Social Security fix

[delhalew]

I can't fathom how so many people get wound up at the mention of SS reform. This does not have to be a disaster. My parents rely on this program to make it. I know what is at stake. By now everyone should know that raising the retirement age and other band-aids are laughable.

I have an idea that I heard echoed by one member of the media that few people hear.
I don't want to say who, because folks will Google this person and spend more time on political hackery than discussion. I suppose to expect any real discussion makes me an idealist, but ...oh well.

I was willing to say, "**** it. I am willing to write off the money I have paid into SS".
Being under forty, that is a lot of money, but it's not as if I am ten years from retirement. I just want SS to go away.

This is better. Every retired person or person near retirement will receive their SS.
Every person not yet paying in will never pay in. Those of us who have been paying for yrs, but still have time to plan for retirement, will receive refunds in the form of TAX CREDITS.

In preemption of one argument, liquidity...Yes. There will be shortfall on paying out to Seniors. Yes. This will become deficit and then debt. So what. Were are we headed? How much worse will this get every day?

I think it is viable. Now tell me why I am a fool. Hopefully related to this, and not because I smell, and my momma dresses me funny.

[bigfatjerk]

The thing about social security is that it was never made to be something for all that are going to retire. That's what we need to find a way to change. I think we need to allow for a private social security type system to compete with the current one. That way the people that are rich enough will just go to that social security system. The government's system can basically be for those that are too poor. This is really what we should do with health care too. Treat it like a product not like something everyone gets.

I don't really like the argument that "I put in money so I should get something back" well that's what you pay for with entitlements. Look at welfare and healthcare really. I doubt you are getting back all you paid for those services. And in reality in social security you probably won't get most of what you paid for in that system either. In an entitlement type system you shouldn't expect as much back. It just never works that way.

[KantoSooner]

To me, the best system I've seen is in Singapore. You have withholding of X%, your employer matches it. It's held in an account under your name, is inheritable and can be used for family emergencies, education and a primary residence and can be invested in a narrow list of securities if you wish to take the risk/reap the reward of higher returns. Everybody has something to retire on, the government doesn't have a tempting stack of cash belonging to 'no one' and the nation gets an enormous pool of investment capital.

To transition, we'd have to spend a generation or more weaning ourselves off of pay-as-you-go; but in the end we'd all be much better off.

[SCOUT]

Galveston County did a pretty good job
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2005-03-15-benefits-reform-galveston_x.htm

[Bourbon St Sooner]

To me, the best system I've seen is in Singapore. You have withholding of X%, your employer matches it. It's held in an account under your name, is inheritable and can be used for family emergencies, education and a primary residence and can be invested in a narrow list of securities if you wish to take the risk/reap the reward of higher returns. Everybody has something to retire on, the government doesn't have a tempting stack of cash belonging to 'no one' and the nation gets an enormous pool of investment capital.

To transition, we'd have to spend a generation or more weaning ourselves off of pay-as-you-go; but in the end we'd all be much better off.

This makes too much sense. It was proposed by Bush and demogogued as "privatization" and "a payoff to Wall Street." It's basically a non-starter now so our only option is to raise the retirement age or cut benefits.

[NormanPride]

Too many people profit from bad ideas.

[yermom]

the problem with private companies is that they go away periodically

i think they shouldn't cap the tax for SS...

if my whole income is taxed for SS why shouldn't Mr. Fatcat's?

the problem with just ending it and not putting new people in is that it's the boomers that are going to kill SS. after that it's probably not quite as bad.

[DIB]

Release a deadly virus that only attacks old people. Problem solved.

[yermom]

Logan's Run, i'm telling you

[delhalew]

Did anyone read beyond the title?

[olevetonahill]

Hells bells Peeps "The Boomers aint gonna kill it . Whats Killing it is the ****in Pols, treating the income from SS as General fund monies and spending the **** out of it

To fix it, Let the ****in Feds borrow a few more trillion or what ever from China and Pay SS back what they have stolen , Then Get it out of the reach of ****in politicians.

