CEPR released a new study on how to fix Social Security

52 posts / 0 new
Last post
Thom Hartmann A...
Thom Hartmann Administrator's picture

While Republicans push cutting benefits, raising the retirement age, and privatizing the program altogether – the Center for Economic and Policy Research found that simply by eliminating the cap on federal payroll taxes would make Social security solvent – and paying out full benefits – for the next 75 years.  Currently – Americans only pay Social security taxes on their first $110,100 – meaning most working Americans pay the tax on their full income – while Romney super-rich Americans pay the tax only on part of their income.

Lifting the cap – and making millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share in Social Security taxes would only affect 6.8% of American workers.  So what plan is better for America?  The Republican plan of raising the retirement age so you have to work into your 70’s?  Or lifting the cap – forcing Mitt Romney to pay the same Social Security tax rate as working Americans – so that we can all enjoy a decent retirement? 

Comments

mauiman58
mauiman58's picture
That's it Thom, back to your

That's it Thom, back to your "tax the rich" bandwagon.  Haven't he heard enough of that?

workingman
workingman's picture
This Will do nothing but

This Will do nothing but steal more money from those who have earned it.. As you oay in more you receive more back in benefits so this Will just kick the can down the road.

They should make ssi volentary that way if you like it you stay if not you get your money back.

J DAILEY
J DAILEY's picture
How does one EARN billions of

How does one EARN billions of dollars? And lets be sure we know the differences between earn, exploit, inherit, and theft.

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
Amen.

Amen.

workingman
workingman's picture
Earn billions of dollars do

Earn billions of dollars do your specific job very well. entertaners, sports stars, And company owners like warren buffet.

Exploit union leaders taking your money for their benefit.

Inherit paris hilton, the kennedy's still their money good for them.

Theft the federal government for welfare purposes steals billions of your dollars to give away.

chilidog
Maybe it would not be a bad

Maybe it would not be a bad idea to prohibit deferred compensation, like pensions, in employment contracts,  People would still be able to have their own IRA's, but the primary means of income after retirement would be Social Security.

workingman
workingman's picture
chilidog wrote: Maybe it

chilidog wrote:

Maybe it would not be a bad idea to prohibit deferred compensation, like pensions, in employment contracts,  People would still be able to have their own IRA's, but the primary means of income after retirement would be Social Security.

That would result in higher poverty, starvation, And government control.

SSI under government rules pays you what they think you deserve not what you have paid in.

SSI is a failed social policy that should have never bern put in place.

middle class individuals lose 22 percent year over year under this scheme.

THISAA
THISAA's picture
Double Amen.

Double Amen.

Dr. Econ
Dr. Econ's picture
  You guys miss the point.

 

You guys miss the point. THere's no point disagreeing about social security, since 80% of the public is for it. We already know you don't like it. 

The point Thom was making is that the financing of SS can be easily done.

Entitlement Society
Entitlement Society's picture
How about the next 75 years

How about the next 75 years after that? Should we raise taxes again? Just keep raising taxes until they are over 100%...forget transitioning social security into a private system so that people can earn a better return. That just makes too much sense.

chilidog
Entitlement Society

Entitlement Society wrote:

...forget transitioning social security into a private system

Done and done.

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
Entitlement Society

Entitlement Society wrote:

How about the next 75 years after that? Should we raise taxes again? Just keep raising taxes until they are over 100%...forget transitioning social security into a private system so that people can earn a better return. That just makes too much sense.

We've got 75 years to figure that out now don't we.  Who knows what kind of a world we'll have in 75 years.  100 years from now we'll all be dead.  We can all line our corpses with our hard earned money so that nobody can steal it from us. 

CollegeConservative
CollegeConservative's picture
How bout we give it to those

How bout we give it to those 5 years out, give back what others have contributed in pro rated tax reductions and stop young people from inputing.

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
CollegeConservative

CollegeConservative wrote:

How bout we give it to those 5 years out, give back what others have contributed in pro rated tax reductions and stop young people from inputing.

I've been paing in for almost 40 years.  I'm 15 years out.  15 years isn't even close to enough years to pay me back in tax reductions.  Bad plan, won't work.  How bout we keep it the way it has always been.  If you really look into it you'll see that there is no problems with the system.  It's just a giant scare tactic to eliminate it.  The GOP has been trying the same crap since it was instituted.

