Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
padcrasher
Topic Author
Posts: 1815
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 6:17 am

Social Security Sham

Fri Feb 04, 2005 12:46 am

Please take a look at table 2 in this link. This is thought to be President's plan.

I want to make this very clear. It shows that under privitization plan your base social security benefits ""PLUS"" the your estimated gains from your private account depending on when you are born will be as much as 40% less.

No. I did not get that wrong. Let me repeat. Your new SS base payment plus your private account money will pay you much less. For someone born in the 60's 18% less.

Now could someone explain why we would want to vote for this?

http://www.cbpp.org/2-2-05socsec2.htm
 
KyleLosAngeles
Posts: 206
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 5:56 am

RE: Social Security Sham

Fri Feb 04, 2005 2:12 am

We will not have the opportunity to vote for or against it.


It is now up to our Republican President, a Republican Senate, a Republican House of Representatives . . . and in the event of a major challenge, the Republican Supreme Court.
Happy 2006
 
air2gxs
Posts: 1443
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2001 1:29 pm

RE: Social Security Sham

Fri Feb 04, 2005 4:14 am

OK let's leave it alone and let it run out of money. Or raise the cap. Or raise the tax. Or raise the retirement age. Or decrease benefits. Or how about all of the above.

At least the president is putting forth a plan, which is more than I can say for the minority members of congress. They just want to let it die. Afterall, they won't be in power when it all crashes in.

SSA is going to be in crisis very soon. I, for one, am planning my retirement around not having Social Security. I'm invested in 401k's and IRA's. My entire bonus is in stocks. I just don't think Social Security will exist in 30 years, if we don't change something.

Of course, that means of the 7% I have paid, and will pay, and the match my employers paid (will pay), I will see none of it. That money will be long gone and there will be less and less available to pay me. The population is getting older and living longer in retirement. The benefits will need to go up because the cost of living will go up.
 
padcrasher
Topic Author
Posts: 1815
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 6:17 am

RE: Social Security Sham

Fri Feb 04, 2005 4:26 am

Dems have put forth some ideas. Simply raise the SS tax. It's not that large an amount. As I said earlier the additional money needed would be less than what Bush is spending on the Senior Prescription Plan he passed last year. Or what I prefer, eliminate the income cap on SS tax. That would eliminate the gap all together and would not effect middle class Americans in the least.


Everyone that says they can't count on SS is a victim of the GOP fear campaign. It's just not true. And if they took the time to look at what the CBO and SSA themselves are saying they would know this.
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Social Security Sham

Fri Feb 04, 2005 4:26 am

There used to be a rule of thumb in public policy, that only one voter in five thousand ever bothered to write a letter to their representatives. Therefore one letter was deemed to be from five thousand voters. Letters carry some weight.

Write.

This Republican Congress and Senate is quite anxious to be re-elected in two, four and six years. Not all of them march lockstep.

Write.

Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
air2gxs
Posts: 1443
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2001 1:29 pm

RE: Social Security Sham

Fri Feb 04, 2005 5:27 am

You know, I just ran some numbers:

I took my present salary and increased over the next several years (29) and took the 2% out and ran a spreadsheet.

Assumptions:
2.5% raise annually
5% growth in invested funds
29 years until retirement.

I come up with $166,005.14 in my personal retirement account (assuming I remeber how to work Excel).

I'm not sure how it will be annualized, but I took it out over 20 years. That came to $8300.25 or a year or about $690/month. That is just my 2%.

The SSA estimates (from their quick calculator on their website) that I will, under current rules receive $1812.00/month. That is with the full 14%. And if I happen to die before I draw a penny, my wife will get $1911.

That works out to about 40% of the total per month using 1/7th the assets SSA uses.

I'm no accountant (that's my wife's job) but I think my rate of return is better than the government's.
 
slider
Posts: 7750
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

RE: Social Security Sham

Fri Feb 04, 2005 5:56 am

I'm no accountant (that's my wife's job) but I think my rate of return is better than the government's.

Great point...nor do you NEED to be an accountant. While the numbers are interesting to pore over, the fascinating--and ANGERING thing--about SS reform is that not more people DEMAND structural reform NOW.

Think about it: you get menial payments from the government decades from now by virtue of giving the government an interest-free loan on money you've ALREADY EARNED. It's a Ponzi scheme of the greatest magnitude.

I've long been an advocate of Chile's plan, whereby in one generation and a 3-tiered plan, everyone gets spooled out of the government's grand theft plan.

 
padcrasher
Topic Author
Posts: 1815
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 6:17 am

RE: Social Security Sham

Fri Feb 04, 2005 6:07 am

Once again. Can any of my detractors refute the assertions? I know you'd love to call it "ponzi scheme" and leave it at that. Talks about spreading fear?...LOL.

