Let's decrease or even elminate corporate subsidies to lower government deficit.

[rah]

In Illinois they don't pay into SS, they pay into their pension fund instead. I don't see the difference. My 401k contributions were on top of SS, they could have been stashing away extra money also.

[rah]

What in the world makes you think they aren't?!

I never said they weren't. My point was that people laugh at me because I won't see what was promised by are enraged that the state pension people will be screwed also. I don't see the difference.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You don't think state public servants who have defined benefit plans (like what SS is) are not getting screwed by underfunded budgets? I know that in New Jersey they are.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I never said they weren't. My point was that people laugh at me because I won't see what was promised by are enraged that the state pension people will be screwed also. I don't see the difference.

And where is that proof of those that laugh at you being "enraged" by state DB pensions being screwed?

[Jon Miller]

You don't see any difference between social security (which is an insurance) and a pension fund (which is money you have).

You don't have any money from social security. Legally, those with pension funds (whether they be your 401k or the public servants 401k) do.

You are getting the benefits of social security right now RAH. If something happened to you like what happened to my dad and you went on disability, social security would start paying you right now.

So you are getting the benefits right now. Later, how much the payments will be will have to change. It is good to plan for that, just because the statements you get don't tell you how it is going to change doesn't mean that you can't figure out it is going to change on your own.

But that doesn't change the fact that you are getting the benefits of social security right now. That you will continue to get the benefits of social security in the future (as long as they don't radically change it).

That you own the 401k pension, just like public servants own their 401k pension plans.

And just like if the company running your pension plan goes broke and bankrupt, it is possible that the public servants will lose out some on their pension plans. But theirs are exactly the same as yours.

Not like social security at all.

JM

[rah]

I realize that but the difference is that public servants aren't forced to pay into SS like I am. At least in Illinois.

You can't have it both ways. You're saying I'm getting the benefits from SS, (yet I have never gotten a dime back) while others are laughing at me for thinking I'm going to ever see the money. WHICH IS IT? It is my belief that the closer I get the further they will move the bar and as a result, I won't ever see anything or a few cents on the dollar that they told me I'd get. The feeling of being betrayed still exists.

[Jon Miller]

The reason why public servants are not forced to pay into SS is because of a constitutional issue due to them being state employees and the federal government not being able to tax the states.

It has nothing to do with investment/etc issues.

RAH, are you getting benefits from your car insurance? Yes, you have your car insurance, you can drive, and should you get in an accident it will cover you.

The same with social security. Should you become disabled, it will cover you. It also will cover you in the future, should you retire.

But just like your car insurance sometimes needs to change rates/pay out rates (based on the changing statistics/etc), so to the government needs to change rates/pay out rates for social security (because people are living longer).

And you say that you most likely wont' see what you have paid in... unless you die early you will get out probably more than what the original expected payment would have been (corrected for inflation/etc). You really don't have a place complaining, even if we don't let you retire until you are 67 you will still see the original expected total payout assuming you don't die early.

JM

[Jon Miller]

http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html

Based purely on this (averaging male/female), you would still be getting your 'due' if the retirement age was shifted up to 69. This is at the minimum.

It points out that the other changing demographics are serious concerns too, but based purely on your 'due', the retirement age should be much later.

JM

[Hauldren Collider]

JM, SS is a ponzi scheme and should end as soon as possible. I don't think we ought to be giving checks of money to the rich. It's not an investment, no matter what you do to make it solvent it will still be basically taking money from the young and poor and giving it to the old and rich.

If you are poor or were too stupid to invest your money, I have no problem with there being a government program that gives you basically just enough to live on but not enough so that anyone would think they are better off not saving.

[Jon Miller]

It isn't an investment and isn't suppose to be HC.

JM

[Jon Miller]

I could see replacing part of it with food stamps.

JM

[DanS]

This thread is funny. We have a record deficit this year and the debt burden is like we are just finishing up a world war. This is what's going to have to happen.

Entitlements including Social Security reduced
Corporate subsidies reduced
Taxes raised
Defense spending reduced
Science spending reduced
Education spending reduced
Farm subsidies reduced
Infrastructure spending reduced

You get the picture.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If you are poor or were too stupid to invest your money, I have no problem with there being a government program that gives you basically just enough to live on but not enough so that anyone would think they are better off not saving.

Isn't that basically what a means tested SS is?

And besides, SS has been solvent for many years - it is just that Congress & the President raided it to use in other parts of the budget, meaning that when they need that surplus (ie when baby boomers retire), it ain't there. SS is not the problem, really - we are kinda paying back what we took out of it if general budget money goes into the program. It's Medicare that's the problem.

[Hauldren Collider]

Isn't that basically what a means tested SS is?

And besides, SS has been solvent for many years - it is just that Congress & the President raided it to use in other parts of the budget, meaning that when they need that surplus (ie when baby boomers retire), it ain't there. SS is not the problem, really - we are kinda paying back what we took out of it if general budget money goes into the program. It's Medicare that's the problem.

The idea that they "raided" it is laughable. The government uses different taxes for different purposes only in theory. In reality, money just goes into one big pot and comes out of one big pot. Always has.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It isn't laughable when some claim a program isn't solvent as reason for its termination.