CollegeConservative
CollegeConservative's picture
Then why does the cBo report

Then why does the cBo report we have 14 trillion In unfounded liabilities? 

chilidog
Does that $14 trillion

Does that $14 trillion include any part of an 18-year-old's one year of contributions to SS, who may never vest, let alone survive to collect in 50 years?

If yes, you may be correct that that figure is "unfounded."

 

CollegeConservative
CollegeConservative's picture
Unfunded

Unfunded

chilidog
Have you ever heard of Oscar

Have you ever heard of Oscar Wilde?

douglaslee
douglaslee's picture
Unfunded liability is bs.

Unfunded liability is bs. Inhoffe used it to screw the US Postal service, making them the only entity  on earth required to fund retirement for 75 years into the future.  The ceos that bribe inhoffe don't have to fully fund their multimillion dollar annual pensions to perpetuity. Reagan, you remember that socialist that fixed social security? He raised the cap so that 90% of all income was subject to fica. Right now only about 83% is subject to fica. Raise the cap to 90% again and 75 years is covered.

douglaslee
douglaslee's picture
Unfunded liability is bs.

Unfunded liability is bs. Inhoffe used it to screw the US Postal service, making them the only entity  on earth required to fund retirement for 75 years into the future.  The ceos that bribe inhoffe don't have to fully fund their multimillion dollar annual pensions to perpetuity. Reagan, you remember that socialist that fixed social security? He raised the cap so that 90% of all income was subject to fica. Right now only about 83% is subject to fica. Raise the cap to 90% again and 75 years is covered.

unfunded liability ruse

Entitlement Society
Entitlement Society's picture
Having people pay tax to fund

Having people pay tax to fund social security today is an inefficient use of resources. The Social Security Act may go down as the worst act is US history. If Social Security was privatized from the start everybody would be much better off than they are today.

douglaslee
douglaslee's picture
The sky is falling, the sky

The sky is falling, the sky is falling, a piece of college conservative hit entitlement on his head.

Quote:

But the proponents of the crisis story have been largely successful in spreading fear. Part of this success is due to the use of deceptive language in framing the issue. The promoters of the crisis routinely speak of an $11 trillion “unfunded liability” for Social Security. But most of the people who hear the $11 trillion figure or use it (including reporters) probably have no idea what it means.

 

The $11 trillion is obtained by projecting Social Security taxes and spending for the infinite future. The gap between projected spending and taxes for all time is then summed up (using a 3-percent real-discount rate) to get a projection of $11 trillion of debt.

 

However, more than two-thirds of this projected debt is due to spending beyond the 75-year planning period for Social Security. This means that the debt is not something that we are imposing on our children or grandchildren. Rather, it is a debt that we are projecting that our great-grandchildren would impose on their grandchildren -- assuming pessimistic economic projections.

 

The basic story is that life expectancies are projected to increase through time. This raises the cost of the program through time. If taxes are never raised and benefits are never reduced, the shortfall would eventually be very large.

 

But serious people don’t worry about designing Social Security for the 22nd century. (The secret here is that we don’t actually get to design Social Security for the 22nd century anyhow -- the people who are alive in 50, 60, and 70 years will design the program in a way that makes sense to them. They will not care at all about what we thought was a good system in 2005.)

 

If we just confine ourselves to the already lengthy 75-year planning period, the projected shortfall comes to $3 trillion. This may still sound very large. However, the Social Security trustees calculate that this shortfall is 0.7 percent of national income over the planning period. The CBO projects an even smaller number, just 0.4 percent of income over the next 75 years.

By comparison, the increase in annual defense spending since 2001 has been more than 1 percent of the gross domestic product, twice the size of the Social Security shortfall projected by the CBO. And Bush’s tax increases equal about 2 percent of the GDP. In fact, rolling back Bush’s tax cuts on the very wealthiest would raise sufficient revenue to cover the shortfall for 75 years.

