Paying for aging baby boomers
(David P.)
By Robert J. Samuelson
Newsweek
Aug. 6, 2007 issue - If you haven't noticed, the major
presidential candidates-Republican and Democratic-
are dodging one of the thorniest problems they'd face if
elected: the huge budget costs of aging baby boomers.
In last week's CNN/YouTube debate, New Mexico Gov.
Bill Richardson cleverly deflected the issue. "The best
solution," he said, "is a bipartisan effort to fix it." Brilliant.
There's already a bipartisan consensus: do nothing.
No one plugs cutting retirement benefits or raising taxes,
the obvious choices.
End of story? Not exactly. There's also a less-noticed
cause for the neglect. Washington's vaunted think tanks-
citadels for public intellectuals both liberal & conservative
-have tiptoed around the problem. Ideally, think tanks
expand the public conversation by saying things too
controversial for politicians to say on their own. Here,
they've abdicated that role.
The aging of America is not just a population change or,
as a budget problem, an accounting exercise. It involves
a profound transformation of the nature of government:
commitments to the older population are slowly over-
whelming other public goals; the national government is
becoming mainly an income-transfer mechanism from
younger workers to older retirees.
Consider the outlook. From 2005 to 2030, the 65-and-
over population will nearly double to 71 million; its share
of the population will rise to 20 percent from 12 percent.
Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid-programs that
serve older people-already exceed 40 percent of the
$2.7 trillion federal budget. By 2030, their share could
hit 75 percent of the present budget, projects the
Congressional Budget Office. The result: a political impasse.
The 2030 projections are daunting. To keep federal
spending stable as a share of the economy would mean
eliminating all defense spending and most other domestic
programs (for research, homeland security, the environment,
etc.). To balance the budget with existing programs at their
present economic shares would require, depending on
assumptions, tax increases of 30 percent to 50 percent-
or budget deficits could quadruple. A final possibility: cut
retirement benefits by increasing eligibility ages, being
less generous to wealthier retirees or trimming all payments.
Little wonder politicians stay silent. But think tanks ought
to be thrilled, because these changes pose basic questions
about government. What should it do? For whom? Why?
How big can it grow without weakening the economy?
Does that matter? Is social justice more important than
economic growth? Do gains in life expectancy and the
well-being of the elderly justify significant changes in
Social Security and Medicare?
Over the years, the major think tanks have published tens
of thousands of words on Social Security and Medicare.
Most of the reports are technical, though some propose
major (even radical) changes. But the two programs are
usually treated separately, and the larger questions of
adjusting to an aging society are mostly evaded. I think
I know why: wrenching honesty might be deeply embarrassing.
Liberals might have to concede that government could
grow too large and that spending and benefit cuts are
needed. Conservatives might have to concede that, even
with plausible benefit and spending cuts, tomorrow's
government would be bigger than today's. For think-tank
scholars, brutal candor might offend friends and political
mentors. For the ambitious, it might jeopardize future
appointments to top government jobs.
As an antidote to this timidity, I propose that some public-
spirited sugar daddy (the MacArthur Foundation? Warren
Buffett?) sponsor a short book. A possible title: "Facing
Up to an Aging America." Six leading think tanks would
be invited to participate: three liberal-the Brookings
Institution, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
and the Urban Institute-and three conservative-the
American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute and the
Heritage Foundation.
After an introduction describing America's aging, each
think tank would receive 35 pages to respond to questions
and to present its vision. Are the looming budget changes
good for America? If so, how would they be financed? If not,
why not? How could adverse consequences be avoided?
The think tanks would be expected to be specific. Higher
eligibility ages? Well, how much and when? Higher taxes?
Which ones and how much? If think tanks rejected the
invitation, the publisher would run 35 blank pages and
an explanation: "The Heritage Foundation [or Urban
Institute] declined to participate."
This approach would force think tanks to compete. They'd
have to make their vision of the future explicit within the
untidy framework of government's past commitments.
It would illuminate the connections between defense
spending, retirement benefits, health care, economic
growth and much more. Writing for a general audience,
it would favor plain English, not the usual technobabble.
If published in April, the book might prod the presidential
candidates to address the future. If they didn't, it would
measure the enormity of their evasion.
.
.
--
FrediFizzx
needs to get fixed. There will be a lot of boomers that will work past
retirement age. After all we are the greatest generation to ever exist
on this planet. ;-) We will lead the next generation into ever greater
prosperity even in our old age. And contrary to popular belief
considering the overall US economy, we are not over-indebted. We are
under-indebted currently.
Fred
"(David P.)" <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:1187905250.6...@l22g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> When Silence Isn't Golden
> By Robert J. Samuelson
> Newsweek
>
> Aug. 6, 2007 issue - If you haven't noticed, the major
> presidential candidates-Republican and Democratic-
> are dodging one of the thorniest problems they'd face if
> elected: the huge budget costs of aging baby boomers.
> In last week's CNN/YouTube debate, New Mexico Gov.
> Bill Richardson cleverly deflected the issue. "The best
> solution," he said, "is a bipartisan effort to fix it." Brilliant.
> There's already a bipartisan consensus: do nothing.
> No one plugs cutting retirement benefits or raising taxes,
> the obvious choices.
[snip BS]
chatnoir
> When Silence Isn't Golden
> By Robert J. Samuelson
> Newsweek
>
> Aug. 6, 2007 issue - If you haven't noticed, the major
> presidential candidates-Republican and Democratic-
> are dodging one of the thorniest problems they'd face if
> elected: the huge budget costs of aging baby boomers.
> In last week's CNN/YouTube debate, New Mexico Gov.
> Bill Richardson cleverly deflected the issue. "The best
> solution," he said, "is a bipartisan effort to fix it." Brilliant.
> There's already a bipartisan consensus: do nothing.
> No one plugs cutting retirement benefits or raising taxes,
> the obvious choices.
>
> End of story? Not exactly.
Chain up the young!~ Make um work 20 hours a day! Harvest their
organs for your needs! Trust no one under 30!
lubow
If the government simply pays for its wars by taxing people and keeps within
its means, the social security trust fund will be fine. If the government
needs to borrow from the trust fund, as it has been doing for the last six
years, yes, we have trouble.
--
Lubow
baby's happy
to pay attention to your article, the following are the points I hope
that I have similar concerns.
http://www.gopowerlevel.com http://www.game-win.com
rick++
themselves.
Thats the first source of payment in a pay as-you-go system.
The second is regularization of immgiration. Right now its crazy -
about $80 billion
a into uncredited SS numbers and a another huge majority not paying SS
at all.
adam russell
"rick++" <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187963288.9...@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Maybe we should tax Mexico to pay for their immigration problem.
chatnoir
> By Robert J. Samuelson
> Newsweek
>
> Aug. 6, 2007 issue - If you haven't noticed, the major
> presidential candidates-Republican and Democratic-
> are dodging one of the thorniest problems they'd face if
> elected: the huge budget costs of aging baby boomers.
> In last week's CNN/YouTube debate, New Mexico Gov.
