How much will Bush screw you?
POSTED BY: Spookyjesus
UPDATED: Sunday, March 20, 2005 22:07
VIEWED: 5883
PAGE 1 of 4
http://democrats.senate.gov/ss/calc.html#
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You do understand that the current program is broken? "Your Promised Annual Social Security Benefit Now" isn't a promise, it's a dream! The Dems are using scare tactics, and making promises that no one can keep. Their beloved "New Deal" is dying!
Sorry, but I'd rather have the money from the "Privatization Plan", than even less that will be there when I retire under the current plan.
The program needs to be fixed, and even though Bush's plan is far from perfect, it's better than ignoring the problem, which is what everyone else has been doing, because it's unpopular.
I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Reps are the ones saying the sky is falling, and the DEMS are using scare tactics?
Up really is down.
No, the promised benefit cannot be guaranteed forever. This is fact. It can only be guaranteed up till about... 2050 or so. And then it only needs to be trimmed, not slashed. But why spoil a lie with too much truth?
See, there's this thing called the trust fund. It's got a great big pile of money built up over years and years in it that's supposed to pay the benefits. Except, all that money was loaned out to all the other areas of the government, using bonds and such. Now those other bits of government don't want to pay it back. Which is why there's a "crisis", because in about a decade that fund will be needed. (crap simplified for the stupid)
There's your scare tactics. And it's all smokescreen and BS anyway - Iraq's still in hell, isn't it? - but everyone's buying the kool-aid anyway and thinking this is the real problem, so I should just shut up.
Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow, after that load of BS, here's a link to some real facts, straight from the source (crap simplified for the stupid)!
http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm
According to the SSA's own figures, and I quote:
"Unless changes are made, when you reach age 63 in 2042, benefits for all retirees could be cut by 27 percent and could continue to be reduced every year thereafter. If you lived to be 100 years old in 2079 (which will be more common by then), your scheduled benefits could be reduced by 33 percent from today's scheduled levels."
If you go back to the link at the top of this thread, and figure your own benefits, you'll see that the privatization plan has better benefit payouts, than the 27 to 33 percent cut in the fantasy numbers the Dems are promising. It's a pay as you go system, and the number of those paying will eventually be to small to cover those recieving payouts from the program.
As far as Radhil's comment about money being loaned out, he got it partially right. The Treasury Dept. does borrow surplus funds, but the ARE paying back, and infact paying over $80 billion in interest on these bonds annually.
More facts from the source:
"Social Security's financing problems are long term and will not affect today's retirees and near-retirees, but they are very large and serious. People are living longer, the first baby boomers are five years from retirement, and the birth rate is low. The result is that the worker-to-beneficiary ratio has fallen from 16-to-1 in 1950 to 3.3-to-1 today. Within 40 years it will be 2-to-1. At this ratio there will not be enough workers to pay scheduled benefits at current tax rates."
As I said earlier, the system is broken (flawed), and pointing it out isn't "Scare Tactics" by the Republicans, but FACT!
Lastly, again from the source:
"If Social Security is not changed, payroll taxes will have to be increased, the benefits of today's younger workers will have to be cut, or massive transfers from general revenues will be required. Social Security's Chief Actuary states, "If benefits were reduced to meet the shortfall in revenue for the combined program, the reduction would need to be 27 percent starting with the exhaustion of the Trust Fund in 2042 and would rise to 32 percent for 2078. Alternatively, if additional revenue were provided beginning in 2042, revenue equivalent to a payroll tax rate increase of about 3.1 percentage points (from 12.4 percent under current law to about 15.5 percent) would be needed for the year. The additional revenue needed for 2043 would be equivalent to a payroll tax rate increase of about 4.5 percentage points for the year. Thereafter, the amount of additional revenue needed would gradually rise, reaching an amount equivalent to an increase in the payroll tax rate of about 5.9 percentage points for 2078 (or about 50 percent higher than today's rate)."
Educate yourself on the facts, ignore the political partisan games from both sides, and write your Reps in Washington about fixing the problem, not resorting to petty scare tactics and empty promises. Both sides are experts at that, and we shouldn't tolerate it anymore!
I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Good facts. Very good. You did homework. I'm being honest here - not many do (though I will check on the interest bit - I'm curious as to how it's being paid back, it's a new one on me).
'Cept... I don't see the need to contradict any of that. OK, minor benefit cut, check. SS tax increase, check. If that's what's needed, then why isn't that being done, and why isn't that being planned for? What's the big deal? That sounds like a fair plan for the future already outlined right there, on the SS's own page no doubt. Less to go around, but still effective. So why all this privitization talk?
