[PrestonSturges]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wildbourgman', ' ')With Social Security some people actually think that their money is still there and will be there when they need it.

[wildbourgman]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')emember how the GOP ridiculed Al Gore's idea of a Social Security "lock box" because Bush wanted to put that money into the stock market?

[Quinny]

Spot on!

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Shaved Monkey', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', '
')The main reason IMHO is control in that young unemployed 'can' be targeted as 'lazy and scroungers' etc...... Whereas TPTB and the right wing press can't as easily attack pensioners who've worked all their lives.

It simply allows the divide and rule strategies of TPTB to be perpetuated.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', '
')Would never work, the individual is just as greedy as any politician. People as a rule don't save. Specially poor people that can barely make ends meet. If you make it mandatory, then what's the difference other than individual accounts would not be guaranteed a return on savings, or investment and could eventually be a total loss. The only people that would really benefit is corporations needing a new investment revenue stream.

[KaiserJeep]

I'm not saying that such a proposal would not work. I am saying that it's simply never going to happen.

Congress passes legislation. They will never pass any legislation to keep the biggest pot of money in the world out of their greedy hands, for use in rewarding those who financed their campaign into elected office.

There are lots of good ideas. The legislative system pretty well ensures that only bad ideas get passed into law.

[PrestonSturges]

I've been thinking along the same lines about a mandatory personal savings, and the government should insure an interest rate that would be the rate of inflation plus 1.5%.

Then, when a person retires they can convert that amount to an annuity that will pay them for the rest of their lives regardless of how long they live.

[PrestonSturges]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wildbourgman', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nyway, about those "draconian cuts," tell us where you are getting this stuff, because people are very free about sharing opinions like that and then they go silent when I ask "Where did you hear that?"

[Quinny]

What's with this obsession with the individual!

Some things are simply better provided collectively and also much cheaper in the long run,

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', 'W')hat's with this obsession with the individual!

Some things are simply better provided collectively and also much cheaper in the long run,

[Pops]

What is wrong with SS? Basically it is investing your retirement dollars in US bonds. there is no safer investment. If the US goes tits up nothing will be worth anything.

Tanada I think the government paying interest on savings it can't use doesn't make sense. The gov pays interest on the money now but in your plan the money is taken out of circulation. The whole point of the banking system is that one person's savings is another's capital. Taking money - a huge amount in fact, out of the system to simply sit there (and have the public pay to not use it) would be incredibly deflationary. And just because the evil government can't spend that money is absolutely no impediment to it borrowing money to spend elsewhere.

SS is a savings account. You loan the gov money, they use it and pay it back with interest. The pay-back is at a rate calculated on your life expectancy - which just happens to be 17.5 years for men 65, and 20 years for women 65. That's why benefits are lower if you start them at 62 and higher if you start at 70 because you essentially have a set amount.

The "social" part is that if you live longer than the actuarial tables predict you don't run out of savings, that's balanced of course by the folks who don't live as long. The kicker is the benefits are progressive in that lower income people receive a greater benefit than higher. That also balances because withholding is regressive - lower incomes also pay a higher percentage.

So essentially there is no functional difference between what you are proposing and SS, except the part about people who "never saved anything" being put on welfare and branded with the Scarlet Letter if they live longer than their allotted 20 years. That's the Puritan guilt trip coming out, LOL


--
OTOH, the only thing privatizing SS money would do would be to open up a whole new racket for Payday Loan, check cashers and other vultures to suck off the uneducated working person and of course opening up the retirement of the entire country to the Bernie Madoffs and Gold Sacs of the world. The only thing giving that money to fund managers would accomplish is increasing the manager's own IRA. Mutual funds took an average of 30% of returns in fees in the oughties, it is just another scam.

Of course there is the added benefit of being able to blame the unsophisticated for being unsophisticated.

--
It seems half the country wants to punish and profit from the unsophisticated burger flipper and the other half wants to cut him a check and put him on a program. Don't even think about paying him a living wage or heaven forbid, protecting him from the legal loan sharks or outfits who charge 20% to cash his tiny paycheck for cripes sake. Heck, he's lucky to have a job, we'd fire him too but the robot hasn't yet figured out how to pick up the dropped hash browns off the floor.