Oh and the Chile plan.

"For those remaining in the government's original pay-as-you-go system, the maximum retirement benefit is now about $1,250 a month. The National Center for Alternative Development Studies, a research institute here, calculates that to get that same amount from a private pension fund, workers would have to contribute more than $250,000 over their careers, a target that has been reached by fewer than 500 of the private system's 7 million past and present contributors.

This leaves many Chileans in a situation that has led to the coining of a phrase: "pension damage." There is now even an Association of People With Pension Damage, 157,000 members and growing, that consists of Chileans, mostly former government employees, who find that their pensions, based on contributions to the private system, are significantly less than if they had remained in the old system.

"They come to us in desperation," said Yasmir Fariña, the group's president, "because those who stayed in the government system are often retiring with monthly pensions twice as large as everyone else's."

The case of Chile is yet another example of Bush's bad habit of ignoring the real-world effects of his pet theories — and yet another reason why we cannot trust this administration with any "reform" of Social Security.

 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9310
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Social Security Sham

Fri Feb 04, 2005 7:17 am

Your new SS base payment plus your private account money will pay you much less. For someone born in the 60's 18% less.

Now could someone explain why we would want to vote for this?


No reasonable person would plan their retirement around the current social security program. No one. I'm not even planning on reciving a cent of SS at this time. I am still very young, so I'd much rather risk a new system than recieve nothing from the current system...

If I lose... oh well, wasn't planning on any Social Security anyway...

It is now up to our Republican President, a Republican Senate, a Republican House of Representatives . . . and in the event of a major challenge, the Republican Supreme Court.

This legislation will hardly be voted on by party lines... there is significant doubt, opposition, ect. in the Republican party. It isn't garunteeded at all!
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Social Security Sham

Fri Feb 04, 2005 7:45 am

It's a Ponzi scheme of the greatest magnitude.

Damm straight.

A lot of people think that there is currently an account made for you that you pay into...not true, your taxes pay for the retired people now, not you in the future.

FDR thought he could get away with it by putting a age limit on when payments would start that was well past the average lifespan at the time. Of course today people are living longer and his scheme is failing.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
slider
Posts: 7750
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

RE: Social Security Sham

Fri Feb 04, 2005 7:51 am

Padcrasher- your Chilean excerpt doesn't invalidate the program--it tells me that not enough Chileans have either put enough into the system on their own, or haven't had the fiscal discipline to make it work. But that is not an indictment of the principle:

Perhaps you can show me in the Constitution where one has a right to womb to tomb security....

It's not the government's job!!!

Another example of a well-intended program (thanks FDR) gone awry. We're citizens not subjects, yet more of our income is confiscated involuntarily and we won't see it in return. Moreover, my company--and ALL employers--pay the FICA tax.

Imagine the economic growth, additional jobs, etc if companies didn't have to be burdened with that tax. Then the economy gets bigger, and private investment grows, hence funding everyone's retirements! Shazam!

And yes, it CAN be that easy. If the bureaucrats can stomach relinquishing power....and make no mistake, that's what this is about....raw power.

By controlling Soc Sec, the tax base, they then control votes, demographic blocks, and can engage in more fear mongering so that more people give up more liberty and wealth in turn...feed the beast. Well I say screw that.
 
padcrasher
Topic Author
Posts: 1815
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 6:17 am

RE: Social Security Sham

Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:03 am

L-188 You did get one thing right. The payments today are going to the retirerees not to some future savings account. Your post then repeats the tired old line that it's a ponzi scheme. Obviously people will be working when you retire so that's who would be paying your benefits. This program has worked for decades and is incurring a small funding deficit. It's totally correctable. But if you like to ignore the SSA projections and just go with what Bush is hyping go right ahead.
 
padcrasher
Topic Author
Posts: 1815
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 6:17 am

RE: Social Security Sham

Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:06 am

Oh hears another thing about your Chile plan. In the US the worker pays 3.25%, the company he works for pays 3.25%. In Chili, the worker gets to pay all of the 10% premium. 3 times what the US worker pays. Are you sure you're still a fan of the Chile Plan?
 
StowAway
Posts: 619
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 10:48 am

RE: Social Security Sham

Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:19 am

It is nice to see that somebody will pick up the slack in Bush bashing threads while the major player is on a forced vacation!  Smile

I like the new Social Security idea. The original plan will be in the dumps down the line, and somebody has to do something about it! For all of the Democrats that are dumping on the plan, please feel free to chime in at any time with a viable solution!
A monkey's ass always talks crap.
 
slider
Posts: 7750
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

RE: Social Security Sham

Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:23 am

Oh hears another thing about your Chile plan. In the US the worker pays 3.25%, the company he works for pays 3.25%. In Chili, the worker gets to pay all of the 10% premium. 3 times what the US worker pays. Are you sure you're still a fan of the Chile Plan?

