para phrasing as I do NOT have the actual quotes.
" The Social Security System should be set up as an interum system"
"It will NEVER survive as is past 1965"
"by 1965, the SS system should be fully replaced by...."
Now get this,
"...Individual equity accounts..."
FDR, 1935 !
Hmm, so, why is W so bad to change SS?
Good Quote today
Good Quote today
MUST STOP POSTING ! MUST STOP POSTING !
Shut up and Ski!
Why's Everybody Always Pickin on Me?
Shut up and Ski!
Why's Everybody Always Pickin on Me?
NOTE: in the 1960's, SS became the save all for SS, disability, death benefits, medicare and medicaid, thanks to WHOM?
.
.
.
.
.
drum role please
.
.
.
.
.
Lyndon Baines Johnson,
thank you very much!
He also put SS on budget to balance his piss poor books !
.
.
.
.
.
drum role please
.
.
.
.
.
Lyndon Baines Johnson,
thank you very much!
He also put SS on budget to balance his piss poor books !
MUST STOP POSTING ! MUST STOP POSTING !
Shut up and Ski!
Why's Everybody Always Pickin on Me?
Shut up and Ski!
Why's Everybody Always Pickin on Me?
FDR and Congress created the Social Security system in response to the economic destitution of the elderly as a result of the financial collapse associate with the great depression and the number of elderly who had lost their savings. At the time, there were few corporate pension plans. True, it was not created as a handout but as an aid. It was also a recognition of the success of other state sponsored pension systems in Europe, notably Germany's system.
Social Security is not directly linked to Medicare or Medicaid, and the disability definitions to qualify for pre-65 payments are very strict. Few disabled people qualify. Excess payments into Social Security (and Medicare) have been used for many years by Congress to pay for other, more immediate needs, and a large part of the public debt is owned by the systems.
There are many issues with the Bush administration proposal to create personal savings accounts within the Social Security system, not least of which would be funding the accounts. First, experts agree that other structural reforms, such as treating it more as a trust vs. a credit based system, would be more effective in heading off any future insolvency.
Second, a more fundamental problem is that we as Americans have poor saving habits. Social Security has long been described as one leg of a three legged stool of retirement income, the other two being personal savings and other retirement plans (DB pension, 401(k), IRA, etc.). How well do the people calling for these reforms save? How well do they invest?
Third, tax advantaged personal savings accounts already exist for most of us: a 401(k) or in the public sector 403(b). Participation in 401(k) plans has been declining on a percentage basis. Plus, too many people are complacent investors. Why? There is increasingly a drive in HR circles to require 401(k) participation, and if your company has a match, it's found money.
Fourth, the people who most want to see a Social Security personal savings account are on Wall Street. Think of the fees!! Somethings wrong when those folks are the ones most interested in reform.
I could go on, but already wrote a treatise. Personally, I'm glad that my mother and father (and my grandparents) get Social Security because it has helped alleviate the financial burdens on them and their children in their retirement. I think it is one of the most successful public policy decisions made in the 20th century.
Throwing out trite little conservative sound bites (and misquoted ones at that) does nothing to address a very complex, and much great issue.
Social Security is not directly linked to Medicare or Medicaid, and the disability definitions to qualify for pre-65 payments are very strict. Few disabled people qualify. Excess payments into Social Security (and Medicare) have been used for many years by Congress to pay for other, more immediate needs, and a large part of the public debt is owned by the systems.
There are many issues with the Bush administration proposal to create personal savings accounts within the Social Security system, not least of which would be funding the accounts. First, experts agree that other structural reforms, such as treating it more as a trust vs. a credit based system, would be more effective in heading off any future insolvency.
Second, a more fundamental problem is that we as Americans have poor saving habits. Social Security has long been described as one leg of a three legged stool of retirement income, the other two being personal savings and other retirement plans (DB pension, 401(k), IRA, etc.). How well do the people calling for these reforms save? How well do they invest?
Third, tax advantaged personal savings accounts already exist for most of us: a 401(k) or in the public sector 403(b). Participation in 401(k) plans has been declining on a percentage basis. Plus, too many people are complacent investors. Why? There is increasingly a drive in HR circles to require 401(k) participation, and if your company has a match, it's found money.