If I want a private account there are any number of retirement investors who are more than happy to take my money and set up a 401 or IRA or any number of odder and more exotic things. This is standard SOP - SS isn't meant to be sole retirement support, just a minimum guarantee. Why do we need to gut a whole SS system and replace it with something that's already available, and FAR less guaranteed?
Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Radhil:
Good facts. Very good. You did homework. I'm being honest here - not many do (though I will check on the interest bit - I'm curious as to how it's being paid back, it's a new one on me).
'Cept... I don't see the need to contradict any of that. OK, minor benefit cut, check. SS tax increase, check. If that's what's needed, then why isn't that being done, and why isn't that being planned for? What's the big deal? That sounds like a fair plan for the future already outlined right there, on the SS's own page no doubt. Less to go around, but still effective. So why all this privitization talk?
If I want a private account there are any number of retirement investors who are more than happy to take my money and set up a 401 or IRA or any number of odder and more exotic things. This is standard SOP - SS isn't meant to be sole retirement support, just a minimum guarantee. Why do we need to gut a whole SS system and replace it with something that's already available, and FAR less guaranteed?
Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction
I agree. I have an IRA, 401K, a few bonds, and investments in the stock market. I think I have my retirement fairly well covered no matter what happens to Social Security. The problem is, millions of people aren't as smart about their future planning as we are. If the Government didn't have a retirement program, many people wouldn't have anything. The fact is, most people are stupid with their money. The majority of Americans are in dept up to their eye balls. Stories of athletes and rap stars blowing millions on "bling", and then going bankrupt when their big money careers dry up, is the norm, not the exception! The system is for those idiots that should know better.
As I said before, the privatization plan isn't perfect, but the payout is better than the 27 to 33 percent drop in benefits the SSA predicts will occur. Is it a perfect solution? NO! Is it better than doing nothing? Probably! Something needs to be done, if not for you or for me, then for those that don't plan ahead properly.
I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"The problem is, millions of people aren't as smart about their future planning as we are. If the Government didn't have a retirement program, many people wouldn't have anything. The fact is, most people are stupid with their money...."
Do I detect a whiff of contradiction here? Is THIS why we need a "privatization" plan: so that people who can't save for their retirement now will be able count on even less in the future? As was pointed out- nothing prevents people from saving extra for their retirement right now. But since most people can't manage (in many cases because they are "working poor") the privatization plan really only benefits the rich. Now why doesn't that surprise me???
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Good stuff. A couple thoughts on some of the things MacBaker wrote.
I've read statements by many politicians saying that social security is in crisis. They are rarely from the left side of the political aisle. They usually point to a date, less than fifteen years in the future, when the money coming in drops below the money being paid out. But that's when we start tapping the trust fund. Something will definitely have to be done at this date, either cutting spending or raising taxes, because there's no way in hell that the government will default on the T-bills in the trust fund (at least I hope not). So anyone that uses this date as a crisis point for social security is being disingenuous. It will be a budgetary problem, but not a social security problem.
As you have correctly pointed out, the real problems start down the road when the trust fund is exhausted. Based on the intermediate estimate of the actuaries this was 2042. This date has been moving further out each year, however. So that problem point is moving away from us. But that's no reason not to make some simple changes that would take care of things.
A simple fix would be to raise (or eliminate) the cap. Right now, any income over a certain level is not taxed for social security. Getting rid of the cap would make social security solvent out to the 75 year analysis limit (as close to forever as we can get). Minimal impact (in terms of the number of people affected). Maximum results (in terms of fixing the problem). Small likelihood of happening.
Even the administration admits that their social security privitization/private accounts/personal accounts plan doesn't fix the problems with social security whatsoever. What it does do is start the phase out process.
So we have people saying that there is a crisis and proposing a solution that does nothing to address the problem. It's really impressive. A majority of the people in this country think social security is a good thing. So they get people afraid by saying there's a crisis. Then they propose a solution. Well who wouldn't want to fix any problems there are with social security? It's a great program. But the proposed solution actually starts dismantling social security. The transition costs to implement carve-out private accounts are so high that we really couldn't turn back once we went down that road. Chutzpah. At least the people supporting Rick Santorum outside one of his events last month were honest when they chanted, "Hey. Ho. Social Security has got to go."
