OT: Social Security

[BigKahuna13]

Nevertheless, the program needs changes.

Change would be an understatement. 13% of gross income for each taxpayer represents a huge sum of money and probably rivals what many people pay in Federal taxes. Given the limited aims of SS I have a tough time calling it efficient.

[Bubba]

Nevertheless, the program needs changes.

Change would be an understatement. 13% of gross income for each taxpayer represents a huge sum of money and probably rivals what many people pay in Federal taxes. Given the limited aims of SS I have a tough time calling it efficient.

I mean efficient in the sense of distribution efficiency and effect over time in lifting the elderly out of poverty, not efficient as in the use of and return on capital.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Nevertheless, the program needs changes.

Change would be an understatement. 13% of gross income for each taxpayer represents a huge sum of money and probably rivals what many people pay in Federal taxes. Given the limited aims of SS I have a tough time calling it efficient.

I mean efficient in the sense of distribution efficiency and effect over time in lifting the elderly out of poverty, not efficient as in the use of and return on capital.

Good point in your previous post Bubba

The question I would ask ... why are elderly in poverty? Is it because most were foolish when they were younger and didn't think about retirement or is it because the programs that exist for me wasn't there for them?

[SkiDork]

Nevertheless, the program needs changes.

Change would be an understatement. 13% of gross income for each taxpayer represents a huge sum of money and probably rivals what many people pay in Federal taxes. Given the limited aims of SS I have a tough time calling it efficient.

I mean efficient in the sense of distribution efficiency and effect over time in lifting the elderly out of poverty, not efficient as in the use of and return on capital.

Good point in your previous post Bubba

The question I would ask ... why are elderly in poverty? Is it because most were foolish when they were younger and didn't think about retirement or is it because the programs that exist for me wasn't there for them?

One thing I can think of - in the old days most people thought the a "pension" would take care of them. That is no longer the case for many.

[BigKahuna13]

Nevertheless, the program needs changes.

Change would be an understatement. 13% of gross income for each taxpayer represents a huge sum of money and probably rivals what many people pay in Federal taxes. Given the limited aims of SS I have a tough time calling it efficient.

I mean efficient in the sense of distribution efficiency and effect over time in lifting the elderly out of poverty, not efficient as in the use of and return on capital.

Good point in your previous post Bubba

The question I would ask ... why are elderly in poverty? Is it because most were foolish when they were younger and didn't think about retirement or is it because the programs that exist for me wasn't there for them?

Not everyone worked at a company that had a pension. Not everyone who had a pension worked at a company that stayed in business long enough for them to collect their pension (this happened to my uncle).

Others simply couldn't afford to save for retirement. And you have to remember that things like IRAs and 401Ks are relatively recent inventions. Hell alot of companies still don't offer 401Ks.

One of the scariest things going on today is large companies that incorrectly forecast what their pension liability would be (either because they misjudged how long people were going to live or market returns) who now find themselves saddled with huge pension bills and are trying to weasel out of paying them.

[Bubba]

Nevertheless, the program needs changes.

Change would be an understatement. 13% of gross income for each taxpayer represents a huge sum of money and probably rivals what many people pay in Federal taxes. Given the limited aims of SS I have a tough time calling it efficient.

I mean efficient in the sense of distribution efficiency and effect over time in lifting the elderly out of poverty, not efficient as in the use of and return on capital.

Good point in your previous post Bubba

The question I would ask ... why are elderly in poverty? Is it because most were foolish when they were younger and didn't think about retirement or is it because the programs that exist for me wasn't there for them?

Why "are" or why "were" the elderly in poverty? The question is "were" because the elderly are no longer in poverty - in fact, the senior population I've heard now has more wealth than the youngest generation. But, to understand the history, think back to when SS started. It was the 1930s, the Great Depression (you must've read about this in the history books - 25% unemployment, etc.) and most companies didn't even have pensions yet. Unions were still often thought of as Communist plots and we still had cops breaking up strikes by force. It was a different country then, and people lived shorter lives that were much tougher in general than today, with less money available and less money saved. Company pensions barely existed and people got old and moved in with their kids. SS was, for most, the only pension they would receive and it served a huge purpose and made great impact in changing the lives of people from the 1930s onward. Do not criticize this program lightly, regardless of the need for it to change.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Nevertheless, the program needs changes.

