RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF banner

Which side of the social security debate do you fall on?

  • There is nothing wrong with the social security system, it is all part of a vast right wing conspira

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • On its current path, I don't expect social security to be there for me when I retire, if I could tak

    Votes: 0 0.0%
1 - 20 of 50 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Attempting an unscientific survey regarding social security. Don't wish for this to turn into a political fight, just a random sampling of folks opinions regarding the best options for the future of their social security.

If you feel so inclined, include in your response whether you currently or will soon collect or if you have a way to go to collect.

Rich
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
220 Posts
Ranger,
Need one more category - "I'm so confused, and frankly ignorant, about the in's and out's of SS and private investing that I don't know what to think."

But I'm pretty sure I won't be getting much, if any, SS when I retire (I'm 32). That's why I married a rich man. :shock: :wink: :lol:
Tina
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
892 Posts
If you really dig into the facts on this issue, both sides are putting up lots of smoke screens. This is a non-partisan issue that really needs the facts looked at.

1. SS is never guarenteed.
2. It isn't going bankrupt, they will just run out of surplus in 2042. In otherwords, they will start using what is being put into it instead of loaning the $$ to other departments.
3. If they do privatize a portion of it, they will actually loan you money out of your SS account for private investment. That money will have to be returned and you will only get and additional amount of money for retirement on the additional profits your private account makes over if the money it would have made staying in the SS account. Also the private account thing takes away a big piggy bank for loans to other government agencies that would blow it.

There are probably lots of other facts I am overlooking. Don't believe anything on this issue that a politician says, it is too important. This isn't a political issue, it is a portion of our retirement. Do your own research of the facts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
892 Posts
KJB said:
Ranger,
Need one more category - "I'm so confused, and frankly ignorant, about the in's and out's of SS and private investing that I don't know what to think."

But I'm pretty sure I won't be getting much, if any, SS when I retire (I'm 32). That's why I married a rich man. :shock: :wink: :lol:
Tina
I agree, there needs to be another category. There is both a left and right wing conspiracy to confuse us of the real facts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
399 Posts
When running my retirement numbers and doing my planning I never include any $$ from SS. That way if I get any its just gravy, but I save enough in the meantime so I can live without it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,282 Posts
Mike Noel said:
When running my retirement numbers and doing my planning I never include any $$ from SS. That way if I get any its just gravy, but I save enough in the meantime so I can live without it.
That is quite noble of you Mike. BUT, in the meantime, you are paying taxes into that program, so it SHOULD be something you would want to have working correctly so you can indeed include it in your retirement plans.

My wife and I recently "crossed over" to the receiving side of the ledger, so we know it's value. There's something to be said for a "guarenteed" monthly check, or at least as close as I've ever come to a guarentee.

And regardless of how much we may have saved, there is no way short of a windfall or winning the lotto, that a 'working stiff' raising a family can set aside enough to offset the expenses of the unknown future.

Add to that a philosophy of "enjoying the journey", rather than saving everything for that unknown future, and then finding out as my parents did, the unknown included an early death and illness that didn't allow much enjoyment of what they'd sacrificed for. Plus, you may discover a hole in the checkbook, as we frequently have. So every little bit helps.

I didn't answer the poll. (seems like we are suddenly into bingeing on polls :wink: ) But anyone believing the ponzi scheme isn't in need of 'fixing', is really being misled. I have no doubt there will be enough for my wife and I, but I wouldn't give a plugged nickel for any of my kids chances of finding that program solvent when they retire.

Anyone with even a 6th grade education can understand the facts of more retirees withdrawing more funds from a drained trust of IOUs, that is being replenished by fewer workers being overly taxed to pay the receivers.

Everyone must understand there is NO trust fund with $$$$ in it...only governmental IOUs are there. Like the commercial of Mommy ripping off the kid's piggy bank, and writing an IOU, so she can pay for her gambling addiction. That's pretty much what your elected barons have succeded in doing.

So what's being proposed may not be the best solution, but if the system is left to it's own conclusion, you can bet it will go bankrupt in your lifetime.
That would mean of course the government will have had to default, and if you've not studied what happens during that sad episode of life, regardless of what you personally have saved, once it's devalued, a wheelborrow of the stuff won't buy you a loaf of bread.

As I started out to explain to Mike, while his intentions are very laudable, and I'm in full agreement with his saving attitude, we don't live in a vacuum. And unfortunately it's no longer good enough to just take care of our own familie's needs, we are in this huge ship together. And it doesn't matter which end of the boat the plug is pulled from, it eventually will sink the entire vessal.

It's obviously imperative that something needs to be done with the SS program, and we are getting around to looking into a something not any too soon. And it's important that everyone be aware of the overall problem, and realize it does need fixing, regardless of your own personal beliefs as to it's need for you individually. If it doesn't become resolved, I don't think our country can withstand it's shakey future without a return to a dirty 30's type of existance.