Fourth, the people who most want to see a Social Security personal savings account are on Wall Street. Think of the fees!! Somethings wrong when those folks are the ones most interested in reform.
I could go on, but already wrote a treatise. Personally, I'm glad that my mother and father (and my grandparents) get Social Security because it has helped alleviate the financial burdens on them and their children in their retirement. I think it is one of the most successful public policy decisions made in the 20th century.
Throwing out trite little conservative sound bites (and misquoted ones at that) does nothing to address a very complex, and much great issue.
"Social Security is not directly linked to Medicare or Medicaid, and the disability definitions to qualify for pre-65 payments are very strict. Few disabled people qualify. Excess payments into Social Security (and Medicare) have been used for many years by Congress to pay for other, more immediate needs, and a large part of the public debt is owned by the systems. "
Um, Medicare and Medicaid WERE on the same budget as SS. The withholding tax in the 60's was ONE tax, and the 3 systems were on the same budget. It was not until the late 70's or early 80's that the tax was divided and the budgets were separated. All three are still on the Federal Budget, since the 60's. Prior to that, SS was a separate budget and mostly hands off. HEY, there actually was a fund and "lock box".
Um, Medicare and Medicaid WERE on the same budget as SS. The withholding tax in the 60's was ONE tax, and the 3 systems were on the same budget. It was not until the late 70's or early 80's that the tax was divided and the budgets were separated. All three are still on the Federal Budget, since the 60's. Prior to that, SS was a separate budget and mostly hands off. HEY, there actually was a fund and "lock box".
MUST STOP POSTING ! MUST STOP POSTING !
Shut up and Ski!
Why's Everybody Always Pickin on Me?
Shut up and Ski!
Why's Everybody Always Pickin on Me?
Doc,
If you do a little research on those quotes, you'll find that they are drastically taken out of context. This adminstration is ingenious at data-mining techniques and this is another prime example.
Here's a story that explains a bit more about what FDR was really talking about. [url]more...http://mediamatters.org/items/200502040010[/url]
If you do a little research on those quotes, you'll find that they are drastically taken out of context. This adminstration is ingenious at data-mining techniques and this is another prime example.
Here's a story that explains a bit more about what FDR was really talking about. [url]more...http://mediamatters.org/items/200502040010[/url]
From the QUOTE of FDR before the Congress.
"In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles--first, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance; it is, of course, clear that for perhaps thirty years to come funds will have to be provided by the states and the federal government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities, which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the federal government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."
http://www.search.eb.com/elections/pri/Q00111.html
Read for yourselves.
Also, note that the initial fund was supposed to be "self supporting". Congress and LBJ tore into those funds in the 60's and have never looked back, depleting any chance of it becoming self supporting.
As for time frame, He stated government support for approximately 30 years. Hmm, 1934 to when? 1965, about the time LBJ and crew ripped it off.
"In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles--first, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance; it is, of course, clear that for perhaps thirty years to come funds will have to be provided by the states and the federal government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities, which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the federal government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."
http://www.search.eb.com/elections/pri/Q00111.html
Read for yourselves.
Also, note that the initial fund was supposed to be "self supporting". Congress and LBJ tore into those funds in the 60's and have never looked back, depleting any chance of it becoming self supporting.
As for time frame, He stated government support for approximately 30 years. Hmm, 1934 to when? 1965, about the time LBJ and crew ripped it off.
MUST STOP POSTING ! MUST STOP POSTING !
Shut up and Ski!
Why's Everybody Always Pickin on Me?
Shut up and Ski!
Why's Everybody Always Pickin on Me?
Thanks for the link, I'll definately look into it.Dr. NO wrote:From the QUOTE of FDR before the Congress.
"http://www.search.eb.com/elections/pri/Q00111.html
Read for yourselves.
-
BigKahuna13
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6488
- Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:10
- Location: Under the Boardwalk
- Contact:
If someone chooses not to save for their retirement (note I said "chooses", not "isn't able to") why should that be my concern? Why should I be forced to contribute something like $15,000 per year to a system that was put in place to force cretins to think long term?Scotty K wrote: Second, a more fundamental problem is that we as Americans have poor saving habits. Social Security has long been described as one leg of a three legged stool of retirement income, the other two being personal savings and other retirement plans (DB pension, 401(k), IRA, etc.). How well do the people calling for these reforms save? How well do they invest?