Change would be an understatement. 13% of gross income for each taxpayer represents a huge sum of money and probably rivals what many people pay in Federal taxes. Given the limited aims of SS I have a tough time calling it efficient.

I mean efficient in the sense of distribution efficiency and effect over time in lifting the elderly out of poverty, not efficient as in the use of and return on capital.

Good point in your previous post Bubba

The question I would ask ... why are elderly in poverty? Is it because most were foolish when they were younger and didn't think about retirement or is it because the programs that exist for me wasn't there for them?

Why "are" or why "were" the elderly in poverty? The question is "were" because the elderly are no longer in poverty - in fact, the senior population I've heard now has more wealth than the youngest generation. But, to understand the history, think back to when SS started. It was the 1930s, the Great Depression (you must've read about this in the history books - 25% unemployment, etc.) and most companies didn't even have pensions yet. Unions were still often thought of as Communist plots and we still had cops breaking up strikes by force. It was a different country then, and people lived shorter lives that were much tougher in general than today, with less money available and less money saved. Company pensions barely existed and people got old and moved in with their kids. SS was, for most, the only pension they would receive and it served a huge purpose and made great impact in changing the lives of people from the 1930s onward. Do not criticize this program lightly, regardless of the need for it to change.

I see. In todays world, would you agree for the most part that SS should be on an opt-in, opt-out basis? Although, if this was the case, there would be a gov't program developed to help those who blew all their retirement money.

[Bubba]

Change would be an understatement. 13% of gross income for each taxpayer represents a huge sum of money and probably rivals what many people pay in Federal taxes. Given the limited aims of SS I have a tough time calling it efficient.

I mean efficient in the sense of distribution efficiency and effect over time in lifting the elderly out of poverty, not efficient as in the use of and return on capital.

Good point in your previous post Bubba

The question I would ask ... why are elderly in poverty? Is it because most were foolish when they were younger and didn't think about retirement or is it because the programs that exist for me wasn't there for them?

Why "are" or why "were" the elderly in poverty? The question is "were" because the elderly are no longer in poverty - in fact, the senior population I've heard now has more wealth than the youngest generation. But, to understand the history, think back to when SS started. It was the 1930s, the Great Depression (you must've read about this in the history books - 25% unemployment, etc.) and most companies didn't even have pensions yet. Unions were still often thought of as Communist plots and we still had cops breaking up strikes by force. It was a different country then, and people lived shorter lives that were much tougher in general than today, with less money available and less money saved. Company pensions barely existed and people got old and moved in with their kids. SS was, for most, the only pension they would receive and it served a huge purpose and made great impact in changing the lives of people from the 1930s onward. Do not criticize this program lightly, regardless of the need for it to change.

I see. In todays world, would you agree for the most part that SS should be on an opt-in, opt-out basis? Although, if this was the case, there would be a gov't program developed to help those who blew all their retirement money.

No, it should not be optional. We all have a responsibility to fund SS. In fact, I would make it mandatory that all employees, including government workers who do not currently contribute, become contributors to SS. I would, however, change the fund to have a component tied to the stock market while simultaneously lowering the guaranteed payout. I might make that optional so that you would have the choice, that would have to be made at (for example) age 30, of taking the guarantee in place today or taking a lower guarantee while tying part to the market. That would have to be looked at in great detail to see the impact of the option vs no option plan.

[BigKahuna13]

Change would be an understatement. 13% of gross income for each taxpayer represents a huge sum of money and probably rivals what many people pay in Federal taxes. Given the limited aims of SS I have a tough time calling it efficient.

I mean efficient in the sense of distribution efficiency and effect over time in lifting the elderly out of poverty, not efficient as in the use of and return on capital.

Good point in your previous post Bubba

The question I would ask ... why are elderly in poverty? Is it because most were foolish when they were younger and didn't think about retirement or is it because the programs that exist for me wasn't there for them?