Entitlement Society
Entitlement Society's picture
douglaslee wrote: Unfunded

douglaslee wrote:

Unfunded liability is bs. Inhoffe used it to screw the US Postal service, making them the only entity  on earth required to fund retirement for 75 years into the future.  The ceos that bribe inhoffe don't have to fully fund their multimillion dollar annual pensions to perpetuity. Reagan, you remember that socialist that fixed social security? He raised the cap so that 90% of all income was subject to fica. Right now only about 83% is subject to fica. Raise the cap to 90% again and 75 years is covered.

unfunded liability ruse

The postal service should be sold off. We don't need it anymore in the days of email, UPS, and FedEx.

douglaslee
douglaslee's picture
Here is a real unfunded

Here is a real unfunded liability

Quote:

However, the $230,000,000,000,000 in derivative bets by US banks might bring its own surprises. JPMorganChase has had to admit that its recently announced derivative loss of $2 billion is more than that.  How much more remains to be seen. According to the Comptroller of the Currency the five largest banks hold 95.7% of all derivatives. The five banks holding $226 trillion in derivative bets are highly leveraged gamblers.  For example, JPMorganChase has total assets of $1.8 trillion but holds $70 trillion in derivative bets, a ratio of $39 in derivative bets for every dollar of assets. Such a bank doesn’t have to lose very many bets before it is busted. Assets, of course, are not risk-based capital. According to the Comptroller of the Currency report, as of December 31, 2011, JPMorganChase held $70.2 trillion in derivatives and only $136 billion in risk-based capital. In other words, the bank’s derivative bets are 516 times larger than the capital that covers the bets. It is difficult to imagine a more reckless and unstable position for a bank to place itself in, but Goldman Sachs takes the cake. That bank’s $44 trillion in derivative bets is covered by only $19 billion in risk-based capital, resulting in bets 2,295 times larger than  the capital that covers them.    Bets on interest rates comprise 81% of all derivatives. These are the derivatives that support high US Treasury bond prices despite massive increases in US debt and its monetization. US banks’ derivative bets of $230 trillion, concentrated in five banks, are 15.3 times larger than the US GDP.  A failed political system that allows unregulated banks to place uncovered bets 15 times larger than the US economy is a system that is headed for catastrophic failure.  As the word spreads of the fantastic lack of judgment in the American political and financial systems, the catastrophe in waiting will become a reality.   Everyone wants a solution, so I will provide one. The US government should simply cancel the $230 trillion in derivative bets, declaring them null and void.  As no real  assets are involved, merely gambling on notional values, the only major effect of closing out or netting all the swaps (mostly over-the-counter contracts between counter-parties) would be to take $230 trillion of leveraged risk out of the financial system.  The financial gangsters who want to continue enjoying betting gains while the public underwrites their losses would scream and yell about the sanctity of contracts. However, a government that can murder its own citizens or throw them into dungeons without due process can abolish all the contracts it wants in the name of national security.  And most certainly, unlike the war on terror, purging the financial system of the gambling derivatives would vastly improve national security.  Dr. Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury, Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal, columnist for Business Week, and professor of economics.  His book, Economies In Collapse, is being published in Germany this month.
Paul Craig Roberts is a frequent contributor to Global Research.  Global Research Articles by Paul Craig Roberts



Subscribe to the Global Research E-Newsletter

CollegeConservative
CollegeConservative's picture
How is not having the money I

How is not having the money I put in for me not unfunded liability

chilidog
CollegeConservative

CollegeConservative wrote:

How is not having the money I put in for me not unfunded liability

I asked the question if that $14 trillion figure includes YOUR money, which you haven't even "vested in." (I don't know the particular terminology SS uses.) I don't know the answer.  The correct answer logically should be that "it doesn't." Yet I suspect that "it does."

chilidog
I cannot wrap my head around

I cannot wrap my head around the right's ideas to "privatize Social Security." Either the government (us/we) has a policy to pay people who have worked, and are now too old to work; or we don't.

I find these ideas to "privatize Social Security" distinctly non-conservative and non-libertarian, so I don't know what it's based upon.  Larceny, perhaps?