Third, tax advantaged personal savings accounts already exist for most of us: a 401(k) or in the public sector 403(b). Participation in 401(k) plans has been declining on a percentage basis. Plus, too many people are complacent investors. Why? There is increasingly a drive in HR circles to require 401(k) participation, and if your company has a match, it's found money.
I have no issue with helping people who can't help themselves. I am, however, outraged, that I have to settle for a less money in my retirement because a significant fraction of my retirement funds are funnelled into SS.
What is not possible is not to choose. ~Jean-Paul Sartre
I don' think you understand the points that you quoted: 1) Americans need to take more responsibility for being better savers and we have many vehicles for doing that (we seem to agree there). 2) Social Security is one part of the retirement equation - but not the whole equation. 3) the Bush Administration's plans are just part of a bigger picture, but private accounts will not "save" Social Security.
I also think that you are under the mistaken impression that people receiving Social Security are somehow taking advantage of the system and you. Remember that you will get Social Security at some point: let's see how you feel about contributions then. Rather than dwelling on how uninformed and self-absorbed your comment is, let's look at the failures in your argument:
1. You claim to pay $15,000 a year towards Social Security; not possible. The only way that is even close is if you are self-employed and make over $87,900 (12.4% rate), even then, the maximum you pay is $10,900. If you are employed, the rate is only 6.2% with your employer matching that amount: $5,450 max is deducted. Where is the $15K? Are you confusing OASDI with HI?
2. Let's say you get all of that contribution back as pre-tax income (which BTW would not happen under the private savings account scenario). First, assuming you make $88,000 and are married, take 25% out for taxes (obviously, if you make more, more taxes are taken out). If you're employed, you get $4,088 back, or about $170 a paycheck if you get paid twice a month. Not necessarily a huge amount, but real money nonetheless.
3. Now, take that and think about your spending habits. How much of this would you spend and how much would you save? If you are the typical middle class American, you would save about 2% or $6.80. That's not going to provide for much of a retirement, let alone buy a hamburger at KBL.
So, is that really "your retirement money" or just another source of income to waste? Or, is it retirement money that will just come from another source later on?
I also think that you are under the mistaken impression that people receiving Social Security are somehow taking advantage of the system and you. Remember that you will get Social Security at some point: let's see how you feel about contributions then. Rather than dwelling on how uninformed and self-absorbed your comment is, let's look at the failures in your argument:
1. You claim to pay $15,000 a year towards Social Security; not possible. The only way that is even close is if you are self-employed and make over $87,900 (12.4% rate), even then, the maximum you pay is $10,900. If you are employed, the rate is only 6.2% with your employer matching that amount: $5,450 max is deducted. Where is the $15K? Are you confusing OASDI with HI?
2. Let's say you get all of that contribution back as pre-tax income (which BTW would not happen under the private savings account scenario). First, assuming you make $88,000 and are married, take 25% out for taxes (obviously, if you make more, more taxes are taken out). If you're employed, you get $4,088 back, or about $170 a paycheck if you get paid twice a month. Not necessarily a huge amount, but real money nonetheless.
3. Now, take that and think about your spending habits. How much of this would you spend and how much would you save? If you are the typical middle class American, you would save about 2% or $6.80. That's not going to provide for much of a retirement, let alone buy a hamburger at KBL.
So, is that really "your retirement money" or just another source of income to waste? Or, is it retirement money that will just come from another source later on?
-
XtremeJibber2001
- Signature Poster
- Posts: 19608
- Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:35
- Location: New York
So do you think we're on a good start with private accounts? Even though this only accounts for a [approx] 1/3 of our SS...the other 2/3 [approx] is controlled by the gov't.Scotty K wrote:I don' think you understand the points that you quoted: 1) Americans need to take more responsibility for being better savers and we have many vehicles for doing that (we seem to agree there). 2) Social Security is one part of the retirement equation - but not the whole equation. 3) the Bush Administration's plans are just part of a bigger picture, but private accounts will not "save" Social Security.
