• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

War Against Youth?

What happens to those who go broke? Or have to use the money for medical bills?
 
The problem is that social security is the third rail of politics but the fact remains that there are huge issues with fraud, waste, and abuse.

It needs to be reformed.
 
SSI might have some waste, fraud and abuse, but regular Social Security has among the lowest overhead costs of any program.

It needs be reformed but not for the reasons you state:

There needs to be means testing. It was never setup to be for rich or nearly rich people.

The age needs to be raised gradually over the next 30-40 years.

All should be allowed to put additional money aside tax free. Maybe a sliding scale from 5-1% depending on your earnings.
 
RJKarl said:
SSI might have some waste, fraud and abuse, but regular Social Security has among the lowest overhead costs of any program.

It needs be reformed but not for the reasons you state:

There needs to be means testing. It was never setup to be for rich or nearly rich people.

The age needs to be raised gradually over the next 30-40 years.

All should be allowed to put additional money aside tax free. Maybe a sliding scale from 5-1% depending on your earnings.
Click to expand...

Who the hell wants to put more money into a program that is likely to go bankrupt. I know very few people my age who aren't scared about whether SS will be there to assist them in retirement. If there were individual accounts that an individual could control, perhaps, but otherwise I think people would be loathe to participate given the financial instability of the program generally.
 
Without any change the program is stable through 2037. If what I proposed (and many others have agreed with), the program will be solvent throughout this century.

during the mid-late part of this century, SS will have to be adjusted in a greater manner with 100+ year lifespans.
 
bobknightfan said:
I try to get young & middle-aged people to put money into individually controlled retirement plans all the time, whether it is IRAs, ROTHs, 401Ks, 403Bs, or whatever....and it is like trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip. It is amazing how many people will not even contribute to a 401K plan when they are getting a 50% match from their employer.....especially when these are young, single people who are making pretty darned good wages. Social Security has its drawbacks, to be sure, but if you let everyone in this country handle their own retirement accounts, you would wind up with a full-scale disaster. The people who need to be aggressive would be too conservative, and the people who need to be conservative would be too aggressive. Oh, there are many who could do it, but there are many more who would make a total mess of it.....and what would you do with them? Let them starve, or drastically increase welfare expenditures? If you think individuals in this country today are, as a whole, capable of managing their finances, the only thing I can say is to look at the credit card debt in this country....or look at the savings rate of Americans today. This nation believes in consumption, not savings....and young people are just as guilty of that as any other segment in society. Maybe more so.
Click to expand...

It's hard to be too aggressive when your investment options are limited - which is how it would be structured. And it's hard to be too conservative when you are taxed to contribute to the overall fund.
 
bobknightfan said:
I try to get young & middle-aged people to put money into individually controlled retirement plans all the time, whether it is IRAs, ROTHs, 401Ks, 403Bs, or whatever....and it is like trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip. It is amazing how many people will not even contribute to a 401K plan when they are getting a 50% match from their employer.....especially when these are young, single people who are making pretty darned good wages. Social Security has its drawbacks, to be sure, but if you let everyone in this country handle their own retirement accounts, you would wind up with a full-scale disaster. The people who need to be aggressive would be too conservative, and the people who need to be conservative would be too aggressive. Oh, there are many who could do it, but there are many more who would make a total mess of it.....and what would you do with them? Let them starve, or drastically increase welfare expenditures? If you think individuals in this country today are, as a whole, capable of managing their finances, the only thing I can say is to look at the credit card debt in this country....or look at the savings rate of Americans today. This nation believes in consumption, not savings....and young people are just as guilty of that as any other segment in society. Maybe more so.
Click to expand...

And I could not agree more about people not taking advantage of 401(k)'s. Contribute as much as possible and find a means to live off the remainder. What you never see you can't miss. I recognize life can intervene. But I also know lots of people who don't use the benefit they are offered and can afford to do so.
 
RJKarl said:
SSI might have some waste, fraud and abuse, but regular Social Security has among the lowest overhead costs of any program.

It needs be reformed but not for the reasons you state:

There needs to be means testing. It was never setup to be for rich or nearly rich people.

The age needs to be raised gradually over the next 30-40 years.

All should be allowed to put additional money aside tax free. Maybe a sliding scale from 5-1% depending on your earnings.
Click to expand...

We've been over this before, rj. Social Security already is means tested - thru the benefit formulas and taxation. Simpson-Bowles would have done more of it. Here's an article one one couple's situation
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/means-testing-to-bolster-social-security-its-already-happening/2012/02/28/gIQAP0zLlR_story.html
 
Bye bye USD. I love this country but I plan on making as much money as possible on this pending disaster.
 
RJ, I was speaking specifically about SSI but I guarantee you that 90%+ of America hears social security and only thinks about retirement.
 
vote-and-vote-and-vote.gif
 
You're wrong, although you're hardly alone in that mistake.

The simple definition of means testing is the use of income to determine a benefit. The existing means testing in Social Security reduces the benefit for higher income retirees thru the structure of the benefit formula and the FIT taxation of those benefits. You are talking about eliminating the benefit altogether which is simply another form of means testing.
 
Last edited:
We should also either get rid of the limit on income on which SS taxes are paid or at the very least raise it significantly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top