 

CollegeConservative
CollegeConservative's picture
Ehen I put mine in I expect

Ehen I put mine in I expect that the government won't spend it but they do

Entitlement Society
Entitlement Society's picture
chilidog wrote: I cannot wrap

chilidog wrote:

I cannot wrap my head around the right's ideas to "privatize Social Security." Either the government (us/we) has a policy to pay people who have worked, and are now too old to work; or we don't.

I find these ideas to "privatize Social Security" distinctly non-conservative and non-libertarian, so I don't know what it's based upon.  Larceny, perhaps?

 

I don't consider myself conservative, libertarian, or a liberal. I'm definitely not a progressive. I consider myself a free thinker. The truth is if we privatize social security we can get better returns than we do paying into the payroll tax. Not only that, but social security will never go insolvent. I don't understand the obsession to keep the status quo when it's on the path to failure sooner or later.

chilidog
Entitlement Society

Entitlement Society wrote:

chilidog wrote:

I cannot wrap my head around the right's ideas to "privatize Social Security." Either the government (us/we) has a policy to pay people who have worked, and are now too old to work; or we don't.

I find these ideas to "privatize Social Security" distinctly non-conservative and non-libertarian, so I don't know what it's based upon.  Larceny, perhaps?

 

I don't consider myself conservative, libertarian, or a liberal. I'm definitely not a progressive. I consider myself a free thinker. The truth is if we privatize social security we can get better returns than we do paying into the payroll tax. Not only that, but social security will never go insolvent. I don't understand the obsession to keep the status quo when it's on the path to failure sooner or later.

It's NOT "on the path to failure sooner or later." We will always have an economy, and we will always have starving old people.  There will always be something to share.  I gotta believe the younger people in Ireland in the 19th Century had at least an extra cup of dirt to give Grandpa.

Entitlement Society
Entitlement Society's picture
chilidog wrote: Entitlement

chilidog wrote:

Entitlement Society wrote:

chilidog wrote:

I cannot wrap my head around the right's ideas to "privatize Social Security." Either the government (us/we) has a policy to pay people who have worked, and are now too old to work; or we don't.

I find these ideas to "privatize Social Security" distinctly non-conservative and non-libertarian, so I don't know what it's based upon.  Larceny, perhaps?

 

I don't consider myself conservative, libertarian, or a liberal. I'm definitely not a progressive. I consider myself a free thinker. The truth is if we privatize social security we can get better returns than we do paying into the payroll tax. Not only that, but social security will never go insolvent. I don't understand the obsession to keep the status quo when it's on the path to failure sooner or later.

It's NOT "on the path to failure sooner or later." We will always have an economy, and we will always have starving old people.  There will always be something to share.  I gotta believe the younger people in Ireland in the 19th Century had at least an extra cup of dirt to give Grandpa.

With the current American trends social security will fail. It relied too much on how many babies people would have. We also have to consider that people are living longer and longer. The far left just wants to keep raising taxes to make it solvent. What we need to do is change course. A transtion into privatization will work. It's going to give people a better return on their money and increase American investment. What I think we should do is look at Chile's model, see what works and how we can improve on it.

pshakkottai
pshakkottai's picture
"The next time you hear

"The next time you hear someone say Social Security will run out of money, know this: FICA can and should be eliminated; the tax on benefits can and should be eliminated; the benefits themselves can and should be greatly increased – and Social Security will not run out of money unless Congress and the President deliberately withhold funds."

says Mitchell in  http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/monetary-sovereignty-for...

Also "Like all federal agencies, Social Security is funded by the U.S. government, not by FICA. It never can run short of money unless Congress and the President decide to withhold dollars. Without drifting too deeply into philosophy, I offer you my opinion that Social Security is one of the crown jewels of the American society, a great benefit not only to the individuals receiving benefits, but to America as a whole."

mauiman58
mauiman58's picture
pshakkottai wrote: Also "Like

pshakkottai wrote:

Also "Like all federal agencies, Social Security is funded by the U.S. government, not by FICA. It never can run short of money unless Congress and the President decide to withhold dollars. Without drifting too deeply into philosophy, I offer you my opinion that Social Security is one of the crown jewels of the American society, a great benefit not only to the individuals receiving benefits, but to America as a whole."

