OT: How to Save Social Security

Page 4 of 8  
Jeffrey D Angus wrote:

".. and his to shall pass."
What you describe is more effort than it is worth IMHO, especially since the thread wil die of it's own weight within a couple of weeks.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

One more time.
What do you think they should have done with the money - stuck it under the bed? Please tell us.
Or invest it in Enron?
--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It would be better to stick it under the bed than to let the democratic congress steal it for 40 years.
says...

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com says...

OK, Doug. SS does take in real money. What should they do with it?
And I know you'd rather can the whole system, but that's not the question I'm asking.
--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Invest it in an actual asset. Real estate, corporate bonds, stocks, gold, passbook savings accounts at a commercial bank, you name it, I don't care. As long as it's an actual asset, I'm happy. The problem we have now is that Congress is playing a shell game, by falsely claiming that the money is invested, when in fact it's nothing more than a fistful of government IOUs.

That's true enough, I *would* rather can the whole thing. As I've pointed out before, it's just a Ponzi scheme (albeit on a scale that Ponzi himself would never have imagined in his wildest dreams), and if anyone but the federal government were operating it, he would have been jailed decades ago.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It is indeed the Democrats. I believe it started around the Vietnam war, when SS proceeds were added to the general revenue to hide the deficits.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 05:13:02 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"

No. A bit later. But SS is most benefiting Bush's budget shenanigans.
"Back in 1983, as part of a deal to save Social Security from impending demographic doom, Congress enacted legislation to essentially increase payroll taxes and reduce benefits. As a result, the government began to collect more Social Security payroll taxes than it paid out to beneficiaries each year. The theory was that the government would use these surpluses to pay down the national debt. That way, when baby boomers retireand comparatively more people are collecting benefits while comparatively fewer people are workingthe government would be in a better position to borrow the necessary funds to provide the promised benefits.
So much for theory. The reality? For the first 15 years, every penny of the surplus was spent, first by Republican presidents and then by a Democratic president. According to figures provided by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the surpluses were relatively insignificant for much of this period. Between 1983 and 2001 a total of $667 billion in excess Social Security payroll taxes was spentabout $35 billion per year. It was only in fiscal 1999 and 2000, when the government ran so-called on-budget surpluses, that excess Social Security funds were actually used to retire debt. ... In his first three budgets, Bush (who had the good fortune to take office at a time when the surpluses were growing rapidly) and Congress used $480 billion in excess Social Security payroll taxes to fund basic government operationsabout $160 billion per year!
By so doing, Washington spenders have masked the size of the deficit. For Fiscal 2004which began in October 2003if you factor out the $164 billion Social Security surplus, the on-budget deficit will be at least $639 billion, rather close to the modern peak of 6 percent of GDP. And according to its own projections (the bottom line of Table 8 represents the Social Security surplus), the administration plans to spend an additional $990 billion in such funds between now and 2008. That year, according to the Office of Management and Budget's projections, the on-budget deficit will be about $464 billion. Only by using that year's $238 billion Social Security surplus does the administration arrive at a total, unified deficit of $226 billion. And the ultimate on-budget deficit will almost certainly be worse. OMB has proven in the past few years that its projections can't be trusted.
The accounting for Social Security surpluses has always been dishonest. But in the past few years, the Bush administration has made this shady accounting a central pillar of its fiscal strategy."
Rest at http://slate.msn.com/id/2093707 which someone posted earlier in the thread, but you guys are apparently too busy to peruse.
Renata
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

[snip description of Congress systematically stealing money from taxpayers, then wasting it]
Now what are we going to do about it? Runaway government spending, I mean.
I have a suggestion: prohibit, by Constitutional amendment if necessary, the withholding of income taxes from payroll checks, instead requiring that all taxes be paid in a lump sum on April 15. Once people see how much the government is really taking from us, I think hardly anyone would sit still for it.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com says...