Yes...it's not Uncle Sam's nor my company's responsibility to plan for MY retirement.

Besides, I'd sure love to have a booming economy in which my investment can readily fuel my retirement and investments. Culling out an unnecessary and onerous tax burden on companies--many of them small businesses--would do wonders.

 
padcrasher
Topic Author
Posts: 1815
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 6:17 am

RE: Social Security Sham

Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:23 am

Looks like Bush is starting to come clean. Their solution to the "crisis"? Come up with a plan that by their own admission does nothing to solve the "crisis".

"In a significant shift in his rationale for the accounts, Bush dropped his claim that they would help solve Social Security's fiscal problems -- a link he sometimes made during last year's presidential campaign. Instead, he said the individual accounts were desirable because they would be "a better deal," providing workers what he said would be a higher rate of return and "greater security in retirement."
A Bush aide, briefing reporters on the condition of anonymity, was more explicit, saying that the individual accounts would do nothing to solve the system's long-term financial problems.

That candid analysis, although widely shared by economists, distressed some Republicans.

"Oh, my God," one GOP political strategist said when he learned of the shift in rhetoric. "The White House has made a lot of Republicans walk the plank on this. Now it sounds as if they are sawing off the board."


I'M TIRING OF THIS. DO ANY OF THE BUSH FANS HAVE ANY NUMBERS TO BACK UP THEIR OVERLORD'S BULLSHIT? OR WE JUST GONNA CALL IT A PONZI SCHEME AND RUN AWAY?

 
slider
Posts: 7750
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

RE: Social Security Sham

Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:30 am

Padcrasher- I won't defend Bush's plan, one because I haven't read it, and secondly because I doubt his intentions.

I don't think--as I noted above--that any bureaucrat will willingly relinquish their power, and that's essentially what Soc Sec reform would do.

Nevermind that it makes perfect sense.

But Soc Sec as it exists today IS a Ponzi scheme- where there used to be 12 workers for every 1 recipient, the economy and demographics have evolved to the point where it is unsustainable.

And remember the nonsense about the "lockbox" in the 2000 Bush/Gore election?

Never happened did it? That's because the Fed govt can borrow from wherever and to whatever degree it chooses.
 
StowAway
Posts: 619
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 10:48 am

RE: Social Security Sham

Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:38 am

I'M TIRING OF THIS. DO ANY OF THE BUSH FANS HAVE ANY NUMBERS TO BACK UP THEIR OVERLORD'S BULLSHIT? OR WE JUST GONNA CALL IT A PONZI SCHEME AND RUN AWAY?


A brilliant explanation is here,
https://www.airliners.net/discussions/non_aviation/read.main/732156/

You participated in that thread as well, so I am sure you have seen that. Did you choose to ignore it?
A monkey's ass always talks crap.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9310
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Social Security Sham

Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:38 am

I'M TIRING OF THIS. DO ANY OF THE BUSH FANS HAVE ANY NUMBERS TO BACK UP THEIR OVERLORD'S BULLSHIT?

Look, I know personal accounts are a gamble. But since I've already prepared and braced to lose under the current program, it's no consequence to me if the new system fails. Many people my age agree... I'm twenty, begun to establish a steady income, and for me to expect Social Security is comical!!

I would honestly rather see none of my paycheck go into Social Security, but if I must, I'd like to have the ability to invest it rather than send it into a black-hole....
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
B2707SST
Posts: 1289
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Social Security Sham

Fri Feb 04, 2005 9:27 am

I don't have time right now to go line-by-line on Padcrasher's claims, none of which have a source cited.

In the meantime, here are some choice citations from the President's Commission on Social Security Reform (comprised and co-chaired by equal numbers of Democrats). The report can be obtained at http://www.csss.gov/reports/Final_report.pdf, and I encourage everyone interested in the future of Social Security to read it, especially Chapters 3 and 4. Give special attention to Model 2, which comes closest to the President's proposal.

This document is part of the public domain and may be excerpted and reposted at will.

"The current system faces cash flow deficits that are anticipated to grow continually, exceeding 6 percent of the nation’s payroll by 2075. This is an annual shortfall in 2075 of $1.36 trillion dollars (in constant 2001 dollars)." (Page 69)


"Social Security currently consumes 4.2 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product, or GDP. If additional revenues were to be devoted to Social Security to pay benefits under the scheduled benefit formula, that fraction would have to rise to 6.7 percent of GDP by the year 2075." (Page 70)


"Social Security actuaries are required by Congress to make long-term calculations, and the Office of the Actuary has typically used a 75-year valuation period for this long-term analysis. The current system is not in actuarial balance. The 75-year shortfall is equivalent, on average, to 1.86
percent of the nation’s taxable payroll. This measure is a convenient shorthand for quantifying the magnitude of the financing shortfall, averaged over the valuation period. However, this measure suffers from many important disadvantages.

