Some Democrats looking to Destroy 401(k) plans

The system is ALREADY broke. Bush tried to fix it. For all his missteps, this was not one. Trying to fix SS took guts and courage, something sorely lacking in Washington, personified by the two POTUS major party candidates relative to this issue. SS is not working. Anyone who says otherwise is delusional. Look at the balance sheets. It's NOT working.

 

This just isn't true. It may not have worked out well for all or even for the majority, but it has worked out well for some.

My father was disabled in 1960 and had it not been for SS we would have lost everything we had, even with my mother working. So for my family, Social Security helped a lot.

 

[quoteThis just isn't true. It may not have worked out well for all or even for the majority, but it has worked out well for some.[/quote]Not really, at least not in a global sense. Only in a very narrow individualistic sense can that be said, and even then it is problemmatic.

It created an entitlement mentality where people got paid for things they didn't do and didn't have a right to. Nobody has a right to live off of the money I make except my family and whoever I choose to give it to.

So the fact that it bailed some people out of bad situations doesn't mean it worked well for them in a global sense.

SS was flawed from the beginning.

This is the role of disability insurance, which everyone should have. Had your father (or anyone else ... not to pick in your father) had disability insurance, he would have been covered. It is not the government's job to rescue people, and it is not the job of the next generation to pay for the present generation, unless they are in their family. Remember, in the Bible and in ancient times, it would have been your responsibility to provide for your father and mother. That was Christ's point in Mark 7, that some of the Pharisees were taking the support that should have been given to the parents and giving it to God and claiming they were godly. Christ rebuked them. If that is true for gifts given to God, how much more is it true for buying stuff that has nothing to do with godliness.

SS was a flawed program from the very beginning and prolonging it isn't helping.

 

I don't think they even had disability insurance in the 1950's. In spite of your callous attitude toward those in similar situations that we found ourselves in when I was a child, I am certainly glad we had Social Security to help.

 

It is deeply offensive for you to say I have a callous attitude. I have nothing of the sort. I believe they did have disability insurance in the 50s. Furthermore, there were children and parents in the 50s, and that is where the responsibility for care lies.

I have tremendous concern for people in unfortunate situations. I care enough to not make them rely on the government, and to seek help in appropriate places.

 

In situations in which relatives can't support the old and the sick does your church step in to pick up the rest? I think that this is the best arrangement but I don't think it will ever happen for everyone not just the privileged few. If this is indeed impossible not supporting a govt. solution and choosing to spend our money on war is indeed callous.

 

Ever been to NYC at Times Square and seen the Three Card Monte games? That's what Bush's plan was. Talking about people investing their "own" Soc. Sec. contributions is a fraud. The system works such that retired people today collect from people who are working today. There are no surpluses stored up. That's what Bush fought AGAINST when he derided Al Gore plan to "Put Soc. Sec. in a Lock box." So current workers would be taking away from the benefits of current retirees to gamble them in the market.

 

We have helped people as they have need. The first responsibility falls to the family. But people also need to wisely put away money. Unfortunately, the 15.3% going to SS doesn't help people save money for retirement. I end up every year putting almost 50% away for retirement, and you better believe that hurts and I am not one of the "privileged few." But I discipline because it is important.

That's nonsense.

Do you think before you say things this silly? I admit to not reading everything about Bush's plan, but I never heard any talk of three-card monte, and I am pretty sure that would have been a big issue that people would have been talking about.

If you think investing money is anything like three-card monte, you should learn something. If you know that it isn't, you should stop saying silly things like this.

No it's not.

That's the problem. That's why it's a fraud.

Al Gore was dumb. Social Security needs to be privatized, not put in a lock box.

But current retirees should have been paying for themselves. They should not be getting my money. And the market isn't gambling for most people.

You reveal yet again that you will say anything at all without any respect for truth, and without any respect for people who actually know what they are talking about. You should stop.

 

Some of you people wouldn't have lasted five minutes in early America. I'm amazed that people can be so helpless as to think it's Government Almighty's job to take care of them.