[Tanada]

Pops if you scroll back up to my proposal you will see the savings accounts are to be held by the Federal reserve, not private banks, and the Federal reserve is in the business of lending money to regional/state banks so they have plenty of income to cover the moderate interest they would have to pay to the SS recipients.

One of my goals with my system is to let the heirs of the deceased senior inherit the unspent money in the account instead of it going to the Government. If you work for 40 years and die suddenly at 61 the government says too bad so sad and pockets all the funds you put into the system. If you work the same 40 years and save money in a private bank and drop dead your spouse/descendents/heirs/designee get to use that money to stimulate the economy directly.

[wildbourgman]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PrestonSturges', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wildbourgman', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nyway, about those "draconian cuts," tell us where you are getting this stuff, because people are very free about sharing opinions like that and then they go silent when I ask "Where did you hear that?"

[yellowcanoe]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'W')hat is wrong with SS? Basically it is investing your retirement dollars in US bonds. there is no safer investment. If the US goes tits up nothing will be worth anything.

[Pops]

T. there is no money for the government to "get."
SS is insurance and society is the the "insurance pool." Total benefits and total premiums are meant to balance. Your kids don't get the money back from your various insurance premiums if you don't get sick or your house doesn't burn down or you don't get in a car accident or die in a plane crash. You pay the premium in return for the avoidance of risk, in the case of SS, to avoid the risk of getting old and being completely broke.

It's just old age insurance with a mandated premium to force people to act responsibly, just like the Heritage Foundation likes, LOL

I'd guess the reason the fund is in trouble at the moment is the system simply hasn't caught up with increasing life expectancy.

And anyway, I thought you hated the Fed> LOL

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yellowcanoe', 'T')he problem with converting the SS surplus into US bonds is what happens once so many boomers retire that SS needs to start drawing on those funds.

[vision-master]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PrestonSturges', 'I')'ve been thinking along the same lines about a mandatory personal savings, and the government should insure an interest rate that would be the rate of inflation plus 1.5%.

Then, when a person retires they can convert that amount to an annuity that will pay them for the rest of their lives regardless of how long they live.

[vision-master]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'P')ops if you scroll back up to my proposal you will see the savings accounts are to be held by the Federal reserve, not private banks, and the Federal reserve is in the business of lending money to regional/state banks so they have plenty of income to cover the moderate interest they would have to pay to the SS recipients.

One of my goals with my system is to let the heirs of the deceased senior inherit the unspent money in the account instead of it going to the Government. If you work for 40 years and die suddenly at 61 the government says too bad so sad and pockets all the funds you put into the system. If you work the same 40 years and save money in a private bank and drop dead your spouse/descendents/heirs/designee get to use that money to stimulate the economy directly.

[Lore]

I'm not sure how Tanada's plan is any different then the SS system we have now? The fact that presently the money becomes part of the general fund is irrelevant. The money by law still gets paid out to every eligible recipient. If the money is held by the Feds in some lock box it's still not just going to sit there doing nothing, specially if you have to pay interest on top of it. The security of that money is no different then it is now.

If you want to balance the present system by the deadline of 2033, as pointed out, raise the eligibility age, raise the payroll tax by 4%, or decrease the benefit.

[PrestonSturges]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'W')hat is wrong with SS? Basically it is investing your retirement dollars in US bonds. there is no safer investment. If the US goes tits up nothing will be worth anything.

Tanada I think the government paying interest on savings it can't use doesn't make sense. The gov pays interest on the money now but in your plan the money is taken out of circulation.

[PrestonSturges]

Now we have the cities claiming they are too broke to pay pensioners, but many of these cities have financed the construction of huge stadiums that operate at a loss. Some cities have built several stadiums for crappy sports franchises. Now some teams want to replace perfectly good stadiums with newer stadiums with fewer seats and more luxury sky-boxes, all on the taxpayers backs.