First, the measure is largely indifferent as to the timing of the cash outlays and cash receipts. As such, it treats a dollar of Social Security revenue the same whether that dollar was spent on Social Security benefits, saved, or spent on non-Social Security spending.

A second disadvantage is that this measure conceals trends in shortfalls. For example, the 1.86 percent actuarial deficit of the current system hides the fact that Social Security has surpluses today but will experience even larger shortfalls in 75 years -- exceeding 6 percent of taxable payroll.

A third disadvantage is that the 75-year time horizon is arbitrary since it ignores what happens to system finances in years outside the valuation period. For example, we could eliminate the actuarial deficit by immediately raising the payroll tax by 1.86 percent of payroll. However, as we move one
year into the future, the valuation window is shifted by one year, and we will find ourselves in an actuarial deficit once more. This deficit would continue to worsen as we put our near term surplus years behind us and add large deficit years into the valuation window. This is sometimes called the "cliff effect" because the measure can hide the fact that in year 76, system finances immediately "fall off the cliff" into large and ongoing deficits.

A fourth disadvantage is that the criterion of actuarial balance is biased against programs that advance fund the system through personal accounts. This is because the value of the assets invested in personal accounts is not included as part of the calculation. Thus, many reforms that would improve the longterm financial footing of the system would appear to worsen it by this measure. In this sense, improvements in 75-year balance are useful but not the only measure that can be used to achieve fiscal sustainability." (Page 71)


"Under a personal account program, workers would be given the option to invest a portion of their payroll taxes in accounts that they would own. Like any sound investment program, investing in personal accounts requires additional resources up front. During the transition to a personal accounts program, tax revenues invested in the accounts would no longer be available to finance traditional benefit payments, although during a period of program surpluses additional revenues exist to finance the accounts.

Therefore, funds must temporarily be found to finance personal account investment while simultaneously paying benefits to retirees. Over time, these investments in personal accounts offer financial returns to the Social Security program via reductions in the rate of growth of system costs, to retirees in the form of higher expected benefits, or both.

The temporary increase in resources needed to fund the investment in personal accounts is sometimes referred to as the "transition cost." This terminology is often misunderstood, however, because it ignores the corresponding returns on these investments. To focus only on the "cost" of the investment while disregarding the benefits is to count only one side of the equation....

In short, if the extra saving proposed for Social Security personal accounts is considered a "cost," then any person who saves or sacrifices for the future for any reason pays a similar cost. It is often said that Americans should "save and invest for the future." The so-called "transition costs" associated with personal accounts for Social Security are precisely that: saving and investing for the future, to reduce the need to raise taxes, cut benefits, or curtail other necessary government initiatives. The more Americans can save for the future, the better off we will be in the long run." (Page 73)


"Current projections show that benefits specified under current law would leave Social Security underfunded by about $3.157 trillion or about $21,000 per current worker (in present value). An important measure of the contribution of a Social Security reform proposal to the health of the economy is the extent to which a given reform can reduce the size of this unfunded obligation. We emphasize this measure as it quantifies the contribution of personal accounts plans to our nation’s long-term economic well-being.

Each of the models developed here improves this situation, to some degree. Line 1 of the table shows that in today’s dollars, Model 1 would be projected to have Personal Account assets of $10.3 trillion in 2075 ($1.1 trillion in present value); Model 2 would have $12.3 trillion ($1.3 trillion present value), and Model 3 would have $15.3 trillion ($1.6 trillion present value). The overall gain in system assets, inclusive of Trust Fund balances, is reported in Line 2. Here we see that each model improves on the current system’s projected debt in present value terms, in Model 1 by $0.5 trillion, in Model 2 by $4.8 trillion, and in Model 3 by $5.0 trillion." (Page 91)


"Assuming surpluses would not be available for transition financing, Model 1’s transition cost is $1.1 trillion, Model 2’s is $0.9 trillion, and Model 3’s is $0.4 trillion. If current surpluses were available, the costs would decline to $0.7 trillion for Model 1, $0.4 trillion for Model 2, and $0.1 trillion for Model 3. As a percentage of GDP, the latter values are remarkably small, at 0.29 percent, 0.33 percent, and 0.10 percent respectively." (Page 93)


So let's review: the current present value of the unfunded liability is over $3 trillion. The transition cost to a self-sustaining Model 2 program with personal accounts would be between $0.4 and $0.9 trillion. Hmmmm, tough call.