Sorry man, Social Security is the biggest Ponzi scheme in history!  Bernie Madoff got thrown into the slammer (rightfully so) for a lot less of a Ponzi scheme than SS.  Just another Irresponsible scheme by a bunch of politians just trying to get elected and re elected. 

pshakkottai
pshakkottai's picture
"The reality of the public

"The reality of the public vs. private debate: Some industries are better run by the private sector, because the profit motive supports efficiency, creativity and service. But some industries are better run by the public sector, because the profit motive would support greed, lawlessness and hardship for many. It depends on the industry." says Mitchell in

http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/04/01/the-myth-of-private-ente...

and also, "

Recently, I answered a couple of comments, disparaging government work, and mentioning the postal service as a specific example of inefficient, lazy, uncaring government. Here is what I said:

The postal service is required to deliver the type of mail no one else wants to deliver, at low prices no one else wants to charge. For example: Advertising mailers and first class everywhere.

For about $.45 you can send a letter anywhere in America, including Hawaii and Alaska. Who else will do that, even for triple the price? For even less, you can send advertising mailers all over the nation, and have them hand-placed right in mail boxes.

Yesterday, I mailed four books for $2.35, total postage. Fed Ex would have charged me more than $10 for 3 day service. I can mail a 5lb. box anywhere in the country for about $5, two-day service. That same box will cost me at least $15 if shipped by FedEx 3-day service."

mauiman58
mauiman58's picture
And clearly setting up a

And clearly setting up a pension plan should only be done in the private sector.  Social Security is a prime example of the government getting involved in something they should have left to the private sector.  And look what a disaster it is!

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
mauiman58 wrote: pshakkottai

mauiman58 wrote:

pshakkottai wrote:

Also "Like all federal agencies, Social Security is funded by the U.S. government, not by FICA. It never can run short of money unless Congress and the President decide to withhold dollars. Without drifting too deeply into philosophy, I offer you my opinion that Social Security is one of the crown jewels of the American society, a great benefit not only to the individuals receiving benefits, but to America as a whole."

Sorry man, Social Security is the biggest Ponzi scheme in history!  Bernie Madoff got thrown into the slammer (rightfully so) for a lot less of a Ponzi scheme than SS.  Just another Irresponsible scheme by a bunch of politians just trying to get elected and re elected. 

You and your stupid ponzi scheme analogy.  Give it up and quit drinking the moron koolaid.  It is meant for morons and I thought that we decided that you don't fit into that category.

There is a superficial analogy between pyramid or Ponzi schemes and pay-as-you-go programs in that in both money from later participants goes to pay the benefits of earlier participants. But that is where the similarity ends.

So we could image that at any given time there might be, say, 40 million people receiving benefits at the back end of the pipeline; and as long as we had 40 million people paying taxes in the front end of the pipe, the program could be sustained forever. It does not require a doubling of participants every time a payment is made to a current beneficiary, or a geometric increase in the number of participants. (There does not have to be precisely the same number of workers and beneficiaries at a given time--there just needs to be a fairly stable relationship between the two.) As long as the amount of money coming in the front end of the pipe maintains a rough balance with the money paid out, the system can continue forever. There is no unsustainable progression driving the mechanism of a pay-as-you-go pension system and so it is not a pyramid or Ponzi scheme.

This is straight from the governments social security site.  If you don't understand the difference then I don't know what to add.

douglaslee
douglaslee's picture
Entitlement Society

Entitlement Society wrote:

douglaslee wrote:

Unfunded liability is bs. Inhoffe used it to screw the US Postal service, making them the only entity  on earth required to fund retirement for 75 years into the future.  The ceos that bribe inhoffe don't have to fully fund their multimillion dollar annual pensions to perpetuity. Reagan, you remember that socialist that fixed social security? He raised the cap so that 90% of all income was subject to fica. Right now only about 83% is subject to fica. Raise the cap to 90% again and 75 years is covered.

unfunded liability ruse

The postal service should be sold off. We don't need it anymore in the days of email, UPS, and FedEx.

