Most Americans have the right idea on SS.

[Lincoln]

If my FDIC insured account goes belly up them we are all introuble. If you are not sure what FDIC means I will be happy to explain it to you...

[Harry Tuttle]

Hmmmm, Lincoln, what are your thoughts on Treasury Bonds?

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Originally posted by Flubber
Question

will the "wealthy" get social security benefits in line with what they put into the system??

I have never thought bout that before. If the rich like donald trump pay social security, when they get older will the claim it and stuff, thats a good question. Not like the donald would need the ss but good question.

[Lincoln]

I think that should be discussed with a diverse package that is centered on an FDIC insured savings account. As for investing it all in the stock market I am dead set against that idea.

[Lincoln]

By the way, I am one of those over 55 folks so I really don't care what they do but if I was younger I would jump at the idea of investing my own money.

[Ming]

Gee... what a surprise... People think that rich people should pay even more taxes... As Flubber points out... the results shouldn't surprise anybody.

I wonder how the poll would have come out if they had asked Are "YOU" willing to pay more taxes to help fund future SS problems... Well, no I don't wonder, because the answer would have been a resounding NO.

What a stupid poll...

[Agathon]

If my FDIC insured account goes belly up them we are all introuble. If you are not sure what FDIC means I will be happy to explain it to you...

Won't that just mean that the government will be bailing it out again? And that insurance will (in real terms, if not on paper) cost too much anyway.

Insuring your retirement insurance... makes sense to me.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Japher
The rich are rich (and stay rich) because they read the fukin manual on how to do so.

I saw that on an infomercial at 2 am last night. I'm on my way!

[PLATO]

Most rich people don't receive the same level of service per dollar paid in taxes as poor people already. If you believe in progressive taxation, then removing the cap on SS taxes is a no brainer.

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO
Most rich people don't receive the same level of service per dollar paid in taxes as poor people already. If you believe in progressive taxation, then removing the cap on SS taxes is a no brainer.

Rich people receieve more for their money than the poor from taxes.

That said, I myself, a young person, am against diverting payroll taxes to set up private accounts as it is sold now- adding 2 Trillion in debt is not something I care for, since that only means interest payments will go up and up. Indexing SS to inflation as opposed to wages is also a bad idea, since it would mean a huge cut in benefits long term.

If we assume that the economy will grow more slowly in the future (the estimates that say SS will run out of its piggy bank in 2042 assume that in the future the economy will grow at about 1.9% on average annually, as opposed to the 3% + it has grown in the last 75 years) then private accounts plus indexing to inflation would mean a huge cut in benefits for retirement out of SS. If the economy performs as well in the future as in the past the SS "crisis" vanishes utterly.

I still say, a slow increase in the payroll tax, a slight move upward in the cap, and raising the retirement age to 69 or 70 over the next 30 years.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap


Rich people receieve more for their money than the poor from taxes.

I was refering to general income taxes, not SS taxes. For SS taxes you are of course correct.

I have a lot of fear about messing with SS. It seems like one of those things that sounds good on paper, but I have my doubts.

[GePap]

The problem is that there are two issues:

1. How can we make the current system last
2. Can we make a better system

Doing he first is not rocket science- we have to take similar steps to those taken in the mid-80's, raising revenues and cutting costs, thought again, nothing to radical is really necessary, given that if the economy in the future underperforms but not by much, the "crisis" vanishes. That is why I advocate small and long term tax raises and raising the retirement age over time as well, incremental, measured changes that make the system work without much problem.

The long term supporters of "reform" don;t care about 1, because they think a different system is better- so they seek to change the public pension system under the guise of reforming it. This half-asses approach in my view is the worst of all worlds, but is the only path that these folks can take because the success of the program as is has made it difficult right now to simply clamor for the complete overthrow of the current system.

[Japher]

IMO, the best plan would

a) keep social security alive for those who NEED it
and
b) give those who don't need it an alternative

Those who don't need it and pay into it all their lives, or if we feel like it pay it at a higher AMOUNT (if not a higher rate), should have some kind of benefit if they decide not to take it or pay more.

I'm thinking lower capital gains taxes on investment. That way they'll be encouraged to invest more, thus taxed more (even if the tax is lower). Get 'em on volume.

The wealthy are more likely to invest their money, and are more likely to think (and actually do) they can beat the market. It's a win win!

They pay 4% on the dollar over 90k, but if they can beat that - gains tax in their investments they won't care. I am sure that is something they would like, even with the double taxation, and SS will get more money.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Agathon

If my FDIC insured account goes belly up them we are all introuble. If you are not sure what FDIC means I will be happy to explain it to you...

Won't that just mean that the government will be bailing it out again? And that insurance will (in real terms, if not on paper) cost too much anyway.

Insuring your retirement insurance... makes sense to me.

FDIC insures saving accounts already. It is designed to prevent a run on the banks if the economy tanks as it did during the great depressoon of the 1930's. If the federal government defaults on that then nothing can save SS or anything else. The point is that the money is not subject to stock market crashes etc. Of course if we have a depression of biblical proportions everyone will be broke including the government. Then the farmers will be king.

[Agathon]

I'm hazy on the scheme, but won't that create a one way bet?

Or are people not even allowed to control their "private" accounts?