--B2707SST
Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
 
LAS757300
Posts: 254
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 2:04 pm

RE: Social Security Sham

Fri Feb 04, 2005 9:32 am

The ignorance running through these threads is disturbing. Lets get the facts straight.

1. Without any changes the current system will keep paying out until 2042 or 2052 depending on who you listen to. I'll be 70, DfwRev will be 68 in 2052, we'll probably be getting at least 5 or 3 years of benefits. After that we'll get roughly 80% of our benefits.

2. Social Security isn't to provide for a comfortable retirement, its insurance in case people lose their savings through mistakes, bad luck, or by simply out living their savings.

3. The current system is extremely efficient -- administrative costs run roughly 1% of taxes paid.

3. Social security is facing a 3.4 trillion dollar deficit over the next 75 years. Bush's way to fix that gap is a 4.5 trillion dollar program. http://times.com/2005/02/03/politics/03social.html?hp&ex=1107493200&en=cd5916ce33c6185f&ei=5094&partner=homepage

4. Similar pension reform systems around world have failed. After these accounts fail the government has bailed people out - older people, as we all know, have lots of political power.

I'd appreciate some input from our British and Swedish friends on their countries experience with private retirements accounts.

5. The Chilean reforms look good because the system prior the various reforms was full of fraud, not the case in this country.

[Edited 2005-02-04 01:37:44]
KMSP
 
zotan
Posts: 582
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 7:42 am

RE: Social Security Sham

Fri Feb 04, 2005 9:44 am

There are two big probelms with theses private accounts. 1st, what happens to all the people who are already retired when we start putting our money in private accounts instead of social security. Second, say a person is planning to retire in 2020. They have invested a lot of money in these private accounts and plan to live through retirement on the money earned. In 2019 the stock market crashes. All of the money they planned to use for their retirements is gone. What do they do? I dont think we will see any change in the system in the near future. Even the talking heads on the radio are saying its the third rail and anyone who trys to change it gets fryed...
 
airplay
Posts: 3369
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 1:58 am

RE: Social Security Sham

Fri Feb 04, 2005 9:46 am

You guys are going to have to change the name from Social "Security" to Social "Risk". Or maybe Social "Dice Toss".

Bush is threatening to undermine the fundamental reason for Social Security in a mad panic to make up for years of neglect.

 
padcrasher
Topic Author
Posts: 1815
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 6:17 am

RE: Social Security Sham

Fri Feb 04, 2005 9:46 am

I dont disagree with the numbers you use. But your last paragraph is confusing. What's the easy call? You cite the deficit. You mention the adminstrative costs. And then you conclude easy call? The Bush plan is the easy call?

Maybe we could get further agreeing on a few points about the Bush plan

1) The Bush Admin is saying the private accounts do nothing to address the funding shortfall. They solve this problem by redoing the benefit formula which will result in less benefits being given out. Agree?

2) For those that will opt for the SS base + the private account. Some of the folks will see drops in benefits of over 40% ***Including what they get from the private account***For those born in the 1960's an 18% drop. Agree?

 
StowAway
Posts: 619
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 10:48 am

RE: Social Security Sham

Fri Feb 04, 2005 9:47 am

LAS757300, that is extremely self-centered, and short sighted. What about our children? Hell, what about our 13 year old member's social security? But yours if fine, so everybody else who is trying to change it is wrong? Please.
A monkey's ass always talks crap.
 
padcrasher
Topic Author
Posts: 1815
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 6:17 am

RE: Social Security Sham

Fri Feb 04, 2005 9:58 am

Your calling LAS757300 self centered but you are endorsing a plan that calls for 34% reductions in benefits for someone born in the year 2000 with the stupid private accounts? Maybe he's thinking about his kids or grandkids?

The fact of the matter it is you who are too self centered to get an objective view of the problem.

The fact that no one here can source anything about how the proposed Bush plan 1) Helps the funding Deficit 2) Keeps the SS programt from paying up to 34% less in benefits speaks volumes.
 
padcrasher
Topic Author
Posts: 1815
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 6:17 am

RE: Social Security Sham

Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:10 am

" I don't have time right now to go line-by-line on Padcrasher's claims, none of which have a source cited."

Wrong. The start of this thread has a link to many of the facts I use. Read it.

 
LAS757300
Posts: 254
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 2:04 pm

RE: Social Security Sham

Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:12 am

Small changes will make the system viable for my grandchildren, stow. Raise the payroll tax and cut the benefits slightly.
KMSP
 
StowAway
Posts: 619
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 10:48 am

RE: Social Security Sham

Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:14 am

I think it is more than hilarious, if not ignorant, that you criticize ME for not being objective, Padcrasher!

You will throw out claims, and when somebody refutes them, you fall silent and move on with another bomb!

Yes, benefits will be cut. I think that is better than losing the whole program completely. If we keep Social Security the way it is, you can count on that! What is the alternative, Padcrasher?