> Bill Richardson cleverly deflected the issue. "The best
> solution," he said, "is a bipartisan effort to fix it." Brilliant.
> There's already a bipartisan consensus: do nothing.
> No one plugs cutting retirement benefits or raising taxes,
> the obvious choices.
>
> End of story? Not exactly.
Repeal the Estate Tax and Preserve the Core of the Productive
Billionaires in the Country! The rest are expendable!:
http://billionairesforbush.com/estatetax.php
http://billionairesforbush.com/EstateTaxMaterials.php
http://billionairesforbush.com/estatetaxmaterials/ParisSmallFarmer.pdf
https://secure3.ctsg.com/BforB/store/Product.asp?Product=255
Florida
> When Silence Isn't Golden
> By Robert J. Samuelson
> Newsweek
>
> Aug. 6, 2007 issue - If you haven't noticed, the major
> presidential candidates-Republican and Democratic-
> are dodging one of the thorniest problems they'd face if
> elected: the huge budget costs of aging baby boomers.
Shameful, isn't it - oh, they worked for 3 or 4 decades, but now
it looks like they're going to be just a dead loss, those boomers!
Lazy and selfish, too. Have they offered to keep their jobs and pay
their way by not retiring? No, they have not. It looks like they
don't even care that the Gop has important new wars to buy - I ask
you, how are they supposed to do that, with a bunch of retirees
grabbing Social Security money away from deserving defense
contractors?
> In last week's CNN/YouTube debate, New Mexico Gov.
> Bill Richardson cleverly deflected the issue. "The best
> solution," he said, "is a bipartisan effort to fix it." Brilliant.
> There's already a bipartisan consensus: do nothing.
> No one plugs cutting retirement benefits or raising taxes,
> the obvious choices.
Not really. The actual choice, which is obvious unless you're
being paid to slant the discussion, is to remove the dead hand of the
Gop from Social Security's monies. There is enough money to fund the
system completely for the foreseeable future... IF it's not treated as
a war-and-oil corporation credit card, with the bills sent to someone
else's children and grandchildren.
> End of story? Not exactly. There's also a less-noticed
> cause for the neglect. Washington's vaunted think tanks-
> citadels for public intellectuals both liberal & conservative
> -have tiptoed around the problem. Ideally, think tanks
> expand the public conversation by saying things too
> controversial for politicians to say on their own. Here,
> they've abdicated that role.
>
> The aging of America is not just a population change or,
> as a budget problem, an accounting exercise. It involves
> a profound transformation of the nature of government:
> commitments to the older population are slowly over-
> whelming other public goals; the national government is
> becoming mainly an income-transfer mechanism from
> younger workers to older retirees.
>
> Consider the outlook. From 2005 to 2030, the 65-and-
> over population will nearly double to 71 million;
Then the g.o.p.ocons who robbed us had better get busy putting the
money back. You can forget their arrogant "we spent your money, it's
gone, too bad, you're out of luck, shut up about it" approach.
Someone really thinks Americans are stupid wimps. They really
think boomers, and the rest of us, will put up with being heavily
taxed for decades, then sit down and shut up, while magazine articles
inform us that the door has just been slammed in our faces? Think
again.
Davinchi
snip
>
> Maybe we should tax Mexico to pay for their immigration problem.
>
>
Davinchi
> On Aug 23, 3:40 pm, "(David P.)" <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> When Silence Isn't Golden
>> By Robert J. Samuelson
>> Newsweek
>>
>> Aug. 6, 2007 issue - If you haven't noticed, the major
>> presidential candidates-Republican and Democratic-
>> are dodging one of the thorniest problems they'd face if
>> elected: the huge budget costs of aging baby boomers.
>> In last week's CNN/YouTube debate, New Mexico Gov.
>> Bill Richardson cleverly deflected the issue. "The best
>> solution," he said, "is a bipartisan effort to fix it." Brilliant.
>> There's already a bipartisan consensus: do nothing.
>> No one plugs cutting retirement benefits or raising taxes,
>> the obvious choices.
>>
>> End of story? Not exactly.
>
> Repeal the Estate Tax and Preserve the Core of the Productive
> Billionaires in the Country! The rest are expendable!:
Spoken like a true neoCON
Repeal both the Reagan and Bush' tax cuts first
Then allow targeted reinvestment to be tax deferred.
If you want to take your newly acquired estate assets and
invest them oversea then you should pay your taxes AND a
penalty for supporting the competition.
mg
THE SOLUTION:
Step 1. We need to get the money back that the GOP took from the fund.
This can be done by rescinding the tax breaks Bush gave to the rich
and applying the proceeds to the SS fund until the money is restored.
Establish the "locked-box" system after funds are recovered.
Step 2. The retirement age (unfortunately) needs to be raised
significantly. This could be phase in slowly with the final retirement
ages at:
Age 66: Early Retirement with reduced benefits.
Age 70: Regular retirement age.
Step 3. Bring newly hired state and local employees into the SS
system.
Step 4. Eliminate the cap on Social Security taxes.
Step 5. Allow SS to phase in 40% or 50% investment in equities.
Those 5 steps would probably make Social Security solvent for hundreds
of years, if not forever.
Jerry Okamura
they would spend it on something else. Hilary for instance wants to spend
it on expanding healthcare coverage.
"lubow" <lu...@lubow-industries.com> wrote in message
news:n0qzi.17376$5y3.12005@trndny07...
Jerry Okamura
"mg" <mgke...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1187968933....@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Kicking the can down the road? If any or all of your proposals get approved
(not likely), will it permanently solve the funding problem?
>
> Step 5. Allow SS to phase in 40% or 50% investment in equities.
>
> Those 5 steps would probably make Social Security solvent for hundreds
> of years, if not forever.
>
Democrats don't like that idea....
mg
wrote:
> "mg" <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Actually it's probably the Republicans that would object to that idea.
Ron Peterson
<dotmulldrdo...@noat.nodotnodot.reversethis.liamg.com> wrote:
> Spoken like a true neoCON
Can't you tell when someone's being sarcastic?
--
Ron
(David P.)
> "(David P.)" <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > When Silence Isn't Golden
> > By Robert J. Samuelson
>
> > presidential candidates-Republican and Democratic-
> > are dodging one of the thorniest problems they'd face if
> > elected: the huge budget costs of aging baby boomers.
> >
>
> Step 1. We need to get the money back...
It would be more equitable having each individual fight
the flu on his own, rather than waste resources having
armies fight each other over resources. By stopping
the suppression of influenza, everyone could be on
the front lines, instead of just a few good men.
.
.
--
David Belanger
> Then the g.o.p.ocons who robbed us had better get busy putting the
> money back. You can forget their arrogant "we spent your money, it's
> gone, too bad, you're out of luck, shut up about it" approach.
/Bootstrapping...
-Loading logic...
\Loading accounting software...
|Loading spellcheck...
/Loading knowledge-base...
-Purging memory...
\Purging...
|Purging...
/Purging...
-Purging...
\Loading networking drivers...
|Loading output drivers...