Now heres ya another thot . See what kinda mess SS is after all these years? what ya think is gonna happen with the health care dealio? :eek:

[olevetonahill]

Or if ya really want it Fixed get rid of any and all Congressional retirement packages and Make them Only have SS to fall back on :D

[delhalew]

the problem with private companies is that they go away periodically

i think they shouldn't cap the tax for SS...

if my whole income is taxed for SS why shouldn't Mr. Fatcat's?

the problem with just ending it and not putting new people in is that it's the boomers that are going to kill SS. after that it's probably not quite as bad.

A loser is a loser. It will always be a loser.

I'm asking why my proposal will not work.

[mgsooner]

Social Security was never meant to be a retirement plan. It will eventually run dry, and those that haven't been saving will rightly suffer the consequences. Live within your means and SAVE. That simple.

[JohnnyMack]

Did anyone read beyond the title?

I caught the part where you smell.

[Ike]

the problem with private companies is that they go away periodically

i think they shouldn't cap the tax for SS...

if my whole income is taxed for SS why shouldn't Mr. Fatcat's?

the problem with just ending it and not putting new people in is that it's the boomers that are going to kill SS. after that it's probably not quite as bad.

The boomers are only going to kill SS because we took the surpluses we were running with SS when they were working full-force and gave it to the government to spend. The government then pretended that these surpluses were an endless cash-cow, and used them to increase spending and give tax cuts with no offsets. So now that the boomers are getting ready to retire, we are looking at an "oh ****" moment.

[delhalew]

The question is not if it's dying, or who killed it. The question is how best to put that mercy bullet in its head.

[yermom]

The boomers are only going to kill SS because we took the surpluses we were running with SS when they were working full-force and gave it to the government to spend. The government then pretended that these surpluses were an endless cash-cow, and used them to increase spending and give tax cuts with no offsets. So now that the boomers are getting ready to retire, we are looking at an "oh ****" moment.

well, that and there aren't as many people paying in as there used to be because the boomers and the boomers' kids didn't have as many kids as the boomers' parents did

[okie52]

the problem with private companies is that they go away periodically

i think they shouldn't cap the tax for SS...

if my whole income is taxed for SS why shouldn't Mr. Fatcat's?

the problem with just ending it and not putting new people in is that it's the boomers that are going to kill SS. after that it's probably not quite as bad.

Why should there be different distributions then? If Joe Peon pays in $10 why shouldn't he get the same paychecks as the guy that puts in $1,000,000?

[Ike]

well, that and there aren't as many people paying in as there used to be because the boomers and the boomers' kids didn't have as many kids as the boomers' parents did

Yeah, but we wouldn't be looking at the "oh ****" moment had we used the surplusses from baby boomer SS taxes to spend on policies that produce growth in excess of the interest that would be needed to pay out to the boomers.

[yermom]

if i have to pay into a system that will likely be broke when it's time for me to get my money back out, why should it be more of a percentage of my income than it is for someone that will miss it less than i do?

[yermom]

Yeah, but we wouldn't be looking at the "oh ****" moment had we used the surplusses from baby boomer SS taxes to spend on policies that produce growth in excess of the interest that would be needed to pay out to the boomers.

you mean foresight beyond the next election?

surely you jest :D

[DIB]

Social Security should call the 2.5 trillion in IOUs that the Federal Government owes it.

[pphilfran]

The boomers are only going to kill SS because we took the surpluses we were running with SS when they were working full-force and gave it to the government to spend. The government then pretended that these surpluses were an endless cash-cow, and used them to increase spending and give tax cuts with no offsets. So now that the boomers are getting ready to retire, we are looking at an "oh ****" moment.

If the fed had never used the SS monies there would still be the same amount of money in the trust fund...

Special issue bonds were issued to cover the moneys that were spent...

The US debt might be smaller if they hadn't taken the money, but there would be no change in SS viability...