I'd rather see us focus more on medicare or the budget deficit. Those are more immediate problems than social security.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Do I detect a whiff of contradiction here? Is THIS why we need a "privatization" plan: so that people who can't save for their retirement now will be able count on even less in the future? As was pointed out- nothing prevents people from saving extra for their retirement right now. But since most people can't manage (in many cases because they are "working poor") the privatization plan really only benefits the rich. Now why doesn't that surprise me???
Less than what? Somehow, the point that the current program can't maintain itself keeps being over looked! If we do nothing, and keep our head buried in the sand, people will end up getting 27 to 33 percent less. Under the proposed privatization plan, the payout is better than that. Now why doesn't your "only benefits the rich", surprise me??? One of the other fixes both sides (Dems and Reps) are pushing for, is getting rid of the exclusion for incomes over $90,000.
Under the current plan, money for Social Security, is only taken out from incomes up to 90,000 dollars. Anything over that, isn't affected. If you make 100,000 dollars a year, only the first 90,000 is calculated for social security, the last 10,000 isn't affected.
If that exclusion is removed, the rich will pay into social security the same way everyone else does, and every dollar they make will get calculated. How does changing social security help the rich. I'm sure they would much rather things stay the same.
No one is saying that privatization is a perfect solution, but it's better than just maintaining the current program, which is in serious trouble. The simple fact that the problem is finally being discussed, is a good thing. Political suicide, but necessary! Hopefully other, better solutions will come out of this, but the easy fix (one that no politician wants to touch), is rasing payroll taxes.
I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Good stuff. A couple thoughts on some of the things MacBaker wrote.
I've read statements by many politicians saying that social security is in crisis. They are rarely from the left side of the political aisle. They usually point to a date, less than fifteen years in the future, when the money coming in drops below the money being paid out. But that's when we start tapping the trust fund. Something will definitely have to be done at this date, either cutting spending or raising taxes, because there's no way in hell that the government will default on the T-bills in the trust fund (at least I hope not). So anyone that uses this date as a crisis point for social security is being disingenuous. It will be a budgetary problem, but not a social security problem.
As you have correctly pointed out, the real problems start down the road when the trust fund is exhausted. Based on the intermediate estimate of the actuaries this was 2042. This date has been moving further out each year, however. So that problem point is moving away from us. But that's no reason not to make some simple changes that would take care of things.
A simple fix would be to raise (or eliminate) the cap. Right now, any income over a certain level is not taxed for social security. Getting rid of the cap would make social security solvent out to the 75 year analysis limit (as close to forever as we can get). Minimal impact (in terms of the number of people affected). Maximum results (in terms of fixing the problem). Small likelihood of happening.
Even the administration admits that their social security privitization/private accounts/personal accounts plan doesn't fix the problems with social security whatsoever. What it does do is start the phase out process.
So we have people saying that there is a crisis and proposing a solution that does nothing to address the problem. It's really impressive. A majority of the people in this country think social security is a good thing. So they get people afraid by saying there's a crisis. Then they propose a solution. Well who wouldn't want to fix any problems there are with social security? It's a great program. But the proposed solution actually starts dismantling social security. The transition costs to implement carve-out private accounts are so high that we really couldn't turn back once we went down that road. Chutzpah. At least the people supporting Rick Santorum outside one of his events last month were honest when they chanted, "Hey. Ho. Social Security has got to go."
I'd rather see us focus more on medicare or the budget deficit. Those are more immediate problems than social security.
I wouldn't go that far. Even the SSA admits there is a problem. It not that simplistic, but you are right, it's not going to be a problem for most people. Under the current program, I'll be retired and recieving benefits long before it would seriously effect me, but those under 25 will be affected (like my kids), so I'm concerned.
Again, is privitaztion a cure for social securitys woes? No! Is it better than doing nothing? Seems likely. Can we come up with fixes that are even better? Damn, I hope so!
I agree with you, that we should focus on more immediate problems. my wife is an RN, and we both are concerned at how Medicare is a mess no one seems to know how to fix. Lot's of big talk, but no clear solutions. The budget is a joke, and both sides want to point fingers, but neither side seems to understand that they will have to work together to fix it, or even want to work together on it. Partisain politics are the problem, but even the general public is too split between the parties. The chant from both sides seems to be, "Only MY side can fix it!!!"
We, as a people, need to star demanding that our government (not OUR party), fix Medicare and operate under a balanced budget. Until we do, it's business as usual, and typically, nothing really substantial ever gets done. It's so much easier for the politicians on both
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME