(08-19-2015 02:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Nobody WANTS to decrease Social Security. The problem is that Social Security is going to decrease itself because it's on an unsustainable economic path. So how do you change that?

By bringing in a whole new group of tax payers. I wonder. .....where could we find 11 million people willingly to pay taxes?

(08-19-2015 09:43 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 02:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Nobody WANTS to decrease Social Security. The problem is that Social Security is going to decrease itself because it's on an unsustainable economic path. So how do you change that?

By bringing in a whole new group of tax payers. I wonder. .....where could we find 11 million people willingly to pay taxes?

If you're thinking who I think you are, that's a good idea. But they will ultimately have to be paid back when they reach retirement age, so that's a quick fix that does not address the structural problems.

Owl,

Why should the cap on SS be lifted? If SS is truly a lockbox, why should one pay infinitely more into a system in which, very likely, when I retire, I will be "means tested" out of ever receiving the benefit.

It's wealth redistribution, plain and simple, and not fair. I'd rather cash out at a 30% level (that's bankruptcy payouts) of what I paid in, have no further tax burden nor expectation of benefits when I retire. Otherwise, under whatever euphemistic name you want to call it, the government is simply taking my money and giving it to someone else. Enough is enough.

(08-19-2015 10:06 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  Owl,
Why should the cap on SS be lifted? If SS is truly a lockbox, why should one pay infinitely more into a system in which, very likely, when I retire, I will be "means tested" out of ever receiving the benefit.
It's wealth redistribution, plain and simple, and not fair. I'd rather cash out at a 30% level (that's bankruptcy payouts) of what I paid in, have no further tax burden nor expectation of benefits when I retire. Otherwise, under whatever euphemistic name you want to call it, the government is simply taking my money and giving it to someone else. Enough is enough.

I don't like means testing anything. That's where the "welfare trap" comes from. Unfortunately, means testing is the legacy of the "democrat lite" republicans. Instead of coming up with ideas of their own, they just means test whatever the democrats want to do. Europe doesn't means test much, and that's how they avoid the "welfare trap" problem.

Social security really isn't means tested at this point. It's just that you get something like a 1-3% ROI, which is pretty absurdly low. That's why I've always made the comparison that you'd do better putting your SS dollars into a Dow index fund. Higher incomes do tend to get the lower end of that ROI range, but that's not really redistribution on any significant scale. That's why if you could put it into something making 5%, you'd solve a lot of the problems right there.

I would use a slower rate of inflation on the top end of the SS payment stream, offsetting that with the impact of the privatized super-401k accounts.

Just thinking of something as I wrote this. Paul Ryan's staff did a very interesting study about a year or two ago, where they took some stuff that CBO had done and tweaked it to really show how the "welfare trap" works. Unfortunately, instead of concluding that we need to get rid of the "welfare trap," they went off on some tangent about the poor needing to be more responsible. Made no sense to me at the time, but thinking about the republican fascination with means testing, probably the last thing they wanted to do is come out against the welfare trap.

(08-19-2015 09:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 09:43 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 02:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Nobody WANTS to decrease Social Security. The problem is that Social Security is going to decrease itself because it's on an unsustainable economic path. So how do you change that?

By bringing in a whole new group of tax payers. I wonder. .....where could we find 11 million people willingly to pay taxes?

If you're thinking who I think you are, that's a good idea. But they will ultimately have to be paid back when they reach retirement age, so that's a quick fix that does not address the structural problems.

and what taxes would actually be paid in totality?

ss/fed/local/some employer taxes (those that go by the book)...I'm pretty certain the immediate fed gain would be negligible to negative

and as you point out, the structure as designed doesn't change based on that insertion into the system

locally, I see the plusses.....federally and long term I see nothing but negatives

(08-19-2015 02:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Nobody WANTS to decrease Social Security. The problem is that Social Security is going to decrease itself because it's on an unsustainable economic path. So how do you change that?

Put More People Back to Work ! Actual Working Folks that pay into the System and having the politicians to never touch it to fund other programs like in the past.

(08-19-2015 09:43 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 02:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Nobody WANTS to decrease Social Security. The problem is that Social Security is going to decrease itself because it's on an unsustainable economic path. So how do you change that?

By bringing in a whole new group of tax payers. I wonder. .....where could we find 11 million people willingly to pay taxes?

A better solutions is for the govt to stop stealing from the SS trust fund. From what I've read, as of 2014, the govt had taken approximately $3 trillion from the fund to use for "other" purposes.

When Donald Trump speaks it's like he's reading my mind.

(08-19-2015 10:06 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  Owl,

Why should the cap on SS be lifted? If SS is truly a lockbox, why should one pay infinitely more into a system in which, very likely, when I retire, I will be "means tested" out of ever receiving the benefit.

It's wealth redistribution, plain and simple, and not fair. I'd rather cash out at a 30% level (that's bankruptcy payouts) of what I paid in, have no further tax burden nor expectation of benefits when I retire. Otherwise, under whatever euphemistic name you want to call it, the government is simply taking my money and giving it to someone else. Enough is enough.

Its the Democrats who want to let it get bankrupt so they can turn it into a welfare system and gradually take it away from the middle class.

(08-19-2015 02:48 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 02:19 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  Rampant SS fraud is the main issue with that clusterF.

I simply want an option to privatize my own "social security."

Once you allow people to pull out of the system, it falls apart and nobody gets it. Then you just shift senior citizens over to welfare instead of a system they paid into.

Given the choice, most people would like to have those extra dollars back on their paycheck. Given that freedom, most people would waste that money and not save it for retirement.

Many people wouldn't pull out of the system if given the option because they know how stupid they are with money.

Yes, I want to be "given the choice." It's my money and I choose not to ever receive Social Security. Instead, I would like the money to put towards my own retirement. Whether or not "most people would waste" that money is irrelevant. I don't care about their money.

(08-20-2015 07:55 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 09:43 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 02:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Nobody WANTS to decrease Social Security. The problem is that Social Security is going to decrease itself because it's on an unsustainable economic path. So how do you change that?

By bringing in a whole new group of tax payers. I wonder. .....where could we find 11 million people willingly to pay taxes?

A better solutions is for the govt to stop stealing from the SS trust fund. From what I've read, as of 2014, the govt had taken approximately $3 trillion from the fund to use for "other" purposes.

Well that IOU is still there. What isn't there is the ridiculous tax cut they did. They cut SS taxes when they already knew it was structurally unsound. They could have done the same thing without messing with social security.

(08-20-2015 08:26 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 07:55 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 09:43 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 02:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Nobody WANTS to decrease Social Security. The problem is that Social Security is going to decrease itself because it's on an unsustainable economic path. So how do you change that?

By bringing in a whole new group of tax payers. I wonder. .....where could we find 11 million people willingly to pay taxes?

A better solutions is for the govt to stop stealing from the SS trust fund. From what I've read, as of 2014, the govt had taken approximately $3 trillion from the fund to use for "other" purposes.

Well that IOU is still there. What isn't there is the ridiculous tax cut they did. They cut SS taxes when they already knew it was structurally unsound. They could have done the same thing without messing with social security.

It's an IOU in perpetuity.

(08-20-2015 08:29 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 08:26 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 07:55 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 09:43 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 02:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Nobody WANTS to decrease Social Security. The problem is that Social Security is going to decrease itself because it's on an unsustainable economic path. So how do you change that?

By bringing in a whole new group of tax payers. I wonder. .....where could we find 11 million people willingly to pay taxes?

A better solutions is for the govt to stop stealing from the SS trust fund. From what I've read, as of 2014, the govt had taken approximately $3 trillion from the fund to use for "other" purposes.

Well that IOU is still there. What isn't there is the ridiculous tax cut they did. They cut SS taxes when they already knew it was structurally unsound. They could have done the same thing without messing with social security.

It's an IOU in perpetuity.

And here's where the hypocrisy really shows. When we talk about the debt being too large, we get the response that oh, it's really not that bad, because $3-4 trillion of it is just money we owe ourselves. Then when we talk about social security's problems, in particular about the Ponzi nature of the scheme, we get the response that oh, it's sound, it's backed by government guarantees to pay $3-4 trillion. Folks, it's the same $3-4 trillion. If we have to pay it back, then it's just as real as the rest of the debt. If we don't, then social security is basically an insolvent Ponzi scheme. One or the other of those statements is true; it has to be, maybe both.

The hole in the whole fiscal responsibility discussion is that on the one hand not all of the debt is on the books, while on the other hand not all of the assets are on the books. The federal government has some significant revenue-generating assets on the books--TVA, Amtrak, postal service--and some other potential revenue generating assets--interstate highways (as toll roads), air traffic control. Set them up as private corporations and charge them to produce a 5% return on investment. Transfer them to SS, let that offset the inter fund debt, and use the future income stream to reduce the future SS shortfall. The real problem with SS funding is that its assets don't generate sufficient return. ROI for individuals runs from about 3% for people on the low end of the income dispersion down to about 1% for people at higher income levels. Putting assets in that earn 5% would drastically alter the economics.

