Social Security Reform

[Exquisite5]

I read this article this morning from the Washington Post: Social Security Formula Weighed


I suppose I am a Democrat, although at times I feel more like and Independent. Specifically, I am in favor of school choice/vouchers and more responsible use of taxes- but I digress. I called my Senator (R-TX) and spoke to an aid about Social Security because I was very confused about what actually happens to the already paid SS $ of young workers if the President's plan is enacted. He told that my particular question is at present a point of contention and will likely be battled out in Congress, but we discussed other aspects of the plan.

I think I have come to support the plan, although I do wish one of the options for investment of the privatized portion of the SS were real estate.

What do you guys think?

Edited to fix link.

[Love_Spell_6]

Originally posted by Exquisite5
I read this article this morning from the Washington Post: Social Security Formula Weighed


I suppose I am a Democrat, although at times I feel more like and Independent. Specifically, I am in favor of school choice/vouchers and more responsible use of taxes- but I digress. I called my Senator (R-TX) and spoke to an aid about Social Security because I was very confused about what actually happens to the already paid SS $ of young workers if the President's plan is enacted. He told that is a point of contention right now and will likely be battled out in Congress, but we discussed other aspects of the plan.

I think I have come to support the plan, although I do wish one of the options for investment of the privatized portion of the SS were real estate.

What do you guys think?

Edited to fix link.

I am torn on this issue. First I applaud the President for doing something about the problem instead of just seeing it coming and not acting on it. Second, I am torn on the amount of responsibility with this issue placed on the government itself. Shouldn't we have to take some responsibility for our own futures i.e. saving, investing money etc.? I think the days are passed where we can live live without financial parameters and expect that our social security will take care of us after age 65. Many times its not the amount of money we make being a reason we can't save $, but that many folks live above their means. I will say I like the personal savings accounts because it gives us some autonomy with the issue and it forces us to take responsiblity for our own lives instead of assuming the government will do it....

[Inquisitive]

President Bush will be addressing this issue tonight during his State of the Union speech. We should all tune in.

[mccoyred]

Unfortunately, I did not see the State of the Union address ( I hope to catch a replay on C-SPAN) but I do agree that we as individuals do need to take more accountability for planning for our own retirement. My struggle is in resolving the thousands of dollars we as workers have already paid into the pot. What happens to that money?

Originally posted by Love_Spell_6
I am torn on this issue. First I applaud the President for doing something about the problem instead of just seeing it coming and not acting on it. Second, I am torn on the amount of responsibility with this issue placed on the government itself. Shouldn't we have to take some responsibility for our own futures i.e. saving, investing money etc.? I think the days are passed where we can live live without financial parameters and expect that our social security will take care of us after age 65. Many times its not the amount of money we make being a reason we can't save $, but that many folks live above their means. I will say I like the personal savings accounts because it gives us some autonomy with the issue and it forces us to take responsiblity for our own lives instead of assuming the government will do it....

[Love_Spell_6]

Originally posted by mccoyred
Unfortunately, I did not see the State of the Union address ( I hope to catch a replay on C-SPAN) but I do agree that we as individuals do need to take more accountability for planning for our own retirement. My struggle is in resolving the thousands of dollars we as workers have already paid into the pot. What happens to that money?

Unfortunately I do not think we can have it both ways...get what we've paid in...and start investing it ourselves...even if they tell us we will be able to...I doubt it.. Those numbers are real that the PResident put forth i.e. there used to be 16 working people paying for every one retiree and now its down to about 3 people working for every retiree.. When the system was created...life expectancy was not as long, so this problem really was not foreseeable...
I would LOVE to get my hands on my own money though

[DC_Zeta1920]

Personally I disagree with the plan. It turns out Social Security really is not in danger. I believe that this is another ploy in the Republican platform. We are allegedly supposed to be able to invest our social security but the problem with it is that we really do not have a choice in where we will be able to invest our funds they tell us where to invest. And it would be oh soooooo ironic if we have to invest it in Halliburton

[Exquisite5]

Originally posted by DC_Zeta1920
Personally I disagree with the plan. It turns out Social Security really is not in danger. I believe that this is another ploy in the Republican platform. We are allegedly supposed to be able to invest our social security but the problem with it is that we really do not have a choice in where we will be able to invest our funds they tell us where to invest. And it would be oh soooooo ironic if we have to invest it in Halliburton

Where did you find that Social Security really is not in danger? Everything I have read from independent sources, even some democratic services, says that social security actually is in danger, although perhaps the coeffers will not dry up as quickly as the Republicans say.