. Without any changes the current system will keep paying out until 2042 or 2052 depending on who you listen to. I'll be 70, DfwRev will be 68 in 2052, we'll probably be getting at least 5 or 3 years of benefits

No, that is not self-centered....  Nuts



edit: Hooked on Phonix worked for me!

[Edited 2005-02-04 02:28:59]
A monkey's ass always talks crap.
 
LAS757300
Posts: 254
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 2:04 pm

RE: Social Security Sham

Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:19 am

I was using a rehtorical device, Stow. Contrasting the busies cries of "CRISIS" with a fact - twenty two year olds will be able to collect almost all of their promised benefits. I should have added that I favor making small changes to preserve the current system.
KMSP
 
padcrasher
Topic Author
Posts: 1815
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 6:17 am

RE: Social Security Sham

Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:23 am

Thank you stow. You finally were able to admit it. Benefits will still be cut.

None of my claims were refuted. What was the claim? And how was it refuted?

Are you talking about someone saying basically "No, that's not right. Uh.uh it's a black hole, ponzi scheme" and then providing nothing to back it up? That's not refuting Stow.
 
StowAway
Posts: 619
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 10:48 am

RE: Social Security Sham

Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:27 am

LAS757300, sorry to blast on you like that. I can understand what you are trying to say, and I will even agree that we are not in crisis mode yet.

However, if President's keep passing the buck to each other, we will be in said crisis mode. Not to mention the fact that President Bush is following up on a campaign promise that he made. This is not new news by any means. He ran a big campaign on this, but many didn't even look past his views on the war.
A monkey's ass always talks crap.
 
StowAway
Posts: 619
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 10:48 am

RE: Social Security Sham

Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:34 am

Thank you stow. You finally were able to admit it. Benefits will still be cut.

Hey, I am not turning a blind eye to the facts here!  Smile Anybody who opens up the studies can see that it is clearly laid out that it is indeed the case. Like I said, cuts are better then non-existance! Also, like many have said, you shouldn't plan your retirement solely on Social Security. (How about the art of a 401(k) or 401(a)?)

Are you talking about someone saying basically "No, that's not right. Uh.uh it's a black hole, ponzi scheme" and then providing nothing to back it up? That's not refuting Stow.

Agreed, 100%. However, how about a reply like 5, or 19?
A monkey's ass always talks crap.
 
LAS757300
Posts: 254
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 2:04 pm

RE: Social Security Sham

Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:42 am

Actually he ran away from this during the campaign. One example I remember involved Kerry accusing Bush of wanting to cut benefits, something he's now proposing. Bush's campaign responded by accusing Kerry of fearmongering.

Besides, its clear than bush's plan will be more pricey and will provide fewer benefits than liberal and centrist plans to preserve the current system.

I know the presidents plan will not make it through congress. The AARP and the Democrats are opposing the system, along with many moderate and conservative Republicans concerned by the ballooning deficit.
KMSP
 
StowAway
Posts: 619
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 10:48 am

RE: Social Security Sham

Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:48 am

One example I remember involved Kerry accusing Bush of wanting to cut benefits, something he's now proposing. Bush's campaign responded by accusing Kerry of fearmongering.

Oh no you don't! That is not the same story, my friend. Kerry was trying to scare the people into believing that Bush would cut benefits altogether. He could provide no proof, though.

Speaking of proof.....

Besides, its clear than bush's plan will be more pricey and will provide fewer benefits than liberal and centrist plans to preserve the current system.

Got any? Any studies are really just speculation, as we have know idea in predicting the outcome of a new system. At least we will be trying SOMETHING!


I know the presidents plan will not make it through congress. The AARP and the Democrats are opposing the system, along with many moderate and conservative Republicans concerned by the ballooning deficit.

It won't be easy, for that you are right. I still would like to hear a plan from the Democrats.
A monkey's ass always talks crap.
 
B2707SST
Posts: 1289
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Social Security Sham

Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:56 am

1) The Bush Admin is saying the private accounts do nothing to address the funding shortfall. They solve this problem by redoing the benefit formula which will result in less benefits being given out. Agree? 2)

For those that will opt for the SS base + the private account. Some of the folks will see drops in benefits of over 40% ***Including what they get from the private account***For those born in the 1960's an 18% drop. Agree?


Wrong on both counts. To re-cite the Moynihan-Parsons report:


Over time, these investments in personal accounts offer financial returns to the Social Security program via reductions in the rate of growth of system costs, to retirees in the form of higher expected benefits, or both. (P. 73)


Reform Model 2 enables future retirees to receive Social Security benefits that are at least as great as today’s retirees, inflation adjusted, and, in addition, increases the Social Security benefits paid to low-income workers. Model 2 establishes a voluntary personal account, without raising taxes or requiring additional worker contributions. It achieves solvency and balances Social Security revenues and costs.