Do like Sweden and set up a privatized component of SS. Let the private part of SS consist of a three-part pool, first $100,000 per person goes into these privatized enterprises, the second $100,000 per person goes into a conservative stock portfolio, and above $200,000 can be self-directed. This "super 401k" gives every American an equity interest in the future, which is something the left has been wanting.

(08-20-2015 08:26 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 02:48 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 02:19 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  Rampant SS fraud is the main issue with that clusterF.

I simply want an option to privatize my own "social security."

Once you allow people to pull out of the system, it falls apart and nobody gets it. Then you just shift senior citizens over to welfare instead of a system they paid into.

Given the choice, most people would like to have those extra dollars back on their paycheck. Given that freedom, most people would waste that money and not save it for retirement.

Many people wouldn't pull out of the system if given the option because they know how stupid they are with money.

Yes, I want to be "given the choice." It's my money and I choose not to ever receive Social Security. Instead, I would like the money to put towards my own retirement. Whether or not "most people would waste" that money is irrelevant. I don't care about their money.

Firmly disagree about people willingly leaving it in. Poor people are terrible with money and if they think they can get a few extra dollars per paycheck to live on, they'll take that chance because everyone believes they'll make up for it in the future.

When they piss away all their money and don't have any left to survive, they'll come after yours.

I like to look at welfare and social security as a "don't rob me" tax. Doesn't ensure I won't get robbed (just like my property taxes that help fund fire departments don't ensure my house won't burn down), but they do provide some security.

Just because people live longer doesn't mean people want to hire 67 year olds or have workers hang around until they are 72. Especially in the current environment.

At some point you have elderly unemployed with no income eating cat food again. But Social Security is "saved".

I would rather trust myself with my money than the federal government. I might piss it all away, but it's a certainty that the federal government is going to piss it away.

(08-19-2015 02:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here's the way I would go about it:

1) remove the salary cap;
2) increase the eligibility age one month per year for 48 years to get to 70; you could still start at 62 for reduced benefits, although actuarial calculations will mean a bigger penalty as the standard age increases;
3) transfer federal business enterprises such as postal service, interstate highways (convert to national toll road system), TVA and western water/power agencies, airports and air traffic control, others, to social security in payment for debt owed by general government; set up such enterprises to earn a rate of return of 5%;
4) set up a private component like Sweden, let it invest the first $100,000/person in the infrastructure enterprises above, the second $100,000/person in conservative index funds, and allow some self-directed investments above;
5) as the privatized component grows, cap the upper limits of what SS will pay out, until you end up with basically a single payment augmented by the income from the privatized portion.

1, 2, 3, and 5 all make the system solvent. 4 gives every American an equity ownership interest in the future of the country.

Great thoughts, but almost need a seperate thread on each topic.

1 Agree completely, even though it would have applied to me; and will if I start working again.
2 Not sure I agree. Someone in a heavy labor blue collar situation may be unable to keep going as much as a white collar worker. Plus SS is insurance that also covers disability.
3 Love the concept, but post office & airports/TVA are currently not run as for profit as congress continues to subsidize rural areas. There would need to be changes that states need to pony up any loss to maintain the service in areas that are non profitable. Although I still believe there needs to be some minimum service guaranteed & subsidised by the federal government for postal service. Not sure about all interstates being toll roads.
4 & 5 need some examples. Not against some private investment.

(08-20-2015 10:54 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  Just because people live longer doesn't mean people want to hire 67 year olds or have workers hang around until they are 72. Especially in the current environment.

At some point you have elderly unemployed with no income eating cat food again. But Social Security is "saved".

They can still retire early, just not with full benefits. You can retire now at 62 even if the age is moving up to 67.

(08-20-2015 10:54 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  Just because people live longer doesn't mean people want to hire 67 year olds or have workers hang around until they are 72. Especially in the current environment.

At some point you have elderly unemployed with no income eating cat food again. But Social Security is "saved".

i have never understood the cat food thing.

isn't a can of hash, spam or beans the same price as a can of cat food?

(08-20-2015 10:54 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  Just because people live longer doesn't mean people want to hire 67 year olds or have workers hang around until they are 72. Especially in the current environment.

At some point you have elderly unemployed with no income eating cat food again. But Social Security is "saved".

Well, either that or you just have more unemployed young people with no income eating cat food.

As somebody pointed out, one of the unintended consequences (well, maybe not entirely unintended) of SS and Medicare was that people started to live longer. I guess conservatives won't rest until they find a way to fix that.