Oh, raise the limit to 120 or 130k and it will be self supporting....

[okie52]

if i have to pay into a system that will likely be broke when it's time for me to get my money back out, why should it be more of a percentage of my income than it is for someone that will miss it less than i do?

So the $5,000 a year worker deserves the same paycheck from SS as you get...since the amount of income contributed is irrelevant.

[yermom]

i never said anything about getting the same checks.

i said i probably would never get one.

[okie52]

i never said anything about getting the same checks.

i said i probably would never get one.

You are saying that a person with $106,000 of taxable income is going to deserve the same paycheck as the guy with $30,000,000 if you support a capless SS rate.

[Ike]

If the fed had never used the SS monies there would still be the same amount of money in the trust fund...

Special issue bonds were issued to cover the moneys that were spent...

The US debt might be smaller if they hadn't taken the money, but there would be no change in SS viability...

Oh, raise the limit to 120 or 130k and it will be self supporting....

I'm not saying they shouldn't have spent the money...

The smartest thing was to spend the money. SS needed that money to earn interest, and the govt bonds are the most risk free way of doing that, and they also don't pose the problem of "picking the winners" in the marketplace.

But in spending that money, the govt should have been more careful in what it did. It should have considered that money to be intended for "investment in America", and used to do things like maintain/upgrade infrastructure (helps with economic growth by greasing the gears of the economic engine) or other policies that promote growth, and so pay for the interest to be earned. While some of the tax cuts we had may have helped growth, I'm not convinced that they made it easier to pay for the interest to be paid out on those bonds.

[yermom]

You are saying that a person with $106,000 of taxable income is going to deserve the same paycheck as the guy with $30,000,000 if you support a capless SS rate.

1) it doesn't matter if neither are going to get paid

2) nope, i'm still not saying that. there may be a cap on benefits paid, but i'm fairly sure they aren't the same for everyone by default. i don't think i said anywhere that caps on the other end shouldn't be changed as well.

[pphilfran]

I'm not saying they shouldn't have spent the money...

The smartest thing was to spend the money. SS needed that money to earn interest, and the govt bonds are the most risk free way of doing that, and they also don't pose the problem of "picking the winners" in the marketplace.

But in spending that money, the govt should have been more careful in what it did. It should have considered that money to be intended for "investment in America", and used to do things like maintain/upgrade infrastructure (helps with economic growth by greasing the gears of the economic engine) or other policies that promote growth, and so pay for the interest to be earned. While some of the tax cuts we had may have helped growth, I'm not convinced that they made it easier to pay for the interest to be paid out on those bonds.

So you think the fed paying itself interest is a smart money decision?

In reality we are getting zero return...negative return when you factor in inflation...

It would be much smarter to have an outside source pay the fed interest...there are many large investments firms that could handle large sums of money...Diverdog knows of several....

[cccasooner2]

well, that and there aren't as many people paying in as there used to be because the boomers and the boomers' kids didn't have as many kids as the boomers' parents did

Some people here object to the ginoormous supply of people south of the border willing and able to support the system robbed and f**ked up by our fearless leaders (traitors) of the past and present.

[soonerscuba]

The Boomsday solution. Offer free botox and waive the inheritance tax on anybody who kills themselves at 70.

[soonercruiser]

well, that and there aren't as many people paying in as there used to be because the boomers and the boomers' kids didn't have as many kids as the boomers' parents did

And the Boomers taught their children to kill 50 million babies, that could be paying in by now! Some of our liberal "chickens" have come home to roost! :rolleyes:

But, regardless, it must be fixed. As a "soon to be SS recipient", I am even willing to work a little longer; and get less out!

[Okla-homey]

Fix? Here's how. Raise the age for eligibility for SS benefits for folks born after 1960 to 75. Right now, means test Medicare and if you are above the poverty level in terms of income and assets, put a substantial annual deductible in place. Finally, require co-pays for all recipients indexed to their ability to pay.