Fedex doesn't have a $.40 cent stamp, and they don't hold your mail while you're on vacation, and they don't forward mail when you move, and they don't have postal inspectors intercepting  and prosecuting mail fraud, the kind of stuff Madoff and possibly bain do, that's why they use Fedex, you are free to embezzle or defraud through fedex.

mauiman58
mauiman58's picture
Yes, but the money that

Yes, but the money that should be there for Social Security simply isn't there.  They should be able to pay everyone off and end the program if they wanted to.  Obviously they can't do that.  In a fully funded private pension plan (which most are), this can be done.  Why can't Social Security?  I have my thoughts on that subject, but they are probably very different that yours so I'll keep them to myself. 

So perhaps it is not a Ponzi scheme by your definition of what a Ponzi scheme is, but clearly something is very wrong.  The label you put on it is not important.

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
#1- the projections of doom

#1- the projections of doom and gloom for SS are based on 3 assumptions. GDP growth less than 1.7% for the next 4 decades, which means the economy needs to get worse from where it is now, for 40 straight years. And because of the Super Depression, workers earn less money over the next 40 years, AND immigration falls to less than the legal limit. Raise the growth rate to 1.8%, still worse than the Great Depression, and the shortfall is solved.

#2 - The idea that at some point in the far future we will again need to deal with a major shortfall must rest on another demographic timebomb, like the baby boomers. Such a seismic shift is unlikely.

#3- The idea that people are going to live longer lives just doesn't seem to be coming to fruition.

#4 Social Security is an insurance program, everyone pays in, and it is there to pay out to those who need it. When Greenspan and Reagan pushed through the large tax increases in 1982 - 83, to "prepay" for the baby boomers, some floated the idea of investing the surplus in stocks, or private bonds. But then conservatives threw a grade 4 shitfit, because then the govt pension has the option to use their voting rights to change the board of directors, and influence policy.

#5- Those who say "we" the government cannot possibly cover the costs of caring for the elderly in the future and that we will push those costs on to private citizens then assume that the resources will be available in the private sector. Either the services are available or they are not. The issue of who is going to pay does not matter if there are no hospitals, nurses and doctors. So, if we agree that those services will exist, then it comes down to will we as a nation expect the free market to care for each senior into their golden years without a govt program, or if we will provide SS, Medicare and Medicaid. Any chance that the free market will decide to allow the elderly to eat out of garbage cans, and die in a tent, under a bridge?

mauiman58
mauiman58's picture
You still have to deal with

You still have to deal with the fact that SS is a TERRIBLE deal for anyone still working and paying into the system, the younger you are the worse it is.  Anyone who is entering the workforce now would be CRAZY to participate in SS if they had the chance to turn it down.  Of course they do not have that option, the only option they have is to move to Canada.

Do you think its fair that most people wil get about half of what they should have gotten if they would have had the option to invest in T Bills instead of SS?  And I am specifially talking about the pension portion of SS, not the disability part of the program.  I will argue that the government should not be in the disability insurance business either, but that is only a small part of SS.

Just another example of the government getting involved in something it is not good at and should have stayed out of.  When that happens, costs go up and benefits go down.  Sorry to say this here, but if somehow Obamacare goes into effect, God forbid, we'll see an even greater example of that principal.  Looks like that is not going to happen however, we'll see.

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
If the tbills option is so

If the tbills option is so great then why doesn't the government take the money that we all pay into SS and put it towards their own t-bills instead of what they do now?  Instead of YOU buying t-bills , they buy t-bills in your name with what is taken out of your paycheck.  This would cost the government nothing and would be an astounding payout when you retire.  Why don't they do that?  Could it be that your idea of investing in t-bills instead of paying in to SS is a misconception?  You should look into that a little deeper.

mauiman58
mauiman58's picture
Bush_Wacker wrote: If the

Bush_Wacker wrote:

If the tbills option is so great then why doesn't the government take the money that we all pay into SS and put it towards their own t-bills instead of what they do now?  Instead of YOU buying t-bills , they buy t-bills in your name with what is taken out of your paycheck.  This would cost the government nothing and would be an astounding payout when you retire.  Why don't they do that?  Could it be that your idea of investing in t-bills instead of paying in to SS is a misconception?  You should look into that a little deeper.

BW, that would be a great idea!  Perhaps a bit too much like big brother, but a HELL of a lot better idea than what they are doing now. 

The only problem is how do they do that now, since the money to pay everyone off for what they currently have put into the system does not exist.  That's the only misconception here. 

