My Social Security Rant

[TNRighty]

I really hope Bush aggressively pursues the plan he laid out in his campaign to privatize social security. This would be a major step towards financial independence from government.

The current social security structure is a complete fraud. I've probably mentioned this before, but if several of us on this board got together and began a money redistribution scheme that operated the same way social security does we'd be arrested and thrown in jail if we weren't killed first by the people we scammed. Social security works just like a pyramid scheme. The people at the base pay in, and the people at the top get the rewards. Crooks have tried to scam people like this time and time again. The system doesn't work because inevitably the top of the pyramid outgrows the base. That's when people start getting pissed and start breaking people's legs with baseball bats. The only way to prop up a failing pyramid scheme is to shrink the size of the peak by delaying and/or decreasing the payouts, or hope the people paying in die before they're eligible to collect their rewards. This is the situation in which our current social security system finds itself. This is just one reason social security needs to go.

Secondly, contrary to what you may have been led to believe, the money you pay into social security is NOT yours. If you have been duped into thinking that somewhere out there there's an account set aside with your name on it, sorry, it doesn't exist. The money collected from you in the form of social security payroll taxes is immediately redistributed to those eligible to receive social security checks; a pyramid scheme at work.

Thirdly, don't call social security a retirement "investment". It is not an investment, and don't ever let a politician tell you that your social security contributions are being "invested" in your retirement. Investments grow based on performance of the market over time. Since this money is redistributed, not invested, it never has a chance to grow itself. It is not an investment

Fourth, If you die at age 55, Social security wins. The system is actually hoping you die before you're eligible for benefits. If you die before you're eligible for SS benefits, that money belongs to the government. If you work for 30 years, pay over that time $100,000 into social security, and die at age 55, the government just made $100,000 off you. You may think you own your social security account, but you don't; the government does.

However, if you are given the choice to invest your social security contributions in a private mutual fund or any assortment of stocks of your choice, that money is YOURS. It has your name on it, and the government can't touch it. If you make wise investments and can afford to retire at age 50, the government can't deny you your benefits. After all, the account belongs to you, not the government. If you die, the money you've saved over thirty years can be passed on to your wife, your kids, or anyone else you designate. This would give everyone the ability to participate in the private market. Under our current social security structure many lower income people can't afford to participate in the private market because of the money they're paying to the government in social security. Last year alone the social security budget was $534 BILLION. Imagine the market growth if even half of that was put back into the private sector!!!

Democrats will fight this tooth and nail because they don't want you to be responsible for your own retirement. They want you to be dependent on the government. Also, if you own your own social security fund, they can't spew the garbage every election year that conservatives are gonna steal your social security. Can you recall an election in the last 20 years where they haven't tried to make that claim? Not to mention thats tons of goverment revenue they won't be able to dip into to fund various vote-buying welfare programs.

Bottom line, Democrats are deathly afraid of financially independent people. They know for a fact that said people will tend to vote Republican. This is a threat to their power, and they don't like it.

Please call your congressman and express your desire to privatize social security.

Sorry for the verbose rant,

TN.

[Cheneysmyhero]

The problem with privatizing social security is that, as you pointed out, the money you put in is not yours. If you want to take control of your own retirement open an IRA or a 401(k). SSI is going to go bankrupt, not because of the Dems or the Republicans, it is going to go bankrupt for several reasons. The biggest reason is the baby boomers hitting retirement age, which is why the top of this "pyramid" is growing larger than the base.

Let's say we privatize. What happens to the people currently collecting benefits? We just cut them off?

[DoubleX]

Cheneysmyhero said:

The problem with privatizing social security is that, as you pointed out, the money you put in is not yours. If you want to take control of your own retirement open an IRA or a 401(k). SSI is going to go bankrupt, not because of the Dems or the Republicans, it is going to go bankrupt for several reasons. The biggest reason is the baby boomers hitting retirement age, which is why the top of this "pyramid" is growing larger than the base.

Let's say we privatize. What happens to the people currently collecting benefits? We just cut them off?