DIEBOLD GopIcon MkIV
/- / /- /- -- / /-
/ / / /- /-/ / / / / /
/_- / /_ /__/ -- /_ /_-
Diebold, GopIcon, and MkIV are (R) 2007 Diebold corporation ltd.
Ready.
% _
Don S
There never was a Social Security trust fund. The idea of SS was to tax
the working peoples to pay a subsistence to those that were too old to
continue working or had become to ill or were injured where they could
not work any longer, and to the widows and dependent children of those
that were killed on the job. It was suppose to keep those people
socially secure in their life's in spite of their difficulties. The SS
charges are paid out to those receiving it and the SS charges were
supposed to adjust as needed to cover the cost of the payments to the
people receiving those payments. After the baby boom has passed the SS
funds will be much larger than need, and the government should then
lower those taxes/charges to match the out flow. In the past they have
chosen to add more peoples to the coverage instead, as with pot heads
and other dope addicts that don't work and those who find a way to get
coverage by hook or crook. The government has given us a way to stay
financially sound in our retirement with IRS's and other retirement
plans, those that don't take advantage might be seeing hard times in the
future.
Lawyerkill
> Jerry Okamura wrote:
> > It won't make any difference. If the government did not spend it on
> > wars, they would spend it on something else. Hilary for instance wants
> > to spend it on expanding healthcare coverage.
Every Congress and President has taken the money and put IOU in its
place, Bush did it, Clinton did it, Bush 41 did it, they all did it.
lubow
> Every Congress and President has taken the money and put IOU in its
> place, Bush did it, Clinton did it, Bush 41 did it, they all did it.
>
There you go. Don't "do it" and everything will be "copasetic."
And in case anyone is interested, there are two trust funds that I know of
that were set up by the Federal government. One is the social security
trust fund that finances retirement benefits, disability income and
Medicare.
The other is the highway trust fund which has been used to finance public
transportation projects of all kinds, despite its name. Both are financed by
specific taxation. The former by payroll taxes and the latter by automobile
fuel tax paid at the pump (how do pure electric vehicles get taxed?).
--
Lubow
Lawyerkill
>
> The other is the highway trust fund which has been used to finance public
> transportation projects of all kinds, despite its name. Both are financed by
> specific taxation. The former by payroll taxes and the latter by automobile
> fuel tax paid at the pump (how do pure electric vehicles get taxed?).
>
In NJ both parties have screwed up our state so bad that they are now
considering selling our toll roads to private companies for money to
balance our budget.
I say, hell, lets go all the way. Have bids from private companies to
run our state, low bidder gets it.
Davinchi
Sorry, i guess i missed it. I must have been in a bad mood
- I wonder why?
mea cuplpa
chatnoir
wrote:
> "rick++" <rick...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Well, a Monty Python character did say that he would tax all
foreigners living abroad!
lubow
Last time I looked, Jersey has sent more than its share of public school
kids to college and beyond, compared to other states. The progress has been
exceptional. As late as 30 years ago, Jersey public education was
considered the low man on the public education totem pole.
--
Lubow
"Lawyerkill" <Lawye...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1188003032.8...@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Lawyerkill
> What part of Jersey is "so screwed up?"
>
> Last time I looked, Jersey has sent more than its share of public school
> kids to college and beyond, compared to other states. The progress has been
> exceptional. As late as 30 years ago, Jersey public education was
> considered the low man on the public education totem pole.
>
> --
You're kidding right?
Our real test scores are horrible, yet we spend more per kid than any
other state and our teacher are the highest paid. Few if any states
have higher taxes than NJ. Our schools are falling apart, corruption
rules. Some schools are so bad the state took over the school
district, and they didn't do any better at it. We have over 500 school
district, with high paid officials, and some don't even have schools
in their district.
This is not counting that almost every month a high ranking public
official is indicted or convicted. Heads of parties, the mayor of our
largest city. The coruption is unbelieveable.
We had a governor resign because he got caught paying his gay lover
with state funds. a US Senator had to resign.
http://c-n.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070816/FRONT01/70816007
Courier News Online - Quarter of N.J. schools don't meet state's
progress standards
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) - Almost a quarter of New Jersey's schools did not
meet yearly progress standards mandated by President Bush's No Child
Left Behind legislation, according to figures released Thursday.
The state Education Department published its annual list of schools
that failed to meet expectations on standardized tests and some other
measures of school performance.
http://www.capitolbeat.org/contest/2005/05winningentries/Single%20Daily%20over%2075.pdf
When New Jersey's $8.6 billion fund to rebuild public schools ran out
of cash five years earlier
than expected, The Star-Ledger analyzed whether the money had been
spent judiciously. The result, a
rigorous comparison of the cost of state-built schools to the cost of
schools built at the same time without
state involvement, shocked state officials and the general public.
The Star-Ledger determined that the schools built through the state
program cost 45 percent more
than comparable, non-state school projects -- a finding that has never
been challenged. The paper found
the state program featured grossly inflated professional fees,
uncontrolled change order expenses and
conflicts of interest among top program officials and the contractors
building the schools. For example,
the report identified the chairman of the state Schools Construction
CorporatiQn as a lobbyist and political
fund-raiser for a major contractor's organization whose members had
received $1 billion in work through
the school program.
Change came immediately.
The day after the report was published, the state's Inspector General
was dispatched to conduct
her own review of the state program. She ordered a suspension of new
school contracts, citing evidence of
waste.
A month later, she published a report that found a wide range of
internal weaknesses that make
the agency vulnerable to mismanagement, fiscal malfeasance, conflicts
of interest and waste, fraud and
abuse of taxpayers dollars.
The Corporation's chairman was removed; $460 million in oversight
contracts were cancelled;
the corporation hired its first Chief Financial Officer; and a new
review process was set up to control
change orders.
Lawyerkill
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5637480
Widespread Fraud Alleged in Camden, N.J. Schools
by Claudio Sanchez
All Things Considered, August 11, 2006 ? School officials in Camden,
N.J., have been under investigation for allegations of cheating on
state tests, falsifying data and a cover-up. The results of that
investigation are expected any day.
The alleged corruption is so pervasive and so blatant that New
Jersey's commissioner of education has vowed to clean house. The two
whistleblowers in the case say that's too little, too late for
Camden's 17,000 school children.
Paula Veggian has worked for Camden, N.J. public schools for nearly 40
years, first as a math teacher and then as a scheduler at Brimm
Medical Arts High School, the district's academic jewel.
"I have devoted my entire adult career to the children in the city of
Camden, and what I uncovered was very damaging to children," Veggian
says.
What Veggian uncovered and reported to her superiors was a grade-
fixing scheme and the falsification of students' transcripts. She
agreed to speak to NPR -- her first public discussion of the case --
at her attorney's office.
Usene...@the-domain-in.sig
industries.com says...
There may be some state taxes (assessed at registration renewal
time) for totally electric vehicles, but I'm not sure.
Also, of course, there are taxes figured into the power bill that
you would run up to charge such a vehicle. Plus tax on purchase,
maintenance (e.g. new batteries), etc. Although, of course,
those taxes wouldn't be the kind specifically feeding the road
maintenance funds.