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
mauiman58 wrote: Bush_Wacker

mauiman58 wrote:

Bush_Wacker wrote:

If the tbills option is so great then why doesn't the government take the money that we all pay into SS and put it towards their own t-bills instead of what they do now?  Instead of YOU buying t-bills , they buy t-bills in your name with what is taken out of your paycheck.  This would cost the government nothing and would be an astounding payout when you retire.  Why don't they do that?  Could it be that your idea of investing in t-bills instead of paying in to SS is a misconception?  You should look into that a little deeper.

BW, that would be a great idea!  Perhaps a bit too much like big brother, but a HELL of a lot better idea than what they are doing now. 

The only problem is how do they do that now, since the money to pay everyone off for what they currently have put into the system does not exist.  That's the only misconception here. 

Well I was hoping that you would do a little research and find out that you can't really invest in t-bills as a source of retirement money because they don't work that way.  When you buy a t-bill you buy it at a discount price.  For instance you buy a $1000 dollar t-bill for $995. and you can then redeem it for the face value of $1000 after a year.  That's it.  It doesn't accumulate interest.  Now T-bonds are different.  You can invest in t-bonds for a long period of time and accumulate interest but it's a very low interest rate compared to other bonds because it's so secure and has little to no risk. 

That's why the government doesn't "invest" our SS contributions.  The only place they would be worth investing would be in the open market and that could be disasterous. That's something that Romney will push for if he's elected no doubt. It's better to just let the politicians steal it outright and promise to pay it back some day.   

Entitlement Society
Entitlement Society's picture
douglaslee wrote: Entitlement

douglaslee wrote:

Entitlement Society wrote:

douglaslee wrote:

Unfunded liability is bs. Inhoffe used it to screw the US Postal service, making them the only entity  on earth required to fund retirement for 75 years into the future.  The ceos that bribe inhoffe don't have to fully fund their multimillion dollar annual pensions to perpetuity. Reagan, you remember that socialist that fixed social security? He raised the cap so that 90% of all income was subject to fica. Right now only about 83% is subject to fica. Raise the cap to 90% again and 75 years is covered.

unfunded liability ruse

The postal service should be sold off. We don't need it anymore in the days of email, UPS, and FedEx.

Fedex doesn't have a $.40 cent stamp, and they don't hold your mail while you're on vacation, and they don't forward mail when you move, and they don't have postal inspectors intercepting  and prosecuting mail fraud, the kind of stuff Madoff and possibly bain do, that's why they use Fedex, you are free to embezzle or defraud through fedex.

You honestly don't think Fedex and UPS couldn't do what the postal service does? I bet they could and do it even better. They'd take over all of the postal service's duties and make everything more efficient. Right now the postal service is going broke.

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
Entitlement Society

Entitlement Society wrote:

douglaslee wrote:

Entitlement Society wrote:

douglaslee wrote:

Unfunded liability is bs. Inhoffe used it to screw the US Postal service, making them the only entity  on earth required to fund retirement for 75 years into the future.  The ceos that bribe inhoffe don't have to fully fund their multimillion dollar annual pensions to perpetuity. Reagan, you remember that socialist that fixed social security? He raised the cap so that 90% of all income was subject to fica. Right now only about 83% is subject to fica. Raise the cap to 90% again and 75 years is covered.

unfunded liability ruse

The postal service should be sold off. We don't need it anymore in the days of email, UPS, and FedEx.

Fedex doesn't have a $.40 cent stamp, and they don't hold your mail while you're on vacation, and they don't forward mail when you move, and they don't have postal inspectors intercepting  and prosecuting mail fraud, the kind of stuff Madoff and possibly bain do, that's why they use Fedex, you are free to embezzle or defraud through fedex.

You honestly don't think Fedex and UPS couldn't do what the postal service does? I bet they could and do it even better. They'd take over all of the postal service's duties and make everything more efficient. Right now the postal service is going broke.