Sad. It's one reason our country is headed to the toilet. Helpless citizenry.

 

Uh huh. Typical democrat back door attempt to increase taxes on middle America. Why would anyone be surprised? They want to discourage individual savings plans to increase dependence on government

You might let BaptistBeliever know. He has a problem staying on topic. His hatred for Bush keeps surfacing.

Imagine the tax policy of an Obama administration. Hold on to your wallet, he wants your money to give away to those he deems should have it. Pair him up with a democrat congress and we would be headed for a tax overhaul like none we've ever seen.

As usual , middle America will take it on the chin.

 

Your assertion about Bush's plan is bizarre. No one today draws off of their own contributions. No one. The so-called trust fund is merely a pool of Tresury bonds the govt has issued/sold to investors (GASP-THE MARKET!!!!!) that will mature at a future (very cheap) rate, and that money will be used to pay recipients. (It's like an IOU - the rate of future sale is not known. So the govt has both fingers crossed at this point). At one time or another, SS money borrows general fund money and also puts money into general budget funds. All this means it's as if the trust fund doesn't exist at all. It's the govt borrowing from you, the taxpayer so they can pay you, the taxpayer. I'm shocked no one sees this for the sham that it is. Taxpayers pay taxes and buy TBonds. We're supporting a broken system - twice. And to make matters worse, it could be worse than we think because, as USA Today has pointed out, the change of accounting measures in the 90s means we really don't know our true accounting picture. It's the cash vs. accrual thing you may have heard about, that all business have to go by.Oh, and by the way: Seen TBonds lately? Think that's safe as can be? Think again. If you oppose a market-oriented solution you oppose SS, because SS is by its reliance on Treasuries a market-based plan.

SS is nothing more than an obligation of the same government that already has an obligation to pay Social Security benefits. The only way to make SS a real "trust" or "lock box" is to allow for some type of personal account. Again, the RoR would be better at the local Credit Union or bank than in TBonds. And even more so long term if used in the greater bond market or stock market.

My plan to fix SS:
1. SS only for citizens. Foreign nationals: forget it.
2. Allow for an opt-out without C/Os. You can never receive benefits, but you still pay a small base percentage tax and you receive a yearly tax credit if you choose to forfeit any and all prior earnings. (Great incentive for younger workers). The money the worker keeps he is free to invest as he wishes, just as he does with his present employer's plan or his own IRA.
3. Eliminate the limit on Roth IRA contributions. The Govt is getting the tax money anyway.
4. Raise the limit on Traditional IRA contributions to 10,000 per year (with periodic raises), and substantially raise the limit on Traditional IRA contributors. Forcing people into Roths is not Constitutional, IMHO. This incentivises saving for retirement.
Or, in a perfect world, eliminate the tax on retirement accounts altogether. Individual contributions to a retirment account would be tax-free on both ends, but employer contributions could still be taxed on the front-end. It's still free money to the individual.
5. Raise the RMD age from 70 to 75 (A better idea would be to eliminate it altogether, but it's Washington we're talking about).

 

You are able. I am sure it hurts but you are still able. Too many American's have nothing left after they pay rent, food and other necessities. Some have to make a choice between paying full rent or eating. This people are not able to put 50% away for retirement, they are more concerned about having enough to make it to their next payday.

SS is the only retirement they can look forward to which sucks but is a fact. If we gave them the means to do something different with that 15.3% I doubt if they would invest or save one cent.

Then comes the question when they hit 65 or can no longer work, do we just put them out on the streets because they didn't save?

How many seniors, grandmothers and grandfather's on the street will it take before the people demand government do something?

I understand your view and can appreciate your view but don't see it working for the masses.

 

That's not my understanding, the money seniors are being paid today comes from the 15.3% being taken from each of our checks. And when we get on SS, the money will come from the 15.3% taken from our children and grandchildren. The population increases each year so it's a fairly solvent system that should sustain itself if we quit borrowing the money for other programs.

