|
Post by aztecwin on May 31, 2012 15:41:47 GMT -8
No I am not! I am advocating defined contribution as a responsible way to do things in the future. You are? I thought you were advocating that some of your Social Security check should go to your heirs. I believe you posted that twice. Let me check. Yep, you did. Now you tell me it is about not having defined benefit plans? Well, of couse you did not read the entire thread or your ability to understand the difference between proposals and what is our current system is a bigger gap than even I thought.
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on May 31, 2012 18:41:52 GMT -8
You are? I thought you were advocating that some of your Social Security check should go to your heirs. I believe you posted that twice. Let me check. Yep, you did. Now you tell me it is about not having defined benefit plans? Well, of couse you did not read the entire thread or your ability to understand the difference between proposals and what is our current system is a bigger gap than even I thought. No. You are just getting drifty in your dotage. Do you have LTC insurance?
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 2, 2012 5:41:16 GMT -8
Well, of couse you did not read the entire thread or your ability to understand the difference between proposals and what is our current system is a bigger gap than even I thought. No. You are just getting drifty in your dotage. Do you have LTC insurance? Did you collaborate with =scruffy to compose that? I mean really, why even comment if you don't read and understand the thread?
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 2, 2012 13:35:38 GMT -8
Since you have hijacked your own thread by changing the topic from how to save Social Security to only having defined contribution retirement plans. Let me ask you how you think that is working out? That has been the case in private industry for years. Take 30 seconds to find out and report back.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 2, 2012 17:17:24 GMT -8
Since you have hijacked your own thread by changing the topic from how to save Social Security to only having defined contribution retirement plans. Let me ask you how you think that is working out? That has been the case in private industry for years. Take 30 seconds to find out and report back. Just further proof that you did not read the article in full. It is partly about an additional proposal to help Social Security. It does not take 30 seconds or a trip to Google to see you are just a =short clone looking only for a issue to troll. Now go back and fill out a 1040EZ.
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 2, 2012 18:50:26 GMT -8
Since you have hijacked your own thread by changing the topic from how to save Social Security to only having defined contribution retirement plans. Let me ask you how you think that is working out? That has been the case in private industry for years. Take 30 seconds to find out and report back. Just further proof that you did not read the article in full. It is partly about an additional proposal to help Social Security. It does not take 30 seconds or a trip to Google to see you are just a =short clone looking only for a issue to troll. Now go back and fill out a 1040EZ. Would this proposal be the SS-IRA? That is what I am talking about. It would be a fine idea if the IRAs and 401ks we currently have were being fully funded and an additional vehicle for retirement savings were needed. That is not the case.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 3, 2012 6:22:38 GMT -8
Just further proof that you did not read the article in full. It is partly about an additional proposal to help Social Security. It does not take 30 seconds or a trip to Google to see you are just a =short clone looking only for a issue to troll. Now go back and fill out a 1040EZ. Would this proposal be the SS-IRA? That is what I am talking about. It would be a fine idea if the IRAs and 401ks we currently have were being fully funded and an additional vehicle for retirement savings were needed. That is not the case. Once again you show you did not even look at the AMAC link that includes this proposal. It is not fully fleshed out, but it would not be mandatory.
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 3, 2012 13:29:23 GMT -8
Would this proposal be the SS-IRA? That is what I am talking about. It would be a fine idea if the IRAs and 401ks we currently have were being fully funded and an additional vehicle for retirement savings were needed. That is not the case. Once again you show you did not even look at the AMAC link that includes this proposal. It is not fully fleshed out, but it would not be mandatory. Once again you avoid answering my question. I have read the link. I never said anything about anything being mandatory. Why do you think a third voluntary retirement savings vehicle will save Social Security?
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 3, 2012 15:58:59 GMT -8
Once again you show you did not even look at the AMAC link that includes this proposal. It is not fully fleshed out, but it would not be mandatory. Once again you avoid answering my question. I have read the link. I never said anything about anything being mandatory. Why do you think a third voluntary retirement savings vehicle will save Social Security? The other parts of the proposal would safe it. This additional proposal would make it more valuable for those choosing to participate. Now if your small minded point is that we have those programs now, this would just be a bonus for those who would be coaxed into participating.