There's no way in hell that they could.  You have to remember that private companies like FX and UPS have a lot of million dollar bonuses to dole out.  If a non profit organization like the Post Office has trouble meeting the demands then hows a for profit business going to make enough money to get the job done AND pay the ceo's and upper management their gigantic salaries and benefits.  They have to do it for a lot more money that's how.  Not to mention cut a lot of corners along the way. 

snake
snake's picture
I just do not understand

I just do not understand anyone who wants to privatize SS., or thinks that would be a good idea, or thinks that the postal service should be done away with....

Gee....I love the SS. program and the postal service....Along with public libraries, two of the best things about our country...

Wish we would get it together on health care, and breaking up the banks, and regulating them properly again...

LysanderSpooner
LysanderSpooner's picture
For those on this board who

For those on this board who want to privatize Social Security, don't get suckered.  What we mean by privatize is not what the politicians mean by privatize.  They mean to take the payroll tax and force enroll people into private accounts which will end up in the stock market.

What true libertarians propose, at minimum, is to let everyone under a certain age (say 50) completely out.  They can do whatever they want with their money.  Put it in a bank, invest it, spend it, etc.  The people who are dependent on SS can be paid for either with existing taxes (budget cuts need to be made) or by selling of government assets.

When you use the word "privatize", the left and the fake left equate that with a Wall Street takeover.  And their not wrong.  Be very specific about what you propose and don't get lumped in with the wrong proposals.

anonymous green
LysanderSpooner wrote: Be

LysanderSpooner wrote:

Be very specific about what you propose and don't get lumped in with the wrong proposals.

"That's a very astute way of saying that what you're saying is meaningless."

The Thesaurus of Useful Responses To Right Wing Manchurian Americans

pshakkottai
pshakkottai's picture
"Theft the federal government

"Theft the federal government for welfare purposes steals billions of your dollars to give away."

The federal govt creates money for your benefit. Why should it steal any when it can create any amount at will?

 

"The federal government can pay any bill of any size at any time. It never can go bankrupt. Because the federal government can’t go bankrupt, none of its agencies can go bankrupt, and none ever has. No federal check ever has bounced.

Social Security is a federal agency. If you go on line to federal agencies, you will see a list of about 650 agencies. Not one ever has gone bankrupt. Not one ever has bounced a check. Yet, only two of these agencies is “supported by” (actually, limited by) FICA or by any other tax collection: Social Security and Medicare.

Why was this limit placed on Social Security and Medicare? Both programs were created when the U.S. government was monetarily non-sovereign. So, Congress needed to be convinced these two programs wouldn’t cost anything, and that these two programs were like private insurance policies, in which people paid for the benefits they received. That was the only way to get Congress to create Social Security and later, Medicare." and

The next time you hear someone say Social Security will run out of money, know this: FICA can and should be eliminated; the tax on benefits can and should be eliminated; the benefits themselves can and should be greatly increased – and Social Security will not run out of money unless Congress and the President deliberately withhold funds. from

http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/monetary-sovereignty-for-young-people-part-4-social-security/

pshakkottai
pshakkottai's picture
" The postal service is

"

The postal service is required to deliver the type of mail no one else wants to deliver, at low prices no one else wants to charge. For example: Advertising mailers and first class everywhere.

For about $.45 you can send a letter anywhere in America, including Hawaii and Alaska. Who else will do that, even for triple the price? For even less, you can send advertising mailers all over the nation, and have them hand-placed right in mail boxes.

Yesterday, I mailed four books for $2.35, total postage. Fed Ex would have charged me more than $10 for 3 day service. I can mail a 5lb. box anywhere in the country for about $5, two-day service. That same box will cost me at least $15 if shipped by FedEx 3-day service."

"Merely to focus on the reduction in government is to ignore one basic fact: We have governments only because there are some things governments do better than private enterprise does. Wisdom requires knowing which things to render unto the public sector and which things to render unto the private sector.

The belief that private industry always is better than the government – a belief that leads to the single-minded focus on reducing the size of government – is wrong-headed and destructive. Government exists because in some areas it provides superior service to the people.

In America, the left hand is the public sector and the right hand is the private sector. Our country was built by two hands, working together. Cutting off the left hand is no way to build a nation.

Now, if only someone could please inform the Tea Party “Patriots,” before they completely ruin America."

from

http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/04/01/the-myth-of-private-enterprise-superiority-reduced-government-and-ronald-reagan/