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 wrote: Nevertheless, the program needs changes.
OT: Social Security
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6488
- Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:10
- Location: Under the Boardwalk
- Contact:
What is not possible is not to choose. ~Jean-Paul Sartre
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 26360
- Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 08:42
- Location: Where the climate suits my clothes
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.BigKahuna13 wrote: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 wrote: Nevertheless, the program needs changes.
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here"
Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald
"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald
"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
-
- Signature Poster
- Posts: 19678
- Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:35
- Location: New York
Good point in your previous post BubbaBubba wrote: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.BigKahuna13 wrote: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 wrote: Nevertheless, the program needs changes.
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.XtremeJibber2001 wrote:Good point in your previous post BubbaBubba wrote: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.BigKahuna13 wrote: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 wrote: Nevertheless, the program needs changes.
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?
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6488
- Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:10
- Location: Under the Boardwalk
- Contact:
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).XtremeJibber2001 wrote:Good point in your previous post BubbaBubba wrote: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.BigKahuna13 wrote: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 wrote: Nevertheless, the program needs changes.
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?
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.
What is not possible is not to choose. ~Jean-Paul Sartre
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 26360
- Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 08:42
- Location: Where the climate suits my clothes
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 wrote:Good point in your previous post BubbaBubba wrote: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.BigKahuna13 wrote: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 wrote: Nevertheless, the program needs changes.
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?
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here"
Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald
"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald
"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
-
- Signature Poster
- Posts: 19678
- Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:35
- Location: New York
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 wrote: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 wrote:Good point in your previous post BubbaBubba wrote: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.BigKahuna13 wrote: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 wrote: Nevertheless, the program needs changes.
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?
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 26360
- Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 08:42
- Location: Where the climate suits my clothes
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.XtremeJibber2001 wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote:Good point in your previous post BubbaBubba wrote: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.BigKahuna13 wrote: 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.
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?
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here"
Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald
"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald
"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6488
- Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:10
- Location: Under the Boardwalk
- Contact:
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.XtremeJibber2001 wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote:Good point in your previous post BubbaBubba wrote: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.BigKahuna13 wrote: 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.
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?
What is not possible is not to choose. ~Jean-Paul Sartre
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 26360
- Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 08:42
- Location: Where the climate suits my clothes
He's under a lot of misconceptions - add this to the list.BigKahuna13 wrote: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.XtremeJibber2001 wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote:Good point in your previous post BubbaBubba wrote: 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.
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?
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here"
Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald
"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald
"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
-
- Signature Poster
- Posts: 19678
- Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:35
- Location: New York
I'm certainly not.BigKahuna13 wrote: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.XtremeJibber2001 wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote:Good point in your previous post BubbaBubba wrote: 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.
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?
-
- Signature Poster
- Posts: 19678
- Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:35
- Location: New York
-
- Signature Poster
- Posts: 19678
- Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:35
- Location: New York
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.XtremeJibber2001 wrote:Speech went well! Some of the class seemed clueless to a degree, one student thought that 30% of our annual income went to SS
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?