privatized accounts I mentioned mandates the same amount of savings that social security mandates now as an insurance premium. So it's not about leaving folks with nothing it's about the fact that social security is going insolvent and will need to be replaced anyway at some point. Privatized accounts with mandated witholding would cost folks the same it costs them now and guarantee they will get something more than what they can expect from social security after 2025. The SSI system is all but bankrupt (with blame to spread around on both parties). The question is what are we gonna do to replace it?

mrbob726 -> RE: Social Security (SSI).... (1/17/2008 11:31:36 AM)
Whichever party is in charge at the moment, has always considered the SSI funds as their private bail-out for the budget. That being said, I'm living on SSI and distributions from my IRA's - the combination isn't bad - I couldn't survive on either alone. I agree that private investment would be better in the long run, if they could phase it in gradually. I wish I had right now what my and my employers SSI contributions would have earned if they had been invested in private funds.

Griswold -> RE: Social Security (SSI).... (1/17/2008 5:42:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy A modest increase is needed. Also surcharge all workers of NAFTA too. and make either a means test- and or- the tax to go on all income. no cut off at 39k a year. Huh?

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625