Why "are" or why "were" the elderly in poverty? The question is "were" because the elderly are no longer in poverty - in fact, the senior population I've heard now has more wealth than the youngest generation. But, to understand the history, think back to when SS started. It was the 1930s, the Great Depression (you must've read about this in the history books - 25% unemployment, etc.) and most companies didn't even have pensions yet. Unions were still often thought of as Communist plots and we still had cops breaking up strikes by force. It was a different country then, and people lived shorter lives that were much tougher in general than today, with less money available and less money saved. Company pensions barely existed and people got old and moved in with their kids. SS was, for most, the only pension they would receive and it served a huge purpose and made great impact in changing the lives of people from the 1930s onward. Do not criticize this program lightly, regardless of the need for it to change.

I see. In todays world, would you agree for the most part that SS should be on an opt-in, opt-out basis? Although, if this was the case, there would be a gov't program developed to help those who blew all their retirement money.

I think you're working under the misconception that every poor old person out there has only themselves to blame for their predicament. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[Bubba]

I mean efficient in the sense of distribution efficiency and effect over time in lifting the elderly out of poverty, not efficient as in the use of and return on capital.

Good point in your previous post Bubba

The question I would ask ... why are elderly in poverty? Is it because most were foolish when they were younger and didn't think about retirement or is it because the programs that exist for me wasn't there for them?

Why "are" or why "were" the elderly in poverty? The question is "were" because the elderly are no longer in poverty - in fact, the senior population I've heard now has more wealth than the youngest generation. But, to understand the history, think back to when SS started. It was the 1930s, the Great Depression (you must've read about this in the history books - 25% unemployment, etc.) and most companies didn't even have pensions yet. Unions were still often thought of as Communist plots and we still had cops breaking up strikes by force. It was a different country then, and people lived shorter lives that were much tougher in general than today, with less money available and less money saved. Company pensions barely existed and people got old and moved in with their kids. SS was, for most, the only pension they would receive and it served a huge purpose and made great impact in changing the lives of people from the 1930s onward. Do not criticize this program lightly, regardless of the need for it to change.

I see. In todays world, would you agree for the most part that SS should be on an opt-in, opt-out basis? Although, if this was the case, there would be a gov't program developed to help those who blew all their retirement money.

I think you're working under the misconception that every poor old person out there has only themselves to blame for their predicament. Nothing could be further from the truth.

He's under a lot of misconceptions - add this to the list.

[XtremeJibber2001]

I mean efficient in the sense of distribution efficiency and effect over time in lifting the elderly out of poverty, not efficient as in the use of and return on capital.

Good point in your previous post Bubba

The question I would ask ... why are elderly in poverty? Is it because most were foolish when they were younger and didn't think about retirement or is it because the programs that exist for me wasn't there for them?

Why "are" or why "were" the elderly in poverty? The question is "were" because the elderly are no longer in poverty - in fact, the senior population I've heard now has more wealth than the youngest generation. But, to understand the history, think back to when SS started. It was the 1930s, the Great Depression (you must've read about this in the history books - 25% unemployment, etc.) and most companies didn't even have pensions yet. Unions were still often thought of as Communist plots and we still had cops breaking up strikes by force. It was a different country then, and people lived shorter lives that were much tougher in general than today, with less money available and less money saved. Company pensions barely existed and people got old and moved in with their kids. SS was, for most, the only pension they would receive and it served a huge purpose and made great impact in changing the lives of people from the 1930s onward. Do not criticize this program lightly, regardless of the need for it to change.

I see. In todays world, would you agree for the most part that SS should be on an opt-in, opt-out basis? Although, if this was the case, there would be a gov't program developed to help those who blew all their retirement money.

I think you're working under the misconception that every poor old person out there has only themselves to blame for their predicament. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I'm certainly not.

[XtremeJibber2001]

You missed the employer contribution to SS, which matches your contribution so 13.4% of your salary goes to SS. But even with that SS has significant problems.

I just found out that it's actually 12.4% not 13.4%. Thought I'd mention that, even though I'm sure you fat fingerd it.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Speech went well! Some of the class seemed clueless to a degree, one student thought that 30% of our annual income went to SS

[Dr. NO]

Speech went well! Some of the class seemed clueless to a degree, one student thought that 30% of our annual income went to SS

Just goes to prove that everyone should have to PAY out of pocket taxes each month. That way, like all of your monthly bills, you would KNOW what they are taking from you every year.