Fixed.

P.S. Stop buying free motorized wheeelchairs for anyone over 62 who calls that 800 number in the motorized wheelchair commercials. :D

[soonerbub]

Raise the cap to $500K while keeping the current reduced rate

raise age to 72 for peeps under 50

close loopholes for offshoring and build **** HERE so we have a ****ing capital base for the future

oh and drill baby drill

[delhalew]

Raising the age is pointless...and cruel.

I should have known this would be a circle jerk.

I don't want my children forced into a compulsory retirement safety net that is a financial loser, from which there is no escape.

End it!

[bigfatjerk]

Raising the age is pointless...and cruel.

I should have known this would be a circle jerk.

I don't want my children forced into a compulsory retirement safety net that is a financial loser, from which there is no escape.

End it!

We should have had stronger leaders that moved it back over the decades. When Social Security was formed it was meant to cover those over 65 when the average age was 60. From the beginning we should have kept that percentage below a certain amount so now it would only cover those over 80 or 85, instead of basically covering 20 years of people's lives. Heck my grandfather is over 90 and has been in social security for almost 30 years now. It wasn't meant to cover people that long.

[SpankyNek]

If the fed had never used the SS monies there would still be the same amount of money in the trust fund...

Special issue bonds were issued to cover the moneys that were spent...

The US debt might be smaller if they hadn't taken the money, but there would be no change in SS viability...

Oh, raise the limit to 120 or 130k and it will be self supporting....

This, no need to increase the age, just put the cap more in line with the increased wages of today.

[delhalew]

I can't be the only one willing to admit that it's a piece of **** that shouldn't exist.

[MR2-Sooner86]

The whole thing should be given the god damn boot. Well, all that "Great Society/New Deal" bullsh*t should be given the boot really.

It's funny because I have several friends, all in their early 20s, setting up 401ks and all sorts of savings so they can start now and be ready when they retire. Do they count on social security? No. They expect it to be empty or gone.

Oh well, I guess the government knows how to take care of us in our retirement :rolleyes:

[cccasooner2]

We should have had stronger leaders that moved it back over the decades. When Social Security was formed it was meant to cover those over 65 when the average age was 60. From the beginning we should have kept that percentage below a certain amount so now it would only cover those over 80 or 85, instead of basically covering 20 years of people's lives. Heck my grandfather is over 90 and has been in social security for almost 30 years now. It wasn't meant to cover people that long.

I thought euthanasia under Obamacare was supposed to help fix that problem. Or did that only apply to grandma?






Just kidding. :P

[soonercruiser]

Raising the age is pointless...and cruel.
I should have known this would be a circle jerk.
I don't want my children forced into a compulsory retirement safety net that is a financial loser, from which there is no escape.

End it!

What's "cruel" about saving the whole system with some sharing of the fixing pain?
NO POLITICIANS WILL EVER agree to end the current system! Get real!
1. My full-retirement age has already gone up by two years! I have no problem with that. The age should gradually be increased for future retirees.
2. And, I will accept less in the future!
3. And, it doesn't make sense to have an earnings cap on contributions.

[diverdog]

And the Boomers taught their children to kill 50 million babies, that could be paying in by now! Some of our liberal "chickens" have come home to roost! :rolleyes:

But, regardless, it must be fixed. As a "soon to be SS recipient", I am even willing to work a little longer; and get less out!

I am willing to do my part as well by shooting anyone over 62 including you cruiser. :D

[SC Sooner]

The whole thing should be given the god damn boot. Well, all that "Great Society/New Deal" bullsh*t should be given the boot really.

It's funny because I have several friends, all in their early 20s, setting up 401ks and all sorts of savings so they can start now and be ready when they retire. Do they count on social security? No. They expect it to be empty or gone.