E
-
BigKahuna13
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6488
- Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:10
- Location: Under the Boardwalk
- Contact:
Scotty K wrote:I don' think you understand the points that you quoted: 1) Americans need to take more responsibility for being better savers and we have many vehicles for doing that (we seem to agree there). 2) Social Security is one part of the retirement equation - but not the whole equation. 3) the Bush Administration's plans are just part of a bigger picture, but private accounts will not "save" Social Security.
I also think that you are under the mistaken impression that people receiving Social Security are somehow taking advantage of the system and you. Remember that you will get Social Security at some point: let's see how you feel about contributions then. Rather than dwelling on how uninformed and self-absorbed your comment is, let's look at the failures in your argument:
1. You claim to pay $15,000 a year towards Social Security; not possible. The only way that is even close is if you are self-employed and make over $87,900 (12.4% rate), even then, the maximum you pay is $10,900. If you are employed, the rate is only 6.2% with your employer matching that amount: $5,450 max is deducted. Where is the $15K? Are you confusing OASDI with HI?
2. Let's say you get all of that contribution back as pre-tax income (which BTW would not happen under the private savings account scenario). First, assuming you make $88,000 and are married, take 25% out for taxes (obviously, if you make more, more taxes are taken out). If you're employed, you get $4,088 back, or about $170 a paycheck if you get paid twice a month. Not necessarily a huge amount, but real money nonetheless.
3. Now, take that and think about your spending habits. How much of this would you spend and how much would you save? If you are the typical middle class American, you would save about 2% or $6.80. That's not going to provide for much of a retirement, let alone buy a hamburger at KBL.
So, is that really "your retirement money" or just another source of income to waste? Or, is it retirement money that will just come from another source later on?
My comments are hardly uninformed and self absorbed. I've already granted -- though not in so many words -- that society has a moral obligation to care for retirees who through no fault of their own cannot care for themselves, or for that matter for anyone regardless of age who can't, and I don't begrudge my tax dollars that fund programs that do just that. Hardly self-absorbed.
As for the 15K issue, I'm wrong fair enough. I pay the maximum towards SS every year and will continue to for the forseeable future. When you count the employer contribution that's $10,900 year this year. Not $15,000, but still a significant piece of change, even after taxes.
And no I don't think (many) people take advantage of the system. I think most people, completely unrealistically, believed that SS was their pension and over time that fact, and the fact that Congress saw/sees fit to raid SS every now and then has put us in a position where SS adds significantly to lots of peoples' tax burden (in my case my SS payments -- without employwer contribution -- almost equal what I pay in NYS income taxes).
The basic disagreement I have with you, which has nothing to do with being misinformed, is the belief you have -- implied by your argument -- that since people cannot be trusted to plan in the long term (we agree here) society must do it for them (we disagree here). If you have the wherewithal to fund your retirement and choose not to, why should I fund it for you? Bottom line is simply, it's my money and I'm in a much better position than the government to determine how best to use it to meet my needs. If that means increasing my 401K, helping to pay for my kids college or buying a boat, as long as I don't ask society to support me in my old age, it's really none of society's business.
Last edited by BigKahuna13 on Feb 19th, '05, 11:53, edited 1 time in total.
What is not possible is not to choose. ~Jean-Paul Sartre
Thats the kicker...BigKahuna13 wrote: as long as I don't ask society to support me in my old age, it's really none of society's business.
There's millions of old people trying to survive right now that thought at one time they'd be finacially OK in retirement....
But things have changed drastically... People lose pensions - price of drugs and healthcare go up - I could go on...
I personally don't want to support someone who makes a bad investment and loses their money...
You mean like our Government and the Social Security "Trust Fund" and "Lock Box"?DMC wrote:Thats the kicker...BigKahuna13 wrote: as long as I don't ask society to support me in my old age, it's really none of society's business.
There's millions of old people trying to survive right now that thought at one time they'd be finacially OK in retirement....
But things have changed drastically... People lose pensions - price of drugs and healthcare go up - I could go on...
I personally don't want to support someone who makes a bad investment and loses their money...
MUST STOP POSTING ! MUST STOP POSTING !
Shut up and Ski!
Why's Everybody Always Pickin on Me?
Shut up and Ski!
Why's Everybody Always Pickin on Me?