And I recall reading a news story about someone who was legally
charged with evading road tax, due to using vegetable oil-based
fuel in a diesel vehicle. I think it was somewhere in one of the
Carolinas.
And that point has been practiced for years in the UK, where
there are apparently special fuel-tax cops checking commercial
diesel vehicles, to see if they are running untaxed veggie oil.
With serious penlites for doing so.
--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum
Rana F.
Hmm. You're right, that is a distinct possibility. Impeachment
would short-circuit the cycle tho. Dumbya out, Cheney quickly
implodes, President Pelosi starts the clean-up.
lubow
it would be a little smoky. Just be sure to pay the tax...
But do users of battery powered vehicles pay tax to benefit the Highway
Trust Fund?
--
Lubow
<Usene...@THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG> wrote in message
news:MPG.2139682c6...@nntp.aioe.org...
Lantern
social security must be paid out of wages. Robots and computers doing
more of the work means greater productivity...tax robots and
computers. More productivity and more leisure and pleasure for
displaced workers...You read it here! :)
rick++
> Every Congress and President has taken the money and put IOU in its
> place, Bush did it, Clinton did it, Bush 41 did it, they all did it.
Silly, the trusts funds are required to invest in treasuries.
Thus thye are worth the "full faith of th euS government"
and the most in-demand bond in the world.
lubow
not exclusively out of payroll taxes.
--
Lubow
"Lantern" <lant...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:1188071482....@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
FrediFizzx
SS over the years, I would already have well over a million bucks from
it. Will I get that much out? I doubt it. 401K's and IRA's are a
great idea; let's expand them and cut back on SS taxes. ;-) Maybe
something like a mandatory IRA.
Fred
"lubow" <lu...@lubow-industries.com> wrote in message
news:0c3Ai.3299$yv3.567@trndny01...
lubow
at the people who could not. Look at the millions -- and I mean that
literally -- that would get suckered into poorly managed mutual funds by
scheming brokers and salesmen.
In my view, simply having that many people in poverty at the time we are to
retire would cause such a burden on the economy that any profits we may have
gained by investing our SS taxes would be wiped out by some form of taxation
that would be needed by the retirees who were suckered or swindled.
--
Lubow
FrediFizzx
invest in. Just being in SPY, a person would do pretty well over 40
years. Well, this has probably been argued to death already. I'm just
glad that 401K's and IRA's came along. It would probably be good to
expand upon those and cut back on SS taxes. There is probably a better
happy medium point of having both.
Sheesh, there are plenty of scammers out there already taking old folks
money from them. Proper education has got to be a key factor here.
Fred
"lubow" <lu...@lubow-industries.com> wrote in message
news:%n4Ai.516$j23.170@trndny06...
David Belanger
> I'm just glad that 401K's and
> IRA's came along. It would probably be good to expand upon those and cut
> back on SS taxes.
I disagree; the SS was one of the most efficient organisations ever to
spend your tax marks. Whereas the IRA can barely blow up a post office.
--
BELANGER:
Don't even even get me started about the 401 Klan.
GoForward
> If I were able to invest all the money paid by me and my employers for
> SS over the years, I would already have well over a million bucks from
> it. Will I get that much out? I doubt it. 401K's and IRA's are a
> great idea; let's expand them and cut back on SS taxes. ;-) Maybe
> something like a mandatory IRA.
>
SS began to pay out the day it began to collect money, and
it's been in that state ever since. The reality is that SS is an
accounting gimmick to hide the fact that it is and always has
been an entitlement, rather than retirement, program.
CJT
It has kept a lot of people from dying in the streets. That's worth
a lot (or should be) to everyone.
--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
CJT
And just look at all the people who never open an IRA even when they
can. Unless you make retirement savings mandatory, you haven't solved
the root problem. Make it mandatory and you're back to something like
SS.
Jerry
SS. This includes all Fed. & State employees, Railroad employees, and some
others. These retire with much higher pensions. A problem is that SS is
partially a welfare system and partially a retirement system. As a minimum,
the welfare portion should come from general funds so that all taxpayers pay
their share of this.
Jerry
"FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5jc5rfF...@mid.individual.net...
Jerry
SS. This includes all Fed. & State employees, Railroad employees, and some
others. These retire with much higher pensions. A problem is that SS is
partially a welfare system and partially a retirement system. As a minimum,
the welfare portion should come from general funds so that all taxpayers pay
their share of this.
Jerry
"FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5jbut1F...@mid.individual.net...
Jerry
Jerry
"CJT" <abuj...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:46D12594...@prodigy.net...
Jerry
and fund the retirement portion like that of Gov. employees.
Jerry
"GoForward" <gofo...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:1188111265.8...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
BrunoR
>
> If the government simply pays for its wars by taxing people and keeps within
> its means, ..............
........I'd say, there would be no wars, IMHO, of course.
I wonder why these simple statements often get lost in the shuffle of
verbiage? ;-)
astri
> I totally agree with you. Note that a large % of workers do not pay into
> SS. This includes all Fed. & State employees
false
-- astri (confessing to be a state employee)
Jerry Okamura
> Fred, I do not doubt your ability to triple your SS contributions, but
> look at the people who could not. Look at the millions -- and I mean that
> literally -- that would get suckered into poorly managed mutual funds by
> scheming brokers and salesmen.
Look at the long term performance of mutual funds. Can you find one that
has not provided a better long term return than any other investment that
people make?
>
> In my view, simply having that many people in poverty at the time we are
> to retire would cause such a burden on the economy that any profits we may
> have gained by investing our SS taxes would be wiped out by some form of
> taxation that would be needed by the retirees who were suckered or
> swindled.
>
Just about everyone who has to rely on their Social Security to pay for
their living needs are going to have a very rough time.
Jerry Okamura
"Jerry" <nospam@???> wrote in message
news:46d18b7e$0$23580$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Jerry Okamura
> GoForward wrote:
>
>> On Aug 25, 8:13 pm, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>If I were able to invest all the money paid by me and my employers for
>>>SS over the years, I would already have well over a million bucks from
>>>it. Will I get that much out? I doubt it. 401K's and IRA's are a
>>>great idea; let's expand them and cut back on SS taxes. ;-) Maybe
>>>something like a mandatory IRA.
>>>
>>
>>
>> SS began to pay out the day it began to collect money, and
>> it's been in that state ever since. The reality is that SS is an
>> accounting gimmick to hide the fact that it is and always has
>> been an entitlement, rather than retirement, program.
>>
> It has kept a lot of people from dying in the streets. That's worth
> a lot (or should be) to everyone.
>
lubow
their employer. Only governments have that option.
--
Lubow
"astri" <inv...@example.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSI.4.64.07...@malasada.lava.net...
lubow
> Look at the long term performance of mutual funds. Can you find one that
> has not provided a better long term return than any other investment that
> people make?
Now, say that with a straight face.
--
Lubow
lubow
> How many people "died on the streets" before the advent of Social
> Secuirty?
Go to the PBS website. You may be able to get The American Experience
documentary on the Great Depression. I think it would give you a good idea
of how bad it was for everyone in general and for seniors in particular.