By the way, SS doesn't borrow from the general fund, money from SS has been borrowed to put money in the general fund. It's just the opposite of what you said.

 

You shouldn't put your "entire future hopes in the market" without an understanding of the potential risks. You should invest wisely and within your means. People want to share the wealth but not the risk or the responsibility or the work. They keep looking for someone else - most often the government - to protect them for all risk. People who invest wisely and who don't try to live beyond there means - like those that borrowed money to buy houses they couldn't afford - will consistently on average do much better than their neighbors.

The government counter plan to individual retirement planning - social security and more - is to take your money and give a small part of it back to you according to their terms less all the handling fees and what's paid out to others who didn't contribute as much. This is redistribution of wealth. It buys votes. It keeps senior citizens who've become dependent on the government - perhaps because they wanted to be or perhaps because they had no choice since it is the law - enslaved to the politicians who promise to protect them. Government can't and they haven't. They can't fix the market problems today that were caused by their own stupid programs. They can sure make it worse and it seems they have!

The better way is to let people keep what they earn, invest what they want, spend what they want, and then live by the fruits of their labor and their decisions. Anyone who ends up in a bad situation is free to seek help from their family, neighbors, churches, and charitable organizations who are much better equipped to make good decisions about their needs on the merits of those needs. Social security has indeed, just as you noted, expanded to include much more than initially sold to a blind public. It's loaded with waste and with programs that encourage remaining in a dependent mode. It doesn't work except for those looking for a free ride and there are always those who do.

The "benefits" received from social security - just the retirement income part - are not by any means proportional to the "investment" made - that's the tax paid by you and your employer. The pay out is capped. The tax is not. Further, the pay out is taxed again if you happen to have additional income beyond a certain "allowable" amount. It is absolutely a classical redistribution of wealth plan.

If Obama and friends get their way we're about to start another round of social re-engineering programs that will make social security seem very innocent. Get ready for real socialism if this happens. Maybe then someday you'll understand why capitalism is far better despite it's sometimes harsh imperfections.

 

Taxes are always a redistribution of wealth of some form or another. That's why the conservative message using Joe the plumber is missing the mark. Someone has to pay for the roads, bridges and airports yet everyone uses them. Redistribution of wealth is a staple of our society and something we can't get around.

Your comments would be good if everyone had a little extra to put away and the knowledge to invest. Since that isn't the case, your suggestions are not a good solution. Family, friends and churches are struggling also where I live. That was the system in place to care for our seniors when SS was implemented so is the reason we have this system. That clearly didn't work.

 

If this is an illustration of your "unerstanding", it is no wonder democrats are able to hoodwink the public about the real financial condition of social security.

When did our medicare contribution go up? I must have missed it.

 

Everyone that works does have "a little extra" to put away - more than they realize! It's just that the government is taking it from them and their employer. Everyone should at least know the basics of a simple savings account or certificate of deposit - unless of course our government schools have failed to teach that. Even these lower yielding but more secure investments would be much better that social security and ours to pass on to our estate if we want. The idea that government generates wealth where others can't is very flawed. The government only extracts wealth - it doesn't make any real goods or services. The reason for the social security system was to grab more government control at a weak time in history - the depression years - and then it was promised as an ever so painless system that would never get any bigger. It has continued to grow way beyond that initial sales pitch just like all other grand ideas from politicians. If social security was such a great idea then none of us should have to be worried about retirement income these days should we? We have a check coming from the government don't we? Obama has even more in mind and you're falling for it.

 

This has never been considered spreading the wealth. No one denies that taxes are necessary for infrastructure. But taking money from one person and giving it to another in the form of a tax rebate or tax credit is spreading the wealth.

 

Just because we never call it spreading the wealth doesn't mean my example doesn't show how it is. Money is taken from those that have in many forms and levels and is benefited by those who don't have.

Do you ask the members of your Church before you help the needy? Or do they give and trust you to be a faithful steward?

 

Again libs having trouble making legitimate comparisons. Apples and refrigerators. But what ever soothes your conscience.