Oh well, I guess the government knows how to take care of us in our retirement :rolleyes:

IMHO, unless and until there is a complete and total overhaul of the federal entitlement programs (unemployment, medicare, medicaid, SS), this problem will never be solved. Short of a complete re-vamping to make the system more efficient (substantially reducing or eliminating waste and fraud), there's not much hope that they can or will continue to provide the benefits they were designed to provide. Raising/lowering ages, limits, contributions, etc., are just bandaids on dam leaks, they will not provide any long term resolution to the problem.

Someday I hope someone in Congress will have the stones to publicly push for making all benefits for all government employees must mirror what's available in the public sector. Eliminating retirement perks, packages, etc. Perhaps some of these that have announced they do not plan on seeking re-election will take up the banner.

[DIB]

The whole thing should be given the god damn boot. Well, all that "Great Society/New Deal" bullsh*t should be given the boot really.

It's funny because I have several friends, all in their early 20s, setting up 401ks and all sorts of savings so they can start now and be ready when they retire. Do they count on social security? No. They expect it to be empty or gone.

Oh well, I guess the government knows how to take care of us in our retirement :rolleyes:

I am in my late 20s. My retirement plan assumes that Social Security will not exist. If I get anything at all, it will be a bonus. I think most people my age feel the same way.

[CrimsonCream]

Yeah, but we wouldn't be looking at the "oh ****" moment had we used the surplusses from baby boomer SS taxes to spend on policies that produce growth in excess of the interest that would be needed to pay out to the boomers.

Or kept the Government from pissing it away.

[C&CDean]

As a person who has 16 quarters, and has not contributed to SS in the past 33 years I say tank it. It was a stop-gap measure that shot it's wad about 20 years ago and I don't give a **** about it.

I will be retiring within the next 18 months (or less). I could live to be 100, and will never draw a dime of SS. I am so blessed that my company doesn't require SS contributions. I supplement my retirement with contributions to another savings program that is rock solid. If you are <40, my suggestion would be to hammer everything you can into something very secure. Don't go for the big-buck bull**** that pays 20% today, then goes to -25 % tomorrow. Slow growth, solid foundation, and security are where it's at.

Oh, and jars. Mason jars. Cashish.

[jkjsooner]

Someday I hope someone in Congress will have the stones to publicly push for making all benefits for all government employees must mirror what's available in the public sector. Eliminating retirement perks, packages, etc. Perhaps some of these that have announced they do not plan on seeking re-election will take up the banner.

I agree with this in theory but the problem is that many people chose to work in the public sector for lower wages because of the benefits offered. In college, I was a seasonal employee at a state park and the mechanic there took the job at a much lower salary than he was making because of the retirement plan (and to a lesser extent the stability). A couple of the other workers stated that they did the same. It would hardly be fair to remove these benefits right before retirement. I'd also argue that if you remove the retirement benefit you might have to offset that some with wage increases to attract quality talent.

There needs to be some type of gradual shift. The ones who have worked the longest should get most of what they were promised.

[jkjsooner]

The whole thing should be given the god damn boot. Well, all that "Great Society/New Deal" bullsh*t should be given the boot really.

It's funny because I have several friends, all in their early 20s, setting up 401ks and all sorts of savings so they can start now and be ready when they retire. Do they count on social security? No. They expect it to be empty or gone.

Oh well, I guess the government knows how to take care of us in our retirement :rolleyes:

I don't know how old you are, but I'd say if you were 64 and had paid into social security your whole life you wouldn't want to simply give the whole thing the boot.

I've contributed for about 17 years (not counting lower paying jobs in college). I could agree to give it the boot but if I were a ten or so years older that would tick me the heck off. For fairness reasons the only real solution is to wind it down slowly (increase the age, reduce some of the benefits, etc.).

[yermom]

As a person who has 16 quarters, and has not contributed to SS in the past 33 years I say tank it. It was a stop-gap measure that shot it's wad about 20 years ago and I don't give a **** about it.