UB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
822 Posts
I'm reminded of the joke about a man who jumps from the top of a 50-story building and after falling half-way he is asked "How are you doing?" He answers, "Fine, so far."

Like this falling man, Social Security is not really "fine."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,426 Posts
Do you like what privatizing did with 401k vs. Pension?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
399 Posts
UB, you are right, I do pay a lot of money into that fund, so dont get me wrong...I do want SS run right. But, when it comes to planning for things like retirement (and other financial affairs) I usually base my decisions on the worst case scenario, ie. no SS check for me and the wife.

I appreciate your other comments and believe me, I spend a lot of money on "fun" and other things but we have been fortunate to be in a position that allows us to do that as well as have a nice "savings plan".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,112 Posts
Goose said:
I'm reminded of the joke about a man who jumps from the top of a 50-story building and after falling half-way he is asked "How are you doing?" He answers, "Fine, so far."

Like this falling man, Social Security is not really "fine."
I agree!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
323 Posts
There is nothing wrong with the social security system, it is all part of a vast right wing conspiracy, put my social security into a lockbox and keep your hands off it
That's not even an option on the table.


The thing that is wrong with the current system is there is no lock box. NOt being political, representatives from all political parties have dipped there hands into the Social Security program. They've funded alot of pork projects with that money and wars and NASA instead of what it was intended for. That's why there is an opposition to messin' with it, if you put it in a lock box or put some of it into the hands of investors, then there is none/less to be used elsewhere by Congress.

Pyramid schemes are illegal because those that get in on the ground floor get rich while those that get in last loose everything, basically, that is what we have with Social Security, basically the money I pay now partially supports someone receiving benefits now...instead of the money they put in years ago supporting them. If it had been required to be in a "Lock Box" we'd have the money for the program, not the IOU's we have now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,112 Posts
Having limited knowledge of such things, what is a lock box and how does it work?

Is cash put in it?

Is it govt. securities?

Will we buy gold?

Just trying to figure how the sound bite ?lock box? works in reality.

BTW, I did not vote in the poll.

Joe Miano
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,143 Posts
the premise for this overhaul is that the money will be better invested by individuals than it could be by the social security administration.

funny how the government feels it is competent to manage trillions, as in the proposed budget, but is eager to dump this in our laps.

most individuals are not great investors. when/if their funds tank, who do you think will have to support them? -paul
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,608 Posts
paul young said:
most individuals are not great investors. when/if their funds tank, who do you think will have to support them? -paul
that's the real rub, some will prosper, some will end up pennyless

there is no easy solution

as a "Baby Boomer" my share will be secure, could I have done better by investing in bond funds and index funds for 35 years? Probably, perhaps even to the extent that I could retire now

I don't believe that the average working person would be likely to make all the correct decisions, and of course, there's alway the lure of some "get rich quick scheme" that could wipeout the entire retirement account

it's interesting that the closer one gets to collecting the less broken the system seems

BTW I didn't vote in the poll either :?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,112 Posts
I expect there will also be an option for a basic govt. bond similar to a savings bond or short term security. That option would pose limited risk. Even the most conservative estimates give that option a better return than a similar amount ?invested? in SS. In addition, the ability to pass that asset along would be an important benefit. It would also limit the govt. liability.

This has been explained by both sides of the isle:

There were 16 workers paying for every worker in the beginning.

A worker was only expected to live a few years.

Today, there are 3 workers for every recipient.

The average recipient will collect for upwards of 20 years.

In 2014 there will be 2 workers for every recipient.

Sometime in the 2040s the plan will no longer be self sustaining.

These are all facts.

To hide our heads in the sand and hope it goes away is irresponsible. Democrats as well as Republicans know there is a problem. I wish the hate of President Bush from the left would not cloud their judgment and allow a bipartisan solution. If anything a Democrat willing to show leadership could take the lead on this issue and steal the Presidents thunder. But, alas, there is no leadership left in the Democrat party, only obstructionism.

Joe Miano
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,143 Posts
there's the rub, Joe. none of the politicians of either party will ever NEED SS. there's no urgency from where they're sitting. they really don't want to "fix" anything; they just want to limit the govt's liability. you said that was one of their concerns.

career politicians are the leading problem with this country. they get into office and form alliances while they are on their way up so that they can stay in office. their decisions are all based on who they owe, instead of what's good for the town,state or country as the case may be.-paul
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,081 Posts
"paul young wrote:
most individuals are not great investors. when/if their funds tank, who do you think will have to support them? -paul


that's the real rub, some will prosper, some will end up pennyless "

Were ya'll aware that only a portion of one's SS payroll deduction could be invested by the individual and that the balance would go to the govt. (where it will yield about a 1% return)? Nobody can/will end up "pennyless."

Everybody thinks 401k's are the cat's arse...what's the difference between a 401k and investing a small portion of one's SS? None, really, other than your invested SS money will be safer than your 401K money.
 
1 - 20 of 50 Posts
Top