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 3, 2012 17:26:27 GMT -8
Once again you avoid answering my question. I have read the link. I never said anything about anything being mandatory. Why do you think a third voluntary retirement savings vehicle will save Social Security? The other parts of the proposal would safe it. This additional proposal would make it more valuable for those choosing to participate. Now if your small minded point is that we have those programs now, this would just be a bonus for those who would be coaxed into participating. The other parts? Like higher retirement age, taking the off earned income, and adjusting COLAs? If so, that was in my first post, and I have been posting just that for years. You need to pay better attention. Your bonus is nothing. We have it already. Your problem is this, win. You don't think.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 4, 2012 7:39:04 GMT -8
Social Security may or may not survive in its present form, but there is no question that it was poorly designed in the first place. People should have been given their own individual and unique accounts to which both they and their employers would make contributions. Only the individual retiree would receive benefits from that account upon retirement.
The system as it was begun represented a huge (and foolish) demographic gamble. Apparently, FDR's supposedly brainy minions could not imagine that medical science, which by the 1930s had already done a lot to increase life expectancies, would continue to allow people to live ever longer after age 65.
The pay-as-you-go plan as set up was bound to cause huge problems. Where there were 15 taxpayers putting money into the system to support one retiree in 1950, there now are only 3 such taxpayers. Soon there may be only 2 taxpayers to pay for the benefits of one retiree who will probably live well past 80. This is just crazy. Who, in the private sector, would ever set up just a plan?
Additionally, the raiding of the SS trust fund by politicians (I think begun under LBJ) to bolster the feds' general fund, just made the problem worse. Instead of real money in that trust fund, there are govt. IOUs.
The Democrats' stubborn refusal to acknowledge the flaws of the FDR-designed system is, in my view, nothing short of pathological.
AzWm
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 4, 2012 10:18:46 GMT -8
Social Security may or may not survive in its present form, but there is no question that it was poorly designed in the first place. People should have been given their own individual and unique accounts to which both they and their employers would make contributions. Only the individual retiree would receive benefits from that account upon retirement. The system as it was begun represented a huge (and foolish) demographic gamble. Apparently, FDR's supposedly brainy minions could not imagine that medical science, which by he 1930s had already done a lot to increase life expectancies, would continue to allow people to live ever longer after age 65. The pay-as-you-go plan as set up was bound to cause huge problems. Where there were 15 taxpayers putting money into the system to support one retiree in 1950, there now are only 3 such taxpayers. Soon there may be only 2 taxpayers to pay for the benefits of one retiree who will probably live well past 80. This is just crazy. Who, in the private sector, would ever set up just a plan? Additionally, the raiding of the SS trust fund by politicians (I think begun under LBJ) to bolster the feds' general fund, just made the problem worse. Instead of real money in that trust fund, there are govt. IOUs. The Democrats' stubborn refusal to acknowledge the flaws of the FDR-designed system is, in my view, nothing short of pathological. AzWm You think brainy minions can predict the future. Fascinating. You are correct that the demographics have changed from 80 years ago. If we were to recognize that change and adjust for it we could solve the problem. Your idea that Social Security should be an individual account tells me you do not understand what Social Security is, and what it is designed to do. This may come as a big surprise, William, but business is not government.