I will be retiring within the next 18 months (or less). I could live to be 100, and will never draw a dime of SS. I am so blessed that my company doesn't require SS contributions. I supplement my retirement with contributions to another savings program that is rock solid. If you are <40, my suggestion would be to hammer everything you can into something very secure. Don't go for the big-buck bull**** that pays 20% today, then goes to -25 % tomorrow. Slow growth, solid foundation, and security are where it's at.

Oh, and jars. Mason jars. Cashish.

is that pension fund gonna last another 18 months? :eek:

[pphilfran]

I don't know how old you are, but I'd say if you were 64 and had paid into social security your whole life you wouldn't want to simply give the whole thing the boot.

I've contributed for about 17 years (not counting lower paying jobs in college). I could agree to give it the boot but if I were a ten or so years older that would tick me the heck off. For fairness reasons the only real solution is to wind it down slowly (increase the age, reduce some of the benefits, etc.).

A SS fix is relatively easy...very few choices...

Increase the age requirement...step it up three months a year for the next decade...

Means test for benefits...

Privatize...fat chance DC gives up control of trillions of dollars...

Increase the cut off point...

In 2007 there were 18 million tax returns that had a 100k or more in AGI...so there were at least 20 million wage earners with a gross pay over 100k...

Take the limit from the current $106,800 to 120k...that is an additional 13.2k at 12.4% for each of the 20 million wage earners...

$1484 dollars times 20 million...

30 billion...

Take the limit up to 130k...

52 billion...

I really hate raising the limit that much but we must do something...

Medicare, an even larger problem, is much tougher and I have no practical solution to rising medical costs...

[MR2-Sooner86]

I don't know how old you are, but I'd say if you were 64 and had paid into social security your whole life you wouldn't want to simply give the whole thing the boot.

I'm 24 and I'm planning my own retirement. I don't need the government telling me what's best for me, I think I know. I see the money I've "contributed" to SS and I know it's gone. I won't get it back. I'd rather take that money and put it in a nest egg or something. I don't want some government program studying dung beetles or putting in a flying train in Beggs, Oklahoma.

My father is retired at 61 and payed into SS a while. Is he drawing it? No. My family was able to plan and we're set and don't have to rely on the government.

If you're 64 and depending on SS to support you because you didn't think "gee maybe I should save some of my money" then I guess you're SOL.

[pphilfran]

I'm 24 and I'm planning my own retirement. I don't need the government telling me what's best for me, I think I know. I see the money I've "contributed" to SS and I know it's gone. I won't get it back. I'd rather take that money and put it in a nest egg or something. I don't want some government program studying dung beetles or putting in a flying train in Beggs, Oklahoma.

My father is retired at 61 and payed into SS a while. Is he drawing it? No. My family was able to plan and we're set and don't have to rely on the government.

If you're 64 and depending on SS to support you because you didn't think "gee maybe I should save some of my money" then I guess you're SOL.

If our leadership doesn't dick around for too long on a short term fix SS will be solvent far into the future...

The next 30 years is where revenue is smaller than outlays...once us Baby Boomers kick the bucket the costs will fall back in line....

[Bourbon St Sooner]

If our leadership doesn't dick around for too long on a short term fix SS will be solvent far into the future...

The next 30 years is where revenue is smaller than outlays...once us Baby Boomers kick the bucket the costs will fall back in line....

Baghdad Bob?

[jkjsooner]

I'm 24 and I'm planning my own retirement. I don't need the government telling me what's best for me, I think I know. I see the money I've "contributed" to SS and I know it's gone. I won't get it back. I'd rather take that money and put it in a nest egg or something. I don't want some government program studying dung beetles or putting in a flying train in Beggs, Oklahoma.

My father is retired at 61 and payed into SS a while. Is he drawing it? No. My family was able to plan and we're set and don't have to rely on the government.

If you're 64 and depending on SS to support you because you didn't think "gee maybe I should save some of my money" then I guess you're SOL.

Again, that's all easy to say when you're 24 and have put hardly anything into the system.