The government would slowly fase out the old system. Everyone who is in (and who enters the system) before the reform will still be eligable for their SS checks until they die. Here's a quote from a CBS article:

"Right now in every paycheck, workers pay a 6.2 percent tax into the system. Depending on the rules of the reform, you could divert anywhere from 2 to the entire 6.2 percent out of the system and into your personal account -- including an approved account invested in stocks and bonds."

It would be like that until everbody is under the new system. Of course the rules may change as the years pass. For example, the 2% may be raised to 3% or 4% because there would be less need for money into the current SS system.

This is coming from Bush's mouth, too. He said everyone who is under the current system will still be getting their checks. The quote above just shows and example of how it would work.

Article Source

[Cheneysmyhero]

A phase out won't work. There are too many people nearing retirement age. It is pretty simple math really. There are just too many people approaching retirement age, and not enough new people entering the work force. The system as is barely works, how can you make it work with fewer people paying less money into the system and more people receiving benefits?

It might help the people currently receiving checks, but what about the people that are 55-60 and getting ready to retire? You really think they will be able to stash enough away to have a good nest egg before they retire? No way Jose. I am sure a few have their own pensions and what not, but that SSI is usually counted on as a supplement to the pensions and such.

[DoubleX]

At least we agree that the current system doesn't work well enough.

President Bush will not change benefits for today’s retirees or near-retirees.

....

Establishing personal accounts does not add to the total costs that Social Security faces. The obligation to pay Social Security benefits is already there. While personal accounts affect the timing of these costs, they do not add to the total amount obligated through Social Security. In fact, every plan scored by SSA that contains personal accounts would, according to actuarial analysis, reduce the costs of permanently fixing the system.

Doing nothing to fix our Social Security system will cost us, as well as our children and grandchildren, an estimated $10 trillion, according to the Social Security Trustees. Leadership means recognizing that these costs already exist, and that passing such a debt on to our children and grandchildren is irresponsible.

www.gop.com/GOPAgenda/AgendaPage.aspx?id=7

[Cheneysmyhero]

The system is broke becuase you are using money from A to pay for B. It was destined for failure from the beginning. I don't see how setting A aside and paying B with money we don't have does anything to solve the problem. It just creates another problem somewhere else. Probable problem in this case would be inflation.

[ImNotBenny]

None of this hucklebuck would be a concern for me if more people would've signed-up to sell Amway under me...




;D

[ProChildren]

SS age will soon be 70+ and even then it will be poor which is why everyone should try to prepare themselves for getting 0 SS but plan on losing it out of you check untill you retire...

[TNRighty]

A good start would be to stop dipping into the SS money to fund various vote-pandering welfare programs. Perhaps you could use other sources of current goverment revenue outside the SS payroll tax to fund temporarily the benefits being paid to the eligible recipients until the new system gets on its feet. Lord knows theres billions of dollars out there the government is flushing down the toilet funding rediculous programs.

Just an idea.

[Cheneysmyhero]

TNRighty said:

A good start would be to stop dipping into the SS money to fund various vote-pandering welfare programs. Perhaps you could use other sources of current goverment revenue outside the SS payroll tax to fund temporarily the benefits being paid to the eligible recipients until the new system gets on its feet. Lord knows theres billions of dollars out there the government is flushing down the toilet funding rediculous programs.

Just an idea.

Perhaps we could stop spending SS money on bunker busting nukes. We could go at this all day. Both sides spend money we don't have. Liberals spend it on helping those that are less fortunate while "conservatives" spend it on more bars and more guns.

[TNRighty]

Last year alone the government spent $534 billion on SS and about $100 billion on the war. The war is not the reason SS is going belly-up. Our national budget last year was around $2.3 TRILLION. There's plenty of money available without cutting into defense spending. Besides, the only right granted by the Constitution to the Federal govt is to defend this country. There's nothing in there about health care or social security. Every penny spent on national security is money well spent. We should be spending more.

That's a different argument, though. My point is, social security is an unnecessary government expense, and there are plenty of other unnecessary programs from which money could be diverted into SS temporarily while we sort this mess out.

