Fixing Social Security

Well through abortion we have killed a lot of our population that would have been contributing to SS.That's the first problem.
Second as to SS being welfare, let's see give me the money I have paid in over the last 44 years with 5% interest which is well below what I could have done on my own and I will be happy to call it even.
I think the solution is to work toward privatizing retirement in steps. Part of that will be to let the private citizen contribute some of thier money to private accounts they can't close or take money out of and part will be raising the retirement age.IMHO that is a sensible solution.

By the way SS money should have always been in a separate trust fund never to be used for government spending which started looooong before Bush.

 

I'm all for that option. I'm not in favor of dumping social security tomorrow. Phase out over a long period of time, sure, but not a total overnight dump. Allowing a portion of my SS funds to be managed by me in the same manner as my 401k funds, by all means!

 

But all of your contribution to Soc. Sec. will be going to current retirees. The so-called "personal investment accounts" are actually yet another handout from the government.

 

How is not giving money to the government a government handout? Are you under the mistaken impression that it is actually their money they are giving back to us?

 

Unfortunately, there is no 'quick fix'. Those of us who are in our 50's and older have paid since our teens into this program, expecting to get that money back at retirement age.

I agree that something must be done but agree that a phase out is necessary which may include an increase in the deficit.

My concern? If left to their own to save, many may end up with nothing. We had saved a good amount toward retirement and had put $22,000 down on this home. Hubby lost his job after 9/11 and we used all our savings and equity to get as far as we did. Certainly that was beyond our control! Now all we have to 'retire on' when Jim is too ill to work will be social security unless he can continue to work at his current job until age 77. Thankfully, we'll get almost $3,000. a month S/S at that time which is enough.

Diane

 

Diane,

Can you imagine if you had taken all the money you have put into Social Security and had invested in an untouchable IRA? You would have far more than $3000 a month. Bad times happen to a lot of people for sure, but your retirement was in an untouchable account. The government was not going to let you have it. You just don't get any return on it.

If we went immediately to a pension/401K/IRA plan, the problem for the next generation would be solved.

It could be set up this way:
1. Each laborer must contribute 15% of his income to retirement (the same as now).
2. He can choose where it is invested and what it is invested in.
3. That money is untouchable. He cannot access it for any reason at all.
4. If he chooses not to invest on his own, then he has to pay the social security taxes.

 

If we had put it in an untouchable account, we would have been in bankruptcy and the courts would have taken it! Instead, we used it to keep us afloat.

 

The courts can't touch that. That 15% I am talking about is what you have been paying your whole life. And when you declare bankruptcy, the courts can't go after your social security.

Look at it this way: You have been giving that 15% all along. You didn't touch that 15%. You didn't get any of it. The government has been taking that 15% and it was untouchable. It just wasn't getting much of a return. If you, for the duration of your working life, had the 15% in your name, it would be worth far more, and no one could touch it.

LEt's face it ... this generation is getting the short end of the stick because we are paying people more than they paid in. That is absurd and it can't stay that way.

 

Pastor Larry, I was responding to your 'what if' and in our situation, that 'what if' money put into 'an untouchable IRA, etc.' COULD be touched by the courts if we were not able to pay our bills.

I'm thankful we'll have that S/S to help us in our later years.

 

You would still need to report any cash transactions if there is a national sales tax.

Every single proposal I have seen thus far has had some sort of allowance for low-income people, so that they would not have to pay the same rate as a high-income person.

So your plan would make everyone pay a national sales tax at the same rate? Imagine the impact a sales tax would have on someone making $15000 annually compared with someone making $100000 annually.

 

What do you think all of that new money is going to do to the financial markets?

 

BIR,

Please explain exactly what you mean by Cash Transactions. I'm afraid you've lost me here.

Low income people receiving government assistance shop with cards issued by State Social Service Departments now - Let them continue and let them signify to the seller that these buyers are tax exempt.

In addition, Simply make foodstuffs and medicines tax exempt to further help the poor and low income spenders.

We need to consider all options if we're ever going to arrive at a permanent fix.

 

I would hardly consider a national sales tax the solution. Do you realize that this would require that you pay a tax on every transaction at the point of sale? When I lived in Tennessee, we had an 8 3/4% sales tax. Now, imagine having an even higher percentage added to this. This wouldn't be deducted from your paycheck weekly/bi-weekly/monthly, it would be taken from you every single time you buy a good or service. That means you are paying more upfront.

A cash transaction is one where you are paying for the good or service with cash, as opposed to a debit card or credit card. The proposals I have seen make allowances for the income levels of the taxpayer. If you were entitled to a discount from the percentage of the national sales tax, you would have to prove this to the person from whom you are purchasing this good or service.

You made mention of foodstuffs and medicines, but what about clothing? Would the poor and low income be required to pay the higher percentage on the clothes they wear?

As usual, you have offered your rationale in a well-crafted response. Thanks for taking the time to reply to me. Although I respect your opinion, I simply don't share your belief.

Hope this post finds you well,

BiR

 

I'll be 67 then and hubby will be 72.

 

And I was saying that your retirement (SS) is untouchable even in bankruptcy. It would be the same in teh system I am proposing. But your return would be higher. Had you invested the same amount of money that you gave to SS in an untouchable account, you would have far more money for retirement. SS is bad stewardship.