• Workers who opt for personal accounts can reasonably expect to receive a combined benefit greater than benefits paid to current retirees and also greater than the future benefits payable under the current system.

• The plan makes the system more progressive, by increasing the minimum benefit payable to 30-year minimum wage workers to 120 percent of the poverty line. Additional protections against poverty are provided for survivors as well.

• Benefits under the traditional component of Social Security would be price indexed, beginning in 2009.

Expected benefits payable to a medium earner electing a retirement account would be 59 percent above benefits currently paid to today’s retirees by 2052. At the end of the 75-year valuation period, the personal account system would hold $12.3 trillion (in today’s dollars; $1.3 trillion in present value), much of which would be new saving, an accomplishment that would not need increased taxes or increased worker contributions over the long term.


In any case, going with the usual Democratic approach -- taxing Social Security into prosperity -- will mean that, by the end of the government's 75-year accounting period, the government will need to consume another 6% of the national payroll to close the deficit. In short, payroll taxes will have to rise by 50% just to keep the program solvent. Then you get to confront the "76th year cliff" that I cited above:

For example, we could eliminate the actuarial deficit by immediately raising the payroll tax by 1.86 percent of payroll. However, as we move one year into the future, the valuation window is shifted by one year, and we will find ourselves in an actuarial deficit once more. This deficit would continue to worsen as we put our near term surplus years behind us and add large deficit years into the valuation window. This is sometimes called the "cliff effect" because the measure can hide the fact that in year 76, system finances immediately "fall off the cliff" into large and ongoing deficits.

Social Security is fighting an uphill battle against demographics, one that will only get worse as time passes. The only way to put the system on a permanently solid financial footing is to earn a higher rate of return on the invested funds.


Oh hears another thing about your Chile plan. In the US the worker pays 3.25%, the company he works for pays 3.25%. In Chili, the worker gets to pay all of the 10% premium. 3 times what the US worker pays.

Totally meaningless. Tax incidence -- the real economic amount of tax borne by each party -- does not change no matter who pays the tax. When a company makes hiring and compensation decisions, it doesn't care whether "it" pays X% of FICA or the "worker" pays; the decision is made based on the total cost of hiring the worker. The worker ends up paying the same cost no matter which way the tax is allocated.

--B2707SST
Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
 
LAS757300
Posts: 254
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 2:04 pm

RE: Social Security Sham

Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:58 am

Kerry said bush would like to cut a significant portion of guaranteed benefits. That's 100% true.

There are plenty of Democratic and/or liberal proposals. For starters, read Paul Krugman. Also see:

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=289151&printmode=1

http://www.brookings.edu/press/books/savingsocialsecurity.htm It's a book, but you'll get the general idea.

http://econ-www.mit.edu/faculty/download_pdf.php?id=961 - WARNING PDF file
KMSP
 
padcrasher
Topic Author
Posts: 1815
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 6:17 am

RE: Social Security Sham

Fri Feb 04, 2005 11:08 am

The report you cite is Dated 12/01. It is not the Presidents plan. That is the Graham plan. I asked you about the Presidents plan. Once again can you answer my specific questions about the Presidents Plan? I realize it is not formally out there but all indications are that it is the Graham plan.

 
StowAway
Posts: 619
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 10:48 am

RE: Social Security Sham

Fri Feb 04, 2005 12:23 pm

LAS757300, Hey, Link #1 looks pretty good to me. I love the magic of a 401(k). That plan is actually pretty close, if not dead on, to what the president wants done it seems.

The report you cite is Dated 12/01. It is not the Presidents plan. That is the Graham plan. I asked you about the Presidents plan. Once again can you answer my specific questions about the Presidents Plan? I realize it is not formally out there but all indications are that it is the Graham plan.

Read that again, and then tell me how an analysis of the Graham plan wouldn't be accurate.
A monkey's ass always talks crap.
 
B2707SST
Posts: 1289
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Social Security Sham

Fri Feb 04, 2005 1:05 pm

Once again can you answer my specific questions about the Presidents Plan? I realize it is not formally out there but all indications are that it is the Graham plan.

I have not read the Graham plan and will not read it until the President endorses it or sends his own to Congress. There are simply too many proposals, counter-proposals, talking points, fact sheets, press releases, accusations, and counter-charges flying around to read them all.

The Moynihan-Parsons Report is the only detailed plan endorsed by the White House at this point, and from what I have seen, their Model 2 is the closest match to what the President is proposing. So far, it coincides exactly with what he said at the SOTU.