I didn't say anything about people who are dependent on SS. I'm just saying that those who paid into it for 45 years (whether they depend on it or not) want at least a little bit of it back. "Giving it the boot" is not going to go over at all.

I imagine your dad, whether he can support it or not, will want a little bit of the money he paid into SS back and your choice to "give it the boot" would probably **** him off (at least it would **** me off it I were in his shoes). My guess is that in a few months when he turns 65 + whatever the month offset is, he'll gladly take some of that SS money and feel that he deserves at least some of it back.

Benevolent folks your dad's age might be all in favor of raising the SS age and/or reducing benefits but I can't imagine many would be happy to give it the boot right before they start collecting any of it.

[2121Sooner]

Here is a fix.

The money that goes into the program should be for SS. Then eventually get some of the money that was used for other things would be paid back to SS.


But then again, nothing is simple in DC

[pphilfran]

Here is a fix.

The money that goes into the program should be for SS. Then eventually get some of the money that was used for other things would be paid back to SS.


But then again, nothing is simple in DC

When our leadership "took" the money from SS and spent it in other areas they issued special issue bonds to replace the money that was taken...

The account balance for SS is exactly the same as it would have been if the money was never touched...special issue bonds instead of cash..

Now our debt service would be higher...but it makes no difference in the SS account balance...

[2121Sooner]

Riggggggggggggggggght........

http://snyders.ws/alan/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Social-Security-IOU.jpg

[C&CDean]

is that pension fund gonna last another 18 months? :eek:

That's funny right there, I don't care who you are.

Dude, we are the ONLY government agency that pre-funds retirees health insurance/bennies. Yes, it'll be there in 18 months, 18 years, and to infinity and beyond.

[cccasooner2]

When our leadership "took" the money from SS and spent it in other areas they issued special issue bonds to replace the money that was taken...

The account balance for SS is exactly the same as it would have been if the money was never touched...special issue bonds instead of cash..Now our debt service would be higher...but it makes no difference in the SS account balance...

So there you go, there is no problem. Backed up by the full faith and credit of the youngins. I have the papers right here in this special file. ROFLMAO

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D

[Sooner5030]

Id' thought about going Amish....only because I heard they do not have to participate in SS tax/beenies because they take care of their own. Of course they're Amish so I decided to pay in.

If the LDS ever gets the same treatment (and drops the religion thingy) I'll jump on board. Multiple wives, good snowboarding in Utah, self-sufficiency and no SS tax........jackpot.

[soonercruiser]

I am willing to do my part as well by shooting anyone over 62 including you cruiser. :D

Be careful.....
Many of us over 60 are "armed", and might shoot back!
The folks I hang out with are like.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_nGlAADZyA

[soonercruiser]

That's funny right there, I don't care who you are.

Dude, we are the ONLY government agency that pre-funds retirees health insurance/bennies. Yes, it'll be there in 18 months, 18 years, and to infinity and beyond.

And, besides, Harry Reid says that SS is just "fine"!
:rolleyes:

[SicEmBaylor]

I've always wanted to see a system whereby those who are currently paying into the system would receive benefits under the old social security system; however, those who have not yet paid into it would be covered under the new system. Those who have only been paying into social security for 1-2 years might have the option to forego retirement under the old and enroll in the new.

What I'd like to see happen is the creation of individual personalized tax-free retirement savings accounts. The government would continue to taking a minimum amount from your paycheck (just like under the current system), but instead of that money going into one giant fund, it would be put into your private savings account. Everyone would have the option of adding additional funds to the account whenever they want in whatever amount they want.

Perhaps the system could even allow each person to take a small % of the total each year to invest. However, no funds could be withdrawn until the person reaches retirement age and then each monthly security check is a % of the total within the account. When a person dies, the remaining funds within the account are passed to their beneficiary.

To me, that's the most fair system that I can think of. Of course I don't like the idea of any sort of Federal social security program, but as long as there is going to be one...