I think they should give us the choice to pay into it or not. If you don't pay,you don't collect. I think I could do better with my own money.

Well,not all federal employees are exempt. I have to pay it. My Dad was a school teacher and did not pay in. However he only could collect based on what he made and paid in on his summer jobs. Which wasn't much.

So you think our GOVERNMENT can manage our money better than we can. Good idea.
Oh...... wait...... they're 16 trillion dollars in debt........

---

Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself. Leo Tolstoy

[quote=HWNN1961]Respectfully:

Had those of you that want to "opt out" of the SS system been allowed to, back in '06, you'd have been MASSACRED by our lovely Wallstreet Casino. And, in the end, your old, withered hands would have been out-stretched, seeking sympathy, sharing your agony...

saying: "brother, can you spare a dime?"...


And, that is what Social Security was DESIGNED to avoid.

You idiots.
[/quote


How can you say "respectfully" and then call us idiots? The reality of the situation is that NONE of us can do anything to change things. It's just fun to talk about how we would do it different.

So,play nice.

I've seen the most successful program. Never mind it's Genesis, being called into question.

Rick Perry, the most vile of conservative vipers, suggested something I mentioned months ago on this very forum: raise retirement age.

He could not and you, likely (I cannot speak for you) his followers, will not, allow that Social Security is the most secure, the most successful government (three generations and counting) program, and just needs adjustments.

G.W. wanted to KILL it. He wanted us all to put our S.S. retirement funds into WALLSTREET???

How are you cool with this?

The Tea Party was born of it's hatred of Wall Sreet....wasn't it???

---

"Be without fear in the face of your enemies. Be brave and upright that God may love thee. Speak the truth always, even if it leads to your death. Safeguard the helpless, and do no wrong". (Knight's Oath, Kingdom of Heaven)

Pure math says that there is some age at which Social Security and Medicare (Not Medicare) are solvent (as long as the money isn't used for other programs). That age may be 70, 80 or 90 - but since money is being put in there is some age. So it's not a ponzi scheme. It can be adjusted. Now, there are other issues like who should pay, whether there's a better way, etc - but there is some age.

The government has treated social security like a ponzi scheme, I'll agree with you there. Some of you might be able to relate today's crisis to the one we had in in the early 80's. For one, the president was on a bad foot when he had to announce that if things weren't changed, SS checks would be delayed waiting for more money to trickle in. Then as now, the Republicans painted the most draconian future possible and then best case assumptions to sell their solutions. Democrats used their own projections to illustrate the impact of benefit cuts. As you might expect from the Republicans, the best way to rescue SS was to reduce benefits and Democrats would raise taxes. Both parties were worried about elections, the Republicans saying "it's not fair" and will destroy business (and it didn't). There is where the similarities end. First, we were really facing disruption of SS and we aren't today. Of all the problems they need to fix they have decided on this one to make their stand. Secondly, they were able to agree on the size of their problem. There isn't anything this congress can decide on. Senator Moynihan said, "Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but not to their own facts". Finally, they did compromise on less SS and raising the retirement age and also raising taxes. That way both sides got some of what they wanted. And we had prospered until this war came along and drained us, my own opinion.

Rick Perry would know about Ponzi schemes. That is the way he runs the government in Texas. They have been siphoning money out of the fund that we, here in Texas have been kicking in as an added tax to our utilities to help under-priveledged pay for high bills in the peak months. They have been backing this money out for years saying it was surplus. This year during record heat and drought they said there wasn't enough money to help the poor. (And besides, it their fault they're poor, right?) And Rick Perry refused to spend the money saying we need it for a rainy day. That's really what he said. Well, the money always rains on Rick.

Raising the retirement age and/or means testing is the only way it can survive. I don't know what the fuss is about, the Gov't has already raised the retirement age! If I wanted to draw my full S.S., I'd have to wait until I am 70; and the world didn't end!

I'm fine with raising it to 70 if that's the break even point because life expectancy is longer.

1) When Social Security started, state and local governments could decide whether theiremployees would be covered. Railroad employees, most state and local government employees and federal employees (who were under a different retirement plan) were exempt.

2.) By 1984, (essentially) all private, state, local, and federal employees (including Congress and the Administration) were contributing. (There are oddball exceptions, state, federal, and private; Congress and the President are not among them)


Please see Snopes: Social Security, Congressional Pensions. Highlights are:
It is not true that Senators and Representatives do not pay Social Security Tax.

It is not true that Senators or Representatives receive their entire salary for life after one term.

Members of Congress elected since 1984 pay 6.2% of their salary (up to the SS base) into Social Security. Those who participate in the Federal Employee Retirement System contribute 1.3% of their full salary into the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund in addition to their Social Security contribution.


Please see: Social Security Administration: History. Highlights are:
Q24: How much has Social Security paid out since it started?
A: From 1937 (when the first payments were made) through 2009 the Social Security program has expended $11.3 trillion.

Q25: How much has Social Security taken in taxes and other income since it started?
A: From 1937 (when taxes were first collected) through 2009 the Social Security program has received $13.8 trillion in income.