More importantly, the Moynihan-Parsons report is at least nominally objective and is more exhaustive in its analysis than any other plan I have seen. The Center for Budgetary and Policy Priorities is a firmly liberal organization that is no doubt determined to portray the Graham Bill in the worst possible light, just as the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation would have us believe it will do everything but cure cancer. I'm sure the CBPP's issues are addressed somewhere on the right side of the web:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb109/hb_109-4.pdf
http://www.cato.org/research/articles/tanner-050201.html

http://www.socialsecurity.org/ (Reply to Jonathan Weisman's article in the Washington Post)
http://www.socialsecurity.org/cgi-bin/scripts/sstopics.cgi?qt=topic:social_security's_financial_crisis

http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/WM143.cfm
http://www.heritage.org/research/socialsecurity/briefing.cfm
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed012805e.cfm#_ftn2 (Reply to Krugman)

We can take turns linking to opposing think-tanks and pasting in their paragraphs until we're blue in the face. What's the point? Cato has its own numbers, Heritage has its own numbers, the CBPP, the Brookings Institute, the CBO, the Social Security Administration, the Republicans, the Democrats, all no doubt have their own numbers designed to push their own particular agenda. Treating any one of them as objective or holy writ is pointless. I will not waste time addressing a hypothetical plan that may or may not be sponsored by the White House and may or may not ever come up for debate, despite what "reliable sources" at the NYT might think.

--B2707SST

[Edited 2005-02-04 05:06:55]
Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
 
LAS757300
Posts: 254
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 2:04 pm

RE: Social Security Sham

Fri Feb 04, 2005 1:52 pm

I tend to believe the SSA and the CBO, both are respected and citied by each political party.
KMSP
 
padcrasher
Topic Author
Posts: 1815
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 6:17 am

RE: Social Security Sham

Fri Feb 04, 2005 2:01 pm

He has 5 days to wiggle out of this. The details come out when the President submits the budget on Monday. And it will be the same plan the they are briefing reporters on today. The plan with the reduced benefits, the plan they admit in which private accounts do nothing to solve the funding shortfall.

Remeber guys, being able to admit the obvious is 1/3 of the way to being a Democrat....LOL
 
MD-90
Posts: 7836
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: Social Security Sham

Fri Feb 04, 2005 2:09 pm

Of course Social Security is a sham. It is an unfunded Ponzi scheme that would be illegal for a non-governmental entity to run. What is the US going to do with $44 TRILLION dollars owed over the coming decades, and there's not one red cent in the "trust fund?"

I say let people opt out of paying SS and provide no benefit. The system will die out over time. Meanwhile, there'll be more taxes or ever-increasing deficits to pay for the infantile retirees who want someone else to pay their way.

Forcing people to save their own money via threat of imprisonment is Orwellian, in my view. The personal savings rate in America is barely one percent. The average American instinctively knows how his government is betraying him and weakening its own currency with foolish but deadly wars and ignorant economic policies from fools the likes of neocons and Keynesians.
 
padcrasher
Topic Author
Posts: 1815
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 6:17 am

RE: Social Security Sham

Sat Feb 05, 2005 2:59 am

All this "crisis" could be solved by doing this. And it would only effect the top 6% of earners in the US.

"ANDREWS (2/4/05): Some Republicans have even gone so far as to suggest the one approach Mr. Bush did not mention in his speech, raising the ceiling on income subject to payroll taxes, which is now about $90,000 a year. The idea appeals to some politicians because only about 6 percent of Americans earn more than $90,000 a year. Imposing Social Security taxes on incomes of up to $200,000 would come close to eliminating the entire [$3.7 trillion] deficit.
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Social Security Sham

Sat Feb 05, 2005 5:38 am

At least the president is putting forth a plan, which is more than I can say for the minority members of congress. They just want to let it die. Afterall, they won't be in power when it all crashes in.

I somewhat wonder if they've pinned themselves into a Catch22 with this though.....

If Bush & Co. successfully "save" Social Security, then there's not a damned thing the Democrats can do to say they helped/assisted in this. Major disadvantage.

If Bush & Co. fail in their attempts, and Social Security does run into a crisis... it wouldn't be difficult at all to pin it on the Dem's attempts to stop a major overhaul (assuming of course, the Dem's don't compose/execute an alternative plan of their own instead of just criticizing*)







*haaaaa ha ha ha ha! The chances of that happening!  Laugh out loud Big grin
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
dan-air
Posts: 600
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 1999 6:13 am

RE: Social Security Sham

Sat Feb 05, 2005 5:54 am

Any of the "Ponzi-scheme" crowd have any idea where we're going to come up with the $2 Trillion in transition costs if this so-called "reform" is passed?

Raise taxes perhaps?  Wink/being sarcastic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cskok8, invertalon, L410Turbolet, scottyraven and 34 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos