Where would they be today

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

If Bush's idea of taking social security money out of the fund and giving it to people so they could invest it in the stock market themselves for their retirement had been implimented a year or two ago, where would these people be now? With the fall of the market, their they would not only be out their retirement, but the money they put into it would be gone also.

Is Bush still going to push for this idea? Will he lower the amount people put into social security so they can (supposidly) invest it into the market for retirement?

I hope he has dropped that brilliant idea, as it is, retirement funds and in jeoperdy now, although most who run them do not usually invest in short term, high risk stocks.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), March 17, 2001

Answers

Valid question Cherri but no more valid than asking how does Soc Security remain solvent when the proportion of younger workers to older workers keeps declining?

When SS began, the ratio was high (16:1?); now it is much lower (3:1?). Ponzi schemes are neat when the ratio of those paying in greatly exceeds the ratio of those taking out but we have long since past that point.

Maybe we will all have to keep working til we croak.

-- Lars (larsguy@yaho.com), March 17, 2001.


Lars:

While the ratio has gone down, folks working now pay MUCH more into social security than ever before. I don't know when you stopped working due to your disability [or even if you DID], but I remember a time when I could stop having social security taken from my payroll taxes because I'd reached the maximum for the year. The maximum has increased every year since, and I think the max currently is something like $76,000.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 17, 2001.


Yes, that was my point Anita. It was much easier to fund SS when there were more people doing the funding.

I have been on SS since 1990. I am the first to admit that I depend on it (plus Medicare).

I am lucky to be getting it while it is still there. In ten or twenty years, it may no longer possible to consider it as an "entitlement".

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 17, 2001.


Lars:

It's not my intention to be argumentative [and I think you already know that], but it's unclear in my mind how someone in your situation could support [and I'm not even sure that you DO support this, but the Bush administration does] a tax cut that provides more benefits to folks at the upper end of the tax spectrum when the payroll taxes ALREADY provide these folks more benefits.

Income tax is NOTHING compared to the other payroll taxes folks pay, and NO ONE has suggested a reduction in payroll taxes.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 17, 2001.


If I could, I would gladly opt out of the social security program and take my chances on my own. I have no faith in the system surviving until I retire 35 years from now. I want to stop paying into the system, with the knowledge that I'll be on my own, and invest how I see fit. A bear market doesn't last forever and I certainly won't need all my money the moment I retire.

-- Rob (celtic64@inficad.com), March 17, 2001.


I know you're not being argumentative. Neither am I, which is not to say that either one of us is a wuss. I don't know the tax specifics you refer to but, yes, in general I am in favor of less taxation of all types for everyone. (I favor apple pie and motherhood too!)

How to continue reliable generation of the retirement benefits that we have come to assume are our right? I dunno, maybe we must move back towards reliance on our children and families as well as accepting responsibility for preparing for our own bad times (most people do get them).

So maybe people like me without kids are SOL. But having had no kids has made it easier for me to provide for myself, and even to help some others.

Not much of a reply. That's OK Lars, it's Saturday.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 17, 2001.


Bill O Reilly proposed an interesting idea the other day on his show. Ditch the SS dedution from everyone's check, and replace it with a national sales tax.

Hell Cherri, the Bush plan does not (as far as I know) specify that the retirement savings plan must be put into the market. I could put all of that SS deduction money that Uncle Sam sucks out of my check now, (15 fucking % of every dollar I earn) put it into bonds, and do better than the shitty return that I get now(0%). Plus, it would be MINE!!! It would belong to ME!!!

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), March 17, 2001.


Cherri is correct that had this proposal been adopted a year or two ago, people would have experienced no gains at all and many would have experienced losses. This is not good.

What Cherri does NOT do is compare how they would have fared investing in the market, with how their money fared as it was. This doesn't surprise me, because their SS contributions are ALL GONE! We didn't only break even, we didn't lose half, we lost ALL OF IT. All we have to show for it are IOU's from the general fund we loaned it to, which spent it all and can never repay it.

I guess Cherri would rather burn ALL her contributions, guaranteed, rather than take the risk of losing any, and maybe even make a profit. Personally, I'd rather keep mine and take my chances. No matter how poorly I invest it, even if every company I invest in goes broke, I *cannot do worse* than losing everything, which is what is happening now.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 17, 2001.


Unc is correct. When those of us who need it in bout 20 years as Rich stated, it wont be there. Who is bush kidding? We are taxed to damn much as it is.

-- antibush (anti@bush.person), March 18, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