[Cheneysmyhero]

TNRighty said:

Besides, the only right granted by the Constitution to the Federal govt is to defend this country. There's nothing in there about health care or social security.

You are wrong. I believe the exact phrase is

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

[UncleVinny]

The White House is now planning a major media campaign to try to convince the American public that we NEED to switch Social Security to private firms. A move that the AARP strongly opposes, but Wall Street loves.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39791-2004Dec31.html

I find it a little troubling that the president has to rely on advertising (propaganda?) and distortions to sell his radical ideas to the public. This is the same fellow who brought you weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, an Iraq-Al Queda connection, and a “Mission Accomplished” banner. All distortions, if not outright lies and deception.

[Crash]

SS is solvent as it stands for another 50 yrs. (google Social security, solvent) If it starts to get into trouble it can be easily fixed by raising the level of taxible income from $89,000 to $100,000 or more. The only reason Bush wants to privatize SS is so his contributors can get their hands on the money and take their slice out of it. As with everything else in this administration, follow the money. Once you find out who is making a profit on SS, Iraq, lowered environmental standards, and every other action of this admin. then you start to realize the truth. Or you can listen to Limbaugh/Hannity and they can tell you what you should believe.

[TNRighty]

Explain to me how George Bush would make money by passing legislation that would allow us to own a piece of our retirement fund? George Bush's contributors (or should I call them the Boogymen) can't touch your money if it is in a private account with your name on it. Only YOU can touch that money. For years politicians have stolen from the SS cookie jar to fund a plethora of vote-pandering policies (both D and R). Social security would be in better shape than it is now if politicians had kept their hands off it. At least under the new proposal a portion of your contribution is owned by you and you only. George Bush isn't the one you should be afraid of. He's trying to let you keep and control more of your own money. The people opposing the partial privatization of SS are the ones you should worry about. They're the ones who want to maintain the authority to do with your money what THEY want.

I've already said this in another thread, but I'll reiterate here. The only way to fix social security as it exists is to do one of three things or a combination of the three -- raise the social security tax, raise the retirement age, or reduce benefits. If social security "worked", we wouldn't have to be perpetually band-aiding it. If you have to take your car to the shop every month, are you going to buy the same car next time?

Also, another little tidbit for you. If you began paying SS tax at age 25, payed into the system for 30 years, and died at age 55 prior to being eligible to draw social security, guess who gets that money? Your wife? Your kids? NO. The government keeps it. Actually the government has long since spent it, but neither your wife nor kids would get the money you would have qualified for upon reaching social security age, deespite the fact they depend on that money.

However, if you own a private retirement account, such as a 401(k), you get to designate a beneficiary, and upon your death that designated beneficiary assumes ownership of your account. It doesn't go to the government.

Lastly, in the mid 1970's, Galveston County, TX, found a loophole in the social security laws that allowed county employees to opt out of the social security system. They were still taxed the same amount they would've been under social security, but their taxes were put into private investment accounts. The employees of Galveston County who are now approaching retirement that have been in the system since it began in the mid 70's will receive monthly retirement checks greater than what their monthly paychecks were during the last year of employment.

Lastly (again), I mentioned nothing about Iraq or the environment. If you want to evaluate Bush's SS plan based on your disagreements with his environmental policies or the war in Iraq, you sir have completely unplugged your brain and are allowing politics to take over the sovreignty of your ability to reason for yourself and consider each issue independently.

Contrary to what you may believe, I don't agree with everything George Bush says just because George Bush said it. Neither the arrogant Rush Limbaugh nor Sean Hannity control my brain. Who controls yours? If you disagree with everything Bush, Limbaugh, or Hannity says just becuase they say it, would it not seem to reason that they control your brain, even if their politics are different from yours? If you blindly disagree with someone just because of who they are, they can manipulate you just as easily as those who you profess to agree with. Outright agreement or disagreement based solely on the source is irresponsible. You should hold on to your skepticism. It is a powerful tool.

In ending, please plug your own brain back in and debate the issue of social scurity from the merits of the facts, not the opinions of politicians, D or R, who are telling you what you should believe is in your best inerest. Make that decision yourself, and let our government know where YOU stand.