--
Lubow
lubow
> their employer. Only governments have that option.
>
avoiding social security taxes for yourself. Just be sure you have your 40
months of vesting before trying anything.
E.g., if you are an S corporation, and you have enough in savings to get you
by for the first year, don't take any salary, but take a draw at the end of
the year. You will only pay ordinary income tax on the draw. No FICA or
Medicaid tax. The tax savings (>13%) should offset any money in lost
interest on your savings.
< I'm not sure if this is applicable to S corps, but...>
If you have a C corporation, establish a profit sharing plan for yourself.
This would be your opportunity to see if your investments can provide for
yourself better than social security. I think the limit is 10% of salary.
If your company is really profitable, set up a profit sharing and a fixed
percentage money purchase plan. You would be able to put 25% of your pretax
income into your self managed pension plan, fully deductible.
And if you are really rolling in dough, like a self employed physician who
is about to retire, check out a defined benefit plan. In those plans,
everything you earn can be sheltered into a pension program that must
include a cash value life insurance program, like universal life or whole
life. Because of the amounts involved, you will need the services of an
actuarial firm to design the plan.
--
Lubow
Bluto Blutarsky
> lubow wrote:
>>
>> If the government simply pays for its wars by taxing people and keeps
>> within its means, ..............
>
> ........I'd say, there would be no wars, IMHO, of course.
... oh, of course. can we still bomb the fuck out of scotland???
b
>
> I wonder why these simple statements often get lost in the shuffle of
> verbiage? ;-)
--
Sometimes I'm in a good mood.
Sometimes I'm in a bad mood.
When all my moods have cum to pass
i hope they bury me upside down
so the world can kiss me porcelain,
white, Irish bottom.
lubow
> avoiding social security taxes for yourself. Just be sure you have your
> 40 months of vesting before trying anything.
>
To be more specific, it should be at least one payroll in each of 40
different quarters.
--
Lubow
Jerry Okamura
I use to peddle all kinds of financial instruments in my youth. So, if you
do not believe what I said, do some research and tell me where I am wrong.
Jerry Okamura
people died during the plague as well...
Don S
Don S
> Well, that is easily solved by making restrictions on what you can
> invest in. Just being in SPY, a person would do pretty well over 40
> years. Well, this has probably been argued to death already. I'm just
> glad that 401K's and IRA's came along. It would probably be good to
> expand upon those and cut back on SS taxes. There is probably a better
> happy medium point of having both.
>
> Sheesh, there are plenty of scammers out there already taking old folks
> money from them. Proper education has got to be a key factor here.
>
> Fred
>
Both are good points.
Don S
> lubow wrote:
>
>> Fred, I do not doubt your ability to triple your SS contributions, but
>> look at the people who could not. Look at the millions -- and I mean
>> that literally -- that would get suckered into poorly managed mutual
>> funds by scheming brokers and salesmen.
>>
>> In my view, simply having that many people in poverty at the time we
>> are to retire would cause such a burden on the economy that any
>> profits we may have gained by investing our SS taxes would be wiped
>> out by some form of taxation that would be needed by the retirees who
>> were suckered or swindled.
>>
> And just look at all the people who never open an IRA even when they
> can. Unless you make retirement savings mandatory, you haven't solved
> the root problem. Make it mandatory and you're back to something like
> SS.
>
There needs to be a shift away from SS to another form of retirement
such as IRA / 401K, and this must happen over many years, 40 to 60.
This will take most of the load off the government and make each citizen
responsible for their own well being. But everyone must be educated
financially as this takes place and a safety net will still be needed.
Don S
> Make it like the Gov. employee retirement system.
>
Gee, I wonder who pays the bill for that system???
> Jerry
>
lubow
insured Canadian savings account?
--
Lubow
"Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:46d20822$0$16472$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Bluto Blutarsky
b
lubow
> of people died during the plague as well...
I'm not choosing any calamities. Before the 1930s, people did not live that
long. Back then, retirement for most people was the equivalent to a death
sentence. People live longer now. Therefore the need for a system of
caring for the aged has increased that much more. The "calamity" will occur
when people can no longer rely on a guaranteed poverty level income, which
is what SS provides. And worst of all, it will be a calamity that will
propagate into the general economy. The Great Depression would be a blip
in the economic history of the US compared to a scene of millions of
destitute seniors looking for a place to live and food to eat without their
social security checks.
And for the record most mutual funds do not do well or will not do well for
the unknowing. There are funds where mutual funds holders are charged fees
for advertising the fund. Fund holders have been charged fees for new
Ferraris for fund managers. Then there are loads to come in and loads to go
out. How about a load to benefit the retirees, not the kid-managers in
their Ferraris?
Any thought of off-loading social security to mutual fund managers would be
just another concession to soft money donors. We already have a system
where people can deposit pre and post taxed money into any investment they
choose for their retirement. It's called IRA and Roth-IRA. Maybe that part
of the system should be expanded. That's up to Congress. But IRAs are
optional in addition to the guaranteed mandatory system. Any conversion of
the guaranteed system into a risk based system would spell disaster for the
retirees and a disaster for the middle class taxpayer that would be
called-upon to subsidize another entitlement.
--
Lubow
The Trucker
>
> "lubow" <lu...@lubow-industries.com> wrote in message
> news:%n4Ai.516$j23.170@trndny06...
>> Fred, I do not doubt your ability to triple your SS contributions, but
>> look at the people who could not. Look at the millions -- and I mean that
>> literally -- that would get suckered into poorly managed mutual funds by
>> scheming brokers and salesmen.
>
> Look at the long term performance of mutual funds. Can you find one that
> has not provided a better long term return than any other investment that
> people make?
Look at the ACTUAL USE of FICA taxes please. This money is not "invested"
for the most part in anything. It is a pay as you go system and
government (and most especially the Republicans) rob it to pay for their
war crap. If you would like, Jerry, perhaps we could direct our SS people
to "invest" the excess dollars that George Bush is currently stealing in
an array of mutual finds including foreign companies. That is fine well
and good. If that had been done all along as opposed to letting Reagan
and Bush steal all the dough we would have a much healthier system at
present. And still it is that MOST of the money in not invested but used
for current benefit payments.
You see, Jerry, we don't invest the money because it is mostly used to
fund current benefits. Republicans and their butt lickers are all liars
to the core to insinuate that investments (instead of paying current
benefits) would be better. The old people can just starve so that Jerry
and his Republican pals can INVEST.
>>
>> In my view, simply having that many people in poverty at the time we are
>> to retire would cause such a burden on the economy that any profits we may
>> have gained by investing our SS taxes would be wiped out by some form of
>> taxation that would be needed by the retirees who were suckered or
>> swindled.
>>
> Just about everyone who has to rely on their Social Security to pay for
> their living needs are going to have a very rough time.
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org
Don S
> Don S wrote:
>
>> Jerry wrote:
>>
>>> Make it like the Gov. employee retirement system.
>>>
>> Gee, I wonder who pays the bill for that system???
>>
>>> Jerry
>>>
> ... bill gates?