Or even better, do it quarterly like I had to do when self-employed.
I once argued a $5 difference up through several layers of the IRS - I lost, but they spent at least $50 to get that $5 :-).
And the one I loved was when I won. They never said "Oops, we were wrong", the letters I got (almost every year) said "We have abated your penalties."
--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 13:15:06 -0500, Renata wrote:

Whomever you're quoting here has done some major revision of law and rhetoric. First, the law from the inception of SS requires every excess dollar collected for SS to purchase government securites, not pay down the national debt. That law hasn't been changed. This is the only guarantee of a "lockbox" of any sort that requires the government to repay the SS trust fund at some future date. Also, "raping the trust fund" would in fact have some merit if the trust funds were to pay down the debt rather than purchasing government securities.
I certainly wish the law *had* been changed to allow this "paying down" of the debt rather than guaranteeing the increased taxation of future generations, but it wasn't.
--

To escape criticism--do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." (Elbert Hubbard)


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
So you're saying there's a pile of cash instead of a pile of IOU's in the ole "trust fund"?
Renata
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 05:45:20 -0700, Doug Winterburn

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm not sure what he's saying. The facts are that there's no pile of cash, and no trust fund. The whole thing's a con game. It's a Ponzi scheme, that's all it is.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 07:02:01 -0500, Renata wrote:

No, I'm saying the purpose of increasing SS taxes was never to pay down the national debt as stated in your quote. The purpose then, and the purpose of lifting the cap now is to increase the national debt by way of those IOUs in the trust fund. All this wringing of hands about adding trillions to the debt if privatization is brouoght to SS ignores the fact that trillions have already been added because of the SS surplus, trillions more will be added if nothing is done, and even more trillions will be added if the caps are raised or eliminated.
So, once more, if you were going to design a forced retirement program from scratch, which of the followiing two would you pick?
1)This plan will collect no real assets for the future and will be subject to the whim of demographics as the ratio of taxpayer to recipients declines and recipients can collect longer as their life spans increase. a)Tax every employee and employer a total of 12.4%. b)Spend all the excess. c)Give the plan an IOU in place of the excess, increasing the national debt. d) give the plan more IOUs in place of interest earned. e)When current taxes don't meet current outlays, increase income taxes to current taxpayers to make up the difference. These income taxes are the second time people have been taxed for the same purpose. f)When all these obligations have been paid off, either reduce benefits or raise SS taxes even further.
2)This plan will invest in real assets in the name of each individual SS taxpayer and will not be affected by demographics and will not have any affect on the national debt. a) Tax every employee and employer a total of 10%. b)Let every SS tax payer pick from a qualified list of investments just as todays IRAs allow. c)When a SS tax payer retires at 55 or later, he/she will be able to collect on the order of 4 times as much per month as a participant of plan 1 does without ever reducing the amount of his SS annuity. d)If the SS taxpayer dies at any time, his/her SS annuity can be willed to the beneficiaries of his/her choice, only to be used for that beneficiaries own retirement.
I know which plan I'd choose, now the only challenge is to transition from plan 1 to plan 2.
BTW, I know plan 2 works as I am living on it's proceeds now after investing in it for just under 25 years - and even after paying a 10% income tax penalty for early withdrawal, the value of my IRAs continues to rise. Also, my accounts went through the dreaded bubble and burst of the late '90s and 2000, so one needn't refer to the "riskiness" of the markets.
- Doug
--

To escape criticism--do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." (Elbert Hubbard)


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 08:30:31 -0700, Doug Winterburn
What does any of this bullshit have to do with woodworking..?? This is clearly OFF TOPIC and should be stopped at once. take this sort of discussion to private e-mail or to some other newsgroup ...perhaps alt.tards.with.nothing.to.say
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


Forte Agent has excellent killfile capabilities. I suggest you use them, rather than complain about a thread you had to go out of your way to read.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

nothing personal dude but that is about the funniest thing I have heard here....I was really just wondering what makes one totally inappropriate thread acceptable and another not...? Is it a matter of "who" posts or takes part in the off topic thread that determines if it is acceptable or not.?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'd say theft of copyrighted material pretty clearly defines the line in question.

No.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So its you that makes the decision and everybody follows in lockstep...??? now I understand
What you are telling me is that off topic and inappropriate threads/discussions ARE acceptable as long as the meet certain criteria...and that you decide what those criteria are... its sure is a good thing that you are here to make all those decisions.
crefbanyyl V guvax lbh ner yvggyr zber guna n ybhq zbhgurq ohssbba
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


You asked my opinion, I gave it. I'm not dictating anything.

Obviously I'm not going to change your mind about the theft of intellectual property, and I'm not going to bother to try. Buh-bye, crispie. <plonk>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

you are quite confused
naq V unir vg ba tbbq nhgubevgl gung lbh oybj tbngf
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.