I too had an issue with the gov't picking what packages we invest in, but after more investigation (perhaps some covered with spin) I have found that the gov't is picking the investment packages to ensure that investors don't pick too risky of options. This is a reason you won't be able to invest solely in pure stock. To me, the gov't has this right since they are the ones who who to insure the investments (even if your investment goes broke or bust the gov't will stil give you more $$ than your non-invested portion).

On the issue of what happens to the money young workers (read as more than 15 years from retirement age) have already invested- that is what I exactly asked my Senator's aid. He said that that is one of the debatable points of the plan and apparently people from both parties all see it differently. He expects that to be hammered out in Conference Committee because very likely the House and Senate will not pass bills that are identical on that issue. The lack of solid support on any one proposal (from people in both parties) regarding the already invested money of young workers is probably why you've not heard much about that issue in the plan.

[AKA_Monet]

What I am unclear on is how Clinton left the Social Security with a surplus in 2000, and Bush has a second term with a billion dollar debt that is worse than Reagan's...

Do I trust the government to invest my money wisely when a few of these folks in business had "cooked books"?

Do I want the option of taking my own money, and NOT investing it into the government and invest it on my own with a tax sheltered, tax defered or Roth IRA account--then hope the market doesn't crash?

Because Wall Street does get touchy during times of war... That's historical... Someday's there are rebounds, but if we lose big time in something for whatever reason in Iraq, prices drop... Period...

And if the investments are "bonds", then what kind of bonds--war bonds? For a war I do not support?

Something just sounds too funky to me... Something has run amuck... And it sounds like somebody's trying to force "their" belief systems on me as if I am a fool with her money...

Hayle no, I don't think so...

Moreover, given that many of us up in heerah are wage earners and have minimal capital, then we are at the mercy of what the President says... And I personally don't care who is on his business tech stock analysts from whatever brokerage house (spelled Fox Business Stoxs with Neil Cavuto and Arthur Anderson)...

I'm sorry, I'm a Suze Orman fan... I have shared banking with Credit Unions only... And I invest with Fidelity, Vangard, Phoenix Home Life, AllianceBernstein (which did really bad during the dot.bomb) and TIAA-CREF... And I think TD Waterhouse has some good ideas of what to do...

[Exquisite5]

Originally posted by AKA_Monet


Do I want the option of taking my own money, and NOT investing it into the government and invest it on my own with a tax sheltered, tax defered or Roth IRA account--then hope the market doesn't crash?

I understand your point, but that is why its an option.
You don't have to take the option, but I (and other young people tired of throwing away money they know they'll never see) certainly will. In fact, I'd like to broaden the plan.

I want the option of not paying social security at all- I personally think its pointless. No one my age is going to truly get any money worthwhile from SS by the time we turn 65 and I have a problem paying for the elderly-relaxation of the people who spat at my father and called him "boy" no less than half a century ago.

I want to keep my $5600 (maximum tax on the first 90 grand) a year and invest it how I please. If I invest that $5600 in a Roth IRA until I turn 65 and my fiance does the same with his portion we would have $1.4 mil at 65- enough for us to draw $72 grand a year for twenty years (and that is simplifying the math by assuming the money remaining int he IRA isn't gaining interest from age 65-death as it would be in actuality.)

This is why social security is a rip off. I don't mind supporting those less fortunate, in fact I love to, but come on why should we give up a combined $72 grand a year for the approx. $25 grand a year social security will give us? Giving up $50 grand a year over 20 years is alot- there's generosity and there's pillaging.

Clearly, my desires are extreme and likely will never occur. But at the least the gov't needs to set an income cap on who can draw SS. That way wealthy people won't draw on it therefore less people will draw on it and we can all pay less into it.

Besides, someone making $100 grand a year, is accustomed to $2,000 pre-tax or about $1300 post tax a week. The gov'ts approx. $1700 a month is not going to get them where they need/want to be anyway.

I'd rather pay $2,000 instead of $5600 a year and sincerely help the poor avoid destitution (the original purpose of SS) and know that as a professional my retirement is up to me.

[Pearls4Life]

SMOKE SCREEN!!!!!

pH my.....we best believe his reasons is banking our people won't save ....then what? They still won't get what they put in. Bush has other motives for Social Security....