>
FrediFizzx
pants off most mutual funds long term.
Fred
"lubow" <lu...@lubow-industries.com> wrote in message
news:YOoAi.3274$Ay3.2909@trndny02...
lubow
to mutual funds during the uncertain times we have experienced this summer.
Now suppose uneducated workers were forced to invest their social security
money into a fund, having never invested before. What would they think when
the statement showing the $1000 invested into this retirement fund is now
worth $800? I think many persons in that category will opt out to a T-bill
fund. Therefore the YTD comparison makes sense. It's happened before... one
major setback and people start heading for the hills.
That's what makes the current system so good. There is the guaranteed part
plus the optional IRA accounts. The guaranteed part prevents a nationwide
catastrophe and does not cost the government much. In a way, you can
consider that part as insurance not so much for the elderly but insurance to
limit entitlements for the elderly in future years. The IRA part is risk
capital that may work or may not work.
Of course there are entitlement programs like Medicaid. And Medicaid is
expensive. But consider how expensive it would be if we did not have
guaranteed SS payments.
--
Lubow
"FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5jet8oF...@mid.individual.net...
lubow
--
Lubow
"The Trucker" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.08.27...@verizon.net...
California Poppy
>
> There needs to be a shift away from SS to another form of retirement
> such as IRA / 401K, and this must happen over many years, 40 to 60.
> This will take most of the load off the government and make each citizen
> responsible for their own well being. But everyone must be educated
> financially as this takes place and a safety net will still be needed
This is a statement that I agree with. An IRA with laws that prevent
early withdrawal or borrowing against it would probably be the best.
We also need to encourage those who are capable to work longer. I
also think that health insurance should be a catastrophic policy
supplemented by HSAs. As you indicate, it should be gradual.
Jerry Okamura
An awful long response, avoiding answering the question ask, which simply
asked to support the statement, i.e. "Look at the millions -- and I mean
that literally -- that would get suckered into poorly managed mutual funds
by scheming brokers and salesmen.". By the way, you do know that no load
funds do not have the same type of "sales" forces that loaded funds have
don't you? You do know that those who are "selling" 401K funds are the
companies who offer such plans don't you?
Jerry Okamura
>> Well, yes, you can pick and choose calamities as an example. A whole lot
>> of people died during the plague as well...
>
> I'm not choosing any calamities. Before the 1930s, people did not live
> that long. Back then, retirement for most people was the equivalent to a
> death sentence.
Care to cite some data to support your assertion, that "back then" people
got the "equivalent of a death sentence"?
People live longer now. Therefore the need for a system of
> caring for the aged has increased that much more.
Yes, there is a "need" for a system to care for the aged, but is the
"solution" social scurity, that is the operative question.
The "calamity" will occur
> when people can no longer rely on a guaranteed poverty level income, which
> is what SS provides.
Or, we come up with a better solution to the problem?
And worst of all, it will be a calamity that will
> propagate into the general economy. The Great Depression would be a blip
> in the economic history of the US compared to a scene of millions of
> destitute seniors looking for a place to live and food to eat without
> their social security checks.
The reason social security was dreamed up in the first place was because
people did not put aside enough money for when they were no longer working.
The solution is simple...."force" people to save for their retirement, which
is essentailly what Social Security does. And regardless, Social Security
has made promises to the people that it cannot possible keep.
>
> And for the record most mutual funds do not do well or will not do well
> for the unknowing. There are funds where mutual funds holders are charged
> fees for advertising the fund. Fund holders have been charged fees for
> new Ferraris for fund managers. Then there are loads to come in and loads
> to go out. How about a load to benefit the retirees, not the kid-managers
> in their Ferraris?
You are avoiding answering the question. What is the long term return on
investment of mutual funds. What mutual fund lost their investors money,
over a long period of time? I know of only one mutual fund that did that,
and it was a very small mutual find. And that fund is no longer in
business. There are over 55,000 mutual funds around the world today.
Jerry Okamura
"Don S" <nos...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:k%nAi.1588$0_2.302@trndny07...
> Jerry wrote:
>
>> Make it like the Gov. employee retirement system.
>>
> Gee, I wonder who pays the bill for that system???
>
Alan Bowler
> And just look at all the people who never open an IRA even when they
> can. Unless you make retirement savings mandatory, you haven't solved
> the root problem. Make it mandatory and you're back to something like
> SS.
No you are stuck with something that will be
1) more expensive
Wall Street charges a lot more in fees. Mutual fund MERs
are much higher than traditional defined benefit pension plans
expenses (about twice), and in turn those are higher than SS.
2) inefficient
lots of small account just cost more to administer. As it
is Wall Street can't make money on running and IRA with
only the amount of money a minimum wage employee pays in
SS taxes.
3) inequitable.
retirement incomes will differ widely depending on variables
beyond the control of the individual. (market fluctuation etc.)
Alan Bowler
> Well, yes, you can pick and choose calamities as an example. A whole
> lot of people died during the plague as well...
Yes they did. The plague was largely ended by the advent
of a number of social reforms. Public health offices,
improved public sanitation and a drastic shift in the
wage scales to increase the income of the middle and lower
classes.
SS was one of the major reforms that brought an end to the
Great Depression.
GoForward
> GoForwardwrote:
> > SS began to pay out the day it began to collect money, and
> > it's been in that state ever since. The reality is that SS is an
> > accounting gimmick to hide the fact that it is and always has
> > been an entitlement, rather than retirement, program.
>
> It has kept a lot of people from dying in the streets. That's worth
> a lot (or should be) to everyone.
>
It is, but it's not now nor has it ever been a retirement system in
any financially valid way, which leaves it open to every right
wingnut
who relies on Rush to tell him how and what to think.
Bluto Blutarsky
sid
Jerry Okamura
of a typical mutual fund, is 8% per year. The return on T-bills depends on
when you bought the T-bill. If you bought the T-bill when interest rates
were high (other than when Carter was President) it would not come close to
8% per year. As for anyting in Canada, I cannot comment, since I do not
keep track of those kinds of things in Canada.
"lubow" <lu...@lubow-industries.com> wrote in message
news:YOoAi.3274$Ay3.2909@trndny02...
Jerry Okamura
to do that, then you should not be in mutual funds. What we humans do, when
they ignore what the purpose of the investment is, we cannot do a whole lot
about....people often do some pretty dumb things, like spend every dime they
earn, rather than set aside just a certain percentage of what they earn and
save....
"lubow" <lu...@lubow-industries.com> wrote in message
news:LSrAi.4232$XV2.928@trndny09...
Bluto Blutarsky
> The vast majority. The average return on investment, year in and year
> out of a typical mutual fund, is 8% per year. The return on T-bills
> depends on when you bought the T-bill. If you bought the T-bill when
> interest rates were high (other than when Carter was President) it would
> not come close to 8% per year. As for anyting in Canada, I cannot
> comment, since I do not keep track of those kinds of things in Canada.
b
The Trucker
I fail to see the relevance of ANY of this comparison to mutual funds
because the amounts paid into the SS system are not used for investment.