|
|
|
Post by sdsustoner on Jun 4, 2012 12:02:16 GMT -8
The hell is wrong with merely lifting the cap? That could be part of it. Raise the cap on the employee only. Did hell freeze over? We agree on something.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 4, 2012 12:06:21 GMT -8
The other parts of the proposal would safe it. This additional proposal would make it more valuable for those choosing to participate. Now if your small minded point is that we have those programs now, this would just be a bonus for those who would be coaxed into participating. The other parts? Like higher retirement age, taking the off earned income, and adjusting COLAs? If so, that was in my first post, and I have been posting just that for years. You need to pay better attention. Your bonus is nothing. We have it already. Your problem is this, win. You don't think. Your problem is your thinking is limited to the obvious. When you can't see beyond the simple ideas that all of us have talked about for years, then you are somewhat limited and probably a liberal. Means testing and raising retirement age etc. are all simple and old ideas that Congress can't seem to get around to fixing.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 4, 2012 23:06:33 GMT -8
Social Security may or may not survive in its present form, but there is no question that it was poorly designed in the first place. People should have been given their own individual and unique accounts to which both they and their employers would make contributions. Only the individual retiree would receive benefits from that account upon retirement. The system as it was begun represented a huge (and foolish) demographic gamble. Apparently, FDR's supposedly brainy minions could not imagine that medical science, which by he 1930s had already done a lot to increase life expectancies, would continue to allow people to live ever longer after age 65. The pay-as-you-go plan as set up was bound to cause huge problems. Where there were 15 taxpayers putting money into the system to support one retiree in 1950, there now are only 3 such taxpayers. Soon there may be only 2 taxpayers to pay for the benefits of one retiree who will probably live well past 80. This is just crazy. Who, in the private sector, would ever set up just a plan? Additionally, the raiding of the SS trust fund by politicians (I think begun under LBJ) to bolster the feds' general fund, just made the problem worse. Instead of real money in that trust fund, there are govt. IOUs. The Democrats' stubborn refusal to acknowledge the flaws of the FDR-designed system is, in my view, nothing short of pathological. AzWm You think brainy minions can predict the future. Fascinating. You are correct that the demographics have changed from 80 years ago. If we were to recognize that change and adjust for it we could solve the problem. Your idea that Social Security should be an individual account tells me you do not understand what Social Security is, and what it is designed to do. This may come as a big surprise, William, but business is not government. Why would individual accounts (I'm assuming for the sake of argument that SS had been set up that way in the first place) not have achieved the goals originally set for the program? In fact, those goals would have been met and possibly exceeded. What we have now is a system that is in serious jeopardy. You are certainly correct that business is not government. Holy cow, man, that's just the point. The government can set up any damned fool apparatus it wants to and the poor taxpayers have to pony up more and more money in taxes just to keep the thing from collapsing entirely. As for FDR's brain trusters, it seems perfectly fair to ask whether they even considered what would happen if (A) people started living longer, and (B) the birthrate might fall. My point is this. By the 1930s, there were many types of annuities that could have been used as models for SS. Apparently the FDR administration did not believe that the private sector had anything useful to teach them in this area. Too bad. If SS had been designed better we would not have had the problems that now face us. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 5, 2012 6:04:57 GMT -8
You think brainy minions can predict the future. Fascinating. You are correct that the demographics have changed from 80 years ago. If we were to recognize that change and adjust for it we could solve the problem. Your idea that Social Security should be an individual account tells me you do not understand what Social Security is, and what it is designed to do. This may come as a big surprise, William, but business is not government. Why would individual accounts (I'm assuming for the sake of argument that SS had been set up that way in the first place) not have achieved the goals originally set for the program? In fact, those goals would have been met and possibly exceeded. What we have now is a system that is in serious jeopardy. You are certainly correct that business is not government. Holy cow, man, that's just the point. The government can set up any damned fool apparatus it wants to and the poor taxpayers have to pony up more and more money in taxes just to keep the thing from collapsing entirely. As for FDR's brain trusters, it seems perfectly fair to ask whether they even considered what would happen if (A) people started living longer, and (B) the birthrate might fall. My point is this. By the 1930s, there were many types of annuities that could have been used as models for SS. Apparently the FDR administration did not believe that the private sector had anything useful to teach them in this area. Too bad. If SS had been designed better we would not have had the problems that now face us. AzWm William, have you done the math to back up your contention that annuitys would have been more effective? If so, present it.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 5, 2012 10:26:44 GMT -8