Q26: Has Social Security always taken in more money each year than it needed to pay benefits?
A: No. So far there have been 11 years in which the Social Security program did not take enough in FICA taxes to pay the current year's benefits. During these years, Trust Fund bonds in the amount of about $24 billion made up the difference.


Yes, with a shrinking demographic and increasing age of survival, it makes a great deal of sense to look at the standard retirement age. Average age of death was approximately 65 when Social Security started. Average age of death is now in the late 70s.

Several studies have shown that we (as a population) spend about the same amount of time too-sick-to-function, whether we die at 55 or we die at 85. Raising the retirement age at least to 70 is, therefore, quite reasonable. I'm old enough that I fall under the old rules, but I've known for at least 10 years it was not likely to be practical for me to retire at 65. I expect to work full time until about 70, and possibly part time after that.

Social Security is not and never has been a Ponzi Scheme. Social Security was never supposed to invest the money. It was always one generation taking care of the next. The first recipients had not paid anything close to a "full share" into the system; they were grandfathered-in.

Social Security "redistributes wealth" from children to their parents and grandparents. It does not "redistribute wealth" from the rich to the poor. Because of the base-wage cap and the fact that it is wage-based, the truly rich pay a negligible percentage of income compared to the middle class or even poor.

It was suggested SS funds should be invested in market funds. Concerns were raised such large amounts of money would skew the market. Now that we have seen the crash, one wonders about the safety of such investment.

The idea behind SS is that there is value to all of us in a stable, secure population. That, as a community, we all get more when all of our members are clothed, fed, housed, and cared-for. Yes SS was a safety net; it was also called retirement. It was also intended to supplement employer retirement plans, plans which payed the employee as an annuity would, not 401K/403B investment plans. Show me a private employer who still runs a true retirement plan.

We, the citizens, are the people who earn the money. We must pay for this. The government is our representative, a means of gathering the funds and disbursing them to take care of our neighbors. And, disbursing them to take care of us, when the time comes.

True, and the assumption was that it would give the government some operating flexibility and return some amount more than lent to the fund and assist with inflation. The problem comes only if we do not pay back the bonds.

No, on the Ponzi scheme. The bonds would, in theory, provide a bit of a hedge against inflation, but the investment was not going to return real gain and the last generation was always to be paid, at least in part, by the current generation of workers. This was always a redistribution plan. A Ponzi scheme says you are investing for profit and will get your own money and more out, but then pays subsequent investors from new investments.

Social security is redistribution: you are not going to get your own back; you will take care of your parents and grandparents generations, and your children and grandchildren will take care of you.

Had we stayed at an average lifespan of 65 years, Social Security would likely be in fine shape and our biggest concert would probably what to do with the surplus. Instead, we extended our lifespan, extended the expected pay-out, increasing the percentage of our life during which we expect to receive payouts without increasing the percentage of our income we expected to pay in.

This is exacerbated by the shrinking demographics, though so far, immigration has saved our collective kiester in terms of numbers of younger workers. This, coupled with the increased per-worker productivity, should still have us in good shape, except, oh wait:

Wages for the average worker have fallen on an inflation-adjusted basis and there has been absolutely no increased-production based wage-increase for employees. The increased value of the system was, instead, funneled to "investors", who then decided they could do ever so much better on margins and bundled real-estate "securities", and to the profits of the industries, which now are unwilling to invest in new production until the (9.1% and expected to climb) unemployed start spending the money they are no longer earning - wait for it - because they were laid off following the securities collapse and subsequent economic collapse.

Social Security is on a secure footing, once you put the producers (those would be the employees, actually building the computers, planting/picking/packing/shipping the tomatoes, pouring the concrete, healing the sick, teaching the children) back to work at living wage jobs, which might require some of the putative "job creators" to actually pay their employees a living wage.

Social Security is on a secure footing, once you require the government to budget and tax for their military excursions and limit bonds to those things which pay off in greater value in the future: infrastructure; education; research; health care.

Anyone thinking we the people of the United States would be better off without Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment, and (yes) Welfare requires a better grounding in history.

Isn't 75 years of age much too late in one's lifespan to retire? I sincerely do think it is.

Perhaps copayment could do the trick.

In the case of the postal service, they have been partial victims of progress and technology. Email, on-line banking, and guaranteed delivery by other services have been the hammer that may now be ringing the death knell. The sad part of it is that their loyal employees may be the ones who really suffer.

But regardless of the 'why', they are in serious financial trouble, like the other programs I listed. In order to remain viable, perhaps they can do a 'reduced delivery'. This may not set well with many who have come to EXPECT more, but in today's market, there are so many other ways to get something promptly, that SATURDAYS may have to be a thing of the past.

---

Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself. Leo Tolstoy

Go get'em RuthP!!!

Demagoguery, it seems, isn't confined to just politicians. I'm disappointed. I was expecting a reasoned and factual response. Oh, well.

---

A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~

So you're giving us the usual leftist mantra about class envy, Ruth? You're saying that it's the 'rich's fault' and that if we tax them more we'll get out of this mess?

Now it's your turn to read, Ruth. And after you do, I expect only more of same - hand outstretched, demanding more from those who work and nothing from those who choose not to.


The Rich - what happens if you take all they have?

---

Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself. Leo Tolstoy