And it seems that real estate (especially home ownership) has provided a
better return than mutual funds over the last 15 years (or at least that's
the impression one would get). Homes are LEVERAGED investments. We put
in maybe even nothing and we get appreciation in value. I put $40k in a
home 15 years ago and it is now worth $350k and the rent of the place
would have been more expensive than the mortgage payments. MY IRA stuff
has not done anything even close to that well.
Let us speak of REALITY.
http://www.ofheo.gov/HPIRegion.asp?FormMode=Summary
John Galt
If you limit your analysis to home appreciation + tax benefit, *possibly*
true. If you look at all aspects of home ownership, including maintenance
and upkeep, the only places it could possibly be true is if you were lucky
enough to be in a "hot area", like Miami, NYC, or Boston. Mutual Funds
don't require new roofs.
The ten year average appreciation in my city for home appreciation is 4.97%
per year. That's not bad, if you figure its tax-free appreciation. So, you
run it through one of the net calcualtors as if it were a mutual fund, at
you're right at 7%. That's good.
However, I replaced both my furnaces, had to bring down an "improvement"
that wasn't an improvement left over by the prior owner, replaced carpets,
and painted most everything.
Final calcuation at sale time (after commissions and closing costs, which
also come out of your "profits"): .8% APR per year. I could multiply that
by a factor of 10 and still do better in the markets.
JG
Jerry Okamura
area where home prices have appreciated, not great if you live in an area
where home prices have not appreciated at all, or not very much. A mutual
fund investment or for that matter any fixed interest investment will ALWAYS
have some appreciation over time.
Jerry Okamura
"John Galt" <whoisj...@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
news:13db6s0...@corp.supernews.com...
It is return on investment that is important.
ro...@telus.net
<whoisj...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>"The Trucker" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:pan.2007.08.29....@verizon.net...
>
>> I fail to see the relevance of ANY of this comparison to mutual funds
>> because the amounts paid into the SS system are not used for investment.
>> And it seems that real estate (especially home ownership) has provided a
>> better return than mutual funds over the last 15 years (or at least that's
>> the impression one would get).
>
>If you limit your analysis to home appreciation + tax benefit, *possibly*
>true. If you look at all aspects of home ownership, including maintenance
>and upkeep, the only places it could possibly be true is if you were lucky
>enough to be in a "hot area", like Miami, NYC, or Boston. Mutual Funds
>don't require new roofs.
>
>The ten year average appreciation in my city for home appreciation is 4.97%
>per year. That's not bad, if you figure its tax-free appreciation. So, you
>run it through one of the net calcualtors as if it were a mutual fund, at
>you're right at 7%. That's good.
>
>However, I replaced both my furnaces, had to bring down an "improvement"
>that wasn't an improvement left over by the prior owner, replaced carpets,
>and painted most everything.
>
>Final calcuation at sale time (after commissions and closing costs, which
>also come out of your "profits"): .8% APR per year. I could multiply that
>by a factor of 10 and still do better in the markets.
Then by all means, why don't you?
Or did you neglect the little factor of the rent income the house
yields?
-- Roy L
John Galt
<ro...@telus.net> wrote in message news:46d58c92...@news.telus.net...
I am.
>
> Or did you neglect the little factor of the rent income the house
> yields?
No. All told, (P and I and all monthly costs less tax advantage) we were
paying just shy of 2K a month for the house. I am now renting for 1850, and
have a substantial lump of capital earning 10-12% in the market rather than
.8%.
And right now, considering what's going on in the real estate market, I am
very happy to have 0% of my net worth parked in home equity.
YMMV.
JG
Scott Dorsey
>
>Final calcuation at sale time (after commissions and closing costs, which
>also come out of your "profits"): .8% APR per year. I could multiply that
>by a factor of 10 and still do better in the markets.
The problem isn't long-term appreciation, the problem is excessive medical
expenses among our retired population. And there's one simple solution:
medical marijuana. That's right, instead of a treatment, give them a
treat. After so many years in the workforce, they deserve it.
Let's say you have cancer. You're worried you're going to die. You're
worried about your medical expenses. You're worried about everything.
You want the best medical care that money can buy, no matter whose money
it is. But then: medical marijuana. After a few pipeloads, you won't
care about dying. Hell, you won't even know your own name. So WHAT if
you have cancer? This spot on the wall sure is interesting.
The net result to the taxpayer? PROFIT.
This message is crossposted to a whole lot of newsgroups. I'm not sure
if this is the misc.invest solution to the current medical care crisis,
or whether it's the soc.retirement solution to the current fiscal crisis.
But it's the talk.bizarre solution to a whole lot of problems.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
(David P.)
> John Galt <whoisjohng...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>
> >Final calcuation at sale time: .8% APR per year.
> >I could still do better in the markets.
>
> The problem is excessive medical expenses among
> our retired population. And there's one simple solution:
> medical marijuana.
No, the solution is limiting longevity by
stopping the suppression of influenza.
.
.
--
(David P.)
">parr\(*>" <laurykin...@SPAMbtinternet.moc> wrote:
> "(David P.)" wrote:
> | the huge budget costs of aging baby boomers.
>
> You are still peddling second-hand ideas with
> nothing to add, no solution to suggest.
Worldwide solution: limit longevity by
stopping the suppression of influenza.
> There's a clear and obvious solution. Open the
> Mexican border. Encourage the immigrants to breed.
> 150 years ago, that's what you were doing. And also
> encouraging wholesale immigration from Europe, Irish,
> Italians, Pollacks, Swedes.
Well, there's plenty of room. What about food,
fuel, clean air, clean water, & everything else?
And for the rest of the world, your solution is...?
.
.
--
Jerry Okamura
"mg" <mgke...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1187974869....@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 24, 10:58 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com>
> wrote:
>> "mg" <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1187968933....@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 23, 3:40 pm, "(David P.)" <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >> When Silence Isn't Golden
>> >> By Robert J. Samuelson
>> >> Newsweek
>>
>> >> Aug. 6, 2007 issue - If you haven't noticed, the major
>> >> presidential candidates-Republican and Democratic-
>> >> are dodging one of the thorniest problems they'd face if
>> >> elected: the huge budget costs of aging baby boomers.
>> >> In last week's CNN/YouTube debate, New Mexico Gov.
>> >> Bill Richardson cleverly deflected the issue. "The best
>> >> solution," he said, "is a bipartisan effort to fix it." Brilliant.
>> >> There's already a bipartisan consensus: do nothing.
>> >> No one plugs cutting retirement benefits or raising taxes,
>> >> the obvious choices.
>>
>> >> End of story? Not exactly. There's also a less-noticed
>> >> cause for the neglect. Washington's vaunted think tanks-
>> >> citadels for public intellectuals both liberal & conservative
>> >> -have tiptoed around the problem. Ideally, think tanks
>> >> expand the public conversation by saying things too
>> >> controversial for politicians to say on their own. Here,
>> >> they've abdicated that role.