Why would individual accounts (I'm assuming for the sake of argument that SS had been set up that way in the first place) not have achieved the goals originally set for the program? In fact, those goals would have been met and possibly exceeded. What we have now is a system that is in serious jeopardy. You are certainly correct that business is not government. Holy cow, man, that's just the point. The government can set up any damned fool apparatus it wants to and the poor taxpayers have to pony up more and more money in taxes just to keep the thing from collapsing entirely. As for FDR's brain trusters, it seems perfectly fair to ask whether they even considered what would happen if (A) people started living longer, and (B) the birthrate might fall. My point is this. By the 1930s, there were many types of annuities that could have been used as models for SS. Apparently the FDR administration did not believe that the private sector had anything useful to teach them in this area. Too bad. If SS had been designed better we would not have had the problems that now face us. AzWm William, have you done the math to back up your contention that annuities would have been more effective? If so, present it. I am certainly no expert. However, some crucial facts in the case seem evident. Those facts focus on basic economic realities and also on the changing nature of national populations. Not too long ago I moved money I had in an IRA to an annuity. I get X number of dollars per month for life, and if at my demise there is money left in the account my heirs will inherit it. It's a pretty good deal, I believe. If I live to be very old (85? 90? ?) the account balance may be zero, but I will still get my monthly check. (Sorry kids, dad just plain lived too long! ;D) Now, obviously, the company with which I do business is not a charity. Somehow they are going to make money off me (through investing my principal, I guess), and that is fine. It's a win/win deal. Social Security, however, is structured in such a way that significant demographic changes (longer life expectancy and lower birthrates) can ruin the system's solvency. I believe we have reached the point at which the money paid into SS is less than the money that is paid out to retirees (such as your obedient servant). The taxpayers of America must now pay a little extra each year to see that I receive my monthly check. (By the way, since I am a retired CA public teacher, my SS check is about 60% lower than it would be if I had worked totally in the private sector, but that is another story.) No system is perfect, and that includes non-governmental ones. Still, it's obvious that Social Security was badly flawed from the outset. It may not have been realized at the time (though arguably it should have been), that the system was designed to operate on the assumption that our demographic situation was going to remain static. That assumption was unwarranted. Instead of the risky pay-as-you-go formula in was based on, Social Security should has been set up along the lines of a privately issued annuity. In other words, the individual worker and his employers would contribute to a fund belonging specifically to that worker. There never should have been any question of having to rely on current workers' taxes to pay benefits. Right now, and certainly going forward, SS recipients will be receiving a lot more in benefits than they paid in. It's an unsustainable system and actually was from the first, although that fact did not manifest itself until years after the first check was sent to a retiree. From a strictly libertarian viewpoint, the whole system cannot be defended. There are and always have been private mechanisms by which American workers could save and prepare for their retirement. Still, as Newt Gingrich implied in a discussion in which he participated 1999, it's probably a good thing for the government to set up a system that allows workers to prepare for their retirement. The fact that Social Security was created is not really the problem. The fact that is was based on a gigantically unsound assumption is. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 5, 2012 14:13:58 GMT -8
Tell me, William, in your idea, who would invest the money and then pay it out on retirement?
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 5, 2012 16:28:41 GMT -8
Tell me, William, in your idea, who would invest the money and then pay it out on retirement? He probably won't think of it, but is J. David alive and out of jail? I see some parallels with SSA.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 5, 2012 20:41:36 GMT -8
Tell me, William, in your idea, who would invest the money and then pay it out on retirement? I knew you would bring this up, and it's a very legitimate question. To answer the second part first; the SS administration would cut checks just as it does now, the amount of each check based on how much money is in the account and other factors (I'm sure you know that SS recipients are given a number of options having to do with time of first distribution, survivor benefits, etc.) Now the first part of your question. I don't see why this would be a problem. The funds placed in individual SS accounts could be invested in a number of ways, with the account holder having some (but perhaps not total) control over what those investment instruments should be. Since this would still be a government sponsored system, the feds could set standards to see that highly risky deals could not be selected for investment. People who did not want to take part in this decision process could turn their accounts over to government approved managers. You might want to take a look at this; it's a description of how things are done in Chile. As I understand it, their system works pretty well. www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-ja-jp.htmlRemember that I have mooted this idea as what would have have been a better way to set up SS in the first place. Unfortunately, it wasn't done that way and we now have to struggle with the byproducts of a flawed system. It's politically tough to make basic changes even if those changes might well solve current problems. On the other hand, they made the change in Chile and that country has not collapsed into economic chaos. We really ought to give this sort of thing at least a fair hearing. AzWm
|
|