>>
>> >> The aging of America is not just a population change or,
>> >> as a budget problem, an accounting exercise. It involves
>> >> a profound transformation of the nature of government:
>> >> commitments to the older population are slowly over-
>> >> whelming other public goals; the national government is
>> >> becoming mainly an income-transfer mechanism from
>> >> younger workers to older retirees.
>>
>> >> Consider the outlook. From 2005 to 2030, the 65-and-
>> >> over population will nearly double to 71 million; its share
>> >> of the population will rise to 20 percent from 12 percent.
>> >> Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid-programs that
>> >> serve older people-already exceed 40 percent of the
>> >> $2.7 trillion federal budget. By 2030, their share could
>> >> hit 75 percent of the present budget, projects the
>> >> Congressional Budget Office. The result: a political impasse.
>>
>> >> The 2030 projections are daunting. To keep federal
>> >> spending stable as a share of the economy would mean
>> >> eliminating all defense spending and most other domestic
>> >> programs (for research, homeland security, the environment,
>> >> etc.). To balance the budget with existing programs at their
>> >> present economic shares would require, depending on
>> >> assumptions, tax increases of 30 percent to 50 percent-
>> >> or budget deficits could quadruple. A final possibility: cut
>> >> retirement benefits by increasing eligibility ages, being
>> >> less generous to wealthier retirees or trimming all payments.
>>
>> >> Little wonder politicians stay silent. But think tanks ought
>> >> to be thrilled, because these changes pose basic questions
>> >> about government. What should it do? For whom? Why?
>> >> How big can it grow without weakening the economy?
>> >> Does that matter? Is social justice more important than
>> >> economic growth? Do gains in life expectancy and the
>> >> well-being of the elderly justify significant changes in
>> >> Social Security and Medicare?
>>
>> >> Over the years, the major think tanks have published tens
>> >> of thousands of words on Social Security and Medicare.
>> >> Most of the reports are technical, though some propose
>> >> major (even radical) changes. But the two programs are
>> >> usually treated separately, and the larger questions of
>> >> adjusting to an aging society are mostly evaded. I think
>> >> I know why: wrenching honesty might be deeply embarrassing.
>>
>> >> Liberals might have to concede that government could
>> >> grow too large and that spending and benefit cuts are
>> >> needed. Conservatives might have to concede that, even
>> >> with plausible benefit and spending cuts, tomorrow's
>> >> government would be bigger than today's. For think-tank
>> >> scholars, brutal candor might offend friends and political
>> >> mentors. For the ambitious, it might jeopardize future
>> >> appointments to top government jobs.
>>
>> >> As an antidote to this timidity, I propose that some public-
>> >> spirited sugar daddy (the MacArthur Foundation? Warren
>> >> Buffett?) sponsor a short book. A possible title: "Facing
>> >> Up to an Aging America." Six leading think tanks would
>> >> be invited to participate: three liberal-the Brookings
>> >> Institution, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
>> >> and the Urban Institute-and three conservative-the
>> >> American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute and the
>> >> Heritage Foundation.
>>
>> >> After an introduction describing America's aging, each
>> >> think tank would receive 35 pages to respond to questions
>> >> and to present its vision. Are the looming budget changes
>> >> good for America? If so, how would they be financed? If not,
>> >> why not? How could adverse consequences be avoided?
>> >> The think tanks would be expected to be specific. Higher
>> >> eligibility ages? Well, how much and when? Higher taxes?
>> >> Which ones and how much? If think tanks rejected the
>> >> invitation, the publisher would run 35 blank pages and
>> >> an explanation: "The Heritage Foundation [or Urban
>> >> Institute] declined to participate."
>>
>> >> This approach would force think tanks to compete. They'd
>> >> have to make their vision of the future explicit within the
>> >> untidy framework of government's past commitments.
>> >> It would illuminate the connections between defense
>> >> spending, retirement benefits, health care, economic
>> >> growth and much more. Writing for a general audience,
>> >> it would favor plain English, not the usual technobabble.
>> >> If published in April, the book might prod the presidential
>> >> candidates to address the future. If they didn't, it would
>> >> measure the enormity of their evasion.
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> --
>>
>> > THE SOLUTION:
>>
>> > Step 1. We need to get the money back that the GOP took from the fund.
>> > This can be done by rescinding the tax breaks Bush gave to the rich
>> > and applying the proceeds to the SS fund until the money is restored.
>> > Establish the "locked-box" system after funds are recovered.
>>
>> > Step 2. The retirement age (unfortunately) needs to be raised
>> > significantly. This could be phase in slowly with the final retirement
>> > ages at:
>>
>> > Age 66: Early Retirement with reduced benefits.
>> > Age 70: Regular retirement age.
>>
>> > Step 3. Bring newly hired state and local employees into the SS
>> > system.
>>
>> > Step 4. Eliminate the cap on Social Security taxes.
>>
>> Kicking the can down the road? If any or all of your proposals get
>> approved
>> (not likely), will it permanently solve the funding problem?
>>
>> > Step 5. Allow SS to phase in 40% or 50% investment in equities.
>>
>> > Those 5 steps would probably make Social Security solvent for hundreds
>> > of years, if not forever.
>>
>> Democrats don't like that idea....
>
> Actually it's probably the Republicans that would object to that idea.
>
>
This is one republican who would love for them to permanently solve the
funding problem.
Bluto Blutarsky
... rats, ass, give -- this thread is now over.
Usene...@the-domain-in.sig
says...
> CJT wrote:
> > lubow wrote:
> >> Fred, I do not doubt your ability to triple your SS contributions, but
> >> look at the people who could not. Look at the millions -- and I mean
> >> that literally -- that would get suckered into poorly managed mutual
> >> funds by scheming brokers and salesmen.
> >>
> >> In my view, simply having that many people in poverty at the time we
> >> are to retire would cause such a burden on the economy that any
> >> profits we may have gained by investing our SS taxes would be wiped
> >> out by some form of taxation that would be needed by the retirees who
> >> were suckered or swindled.
> > And just look at all the people who never open an IRA even when they
> > can. Unless you make retirement savings mandatory, you haven't solved
> > the root problem. Make it mandatory and you're back to something like
> > SS.
> There needs to be a shift away from SS to another form of retirement
> such as IRA / 401K, and this must happen over many years, 40 to 60.
> This will take most of the load off the government and make each citizen
> responsible for their own well being. But everyone must be educated
> financially as this takes place and a safety net will still be needed.
That simply won't work. If a retirement plan is voluntary, then
there will be large number of people who just won't do it.
There are already lots of people who could spare, say, $20/week
into a savings account. Without any real sacrifice in their
basic needs. And they still don't do it.
Sure, there are people living paycheque-to-paycheque because they
really do have necessities that go right up to the small amount
they are earning. Especially with young people just starting,
without any extra education, or skills, or experience.
But there are many, many others, who just compulsively spend.
The number on the paycheque is the amount they WILL blow before
the next one. And some will even directly state that that is the
only possible way for anyone to act.
One of the biggest financial make-or-break factors is Attention
Span. And, for all the many people whose Attention Span is a
mere two weeks, a voluntary savings for retirement (or a large
house downpayment, or any other big goal) just ain't gonna
happen.
--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum