Social Insecurity: The Ticking Time Bomb
Social Insecurity: The Ticking Time bomb
They say we have until 2017 to “fix” Social Security. I say we better start now.
However, I think Washington politicians in general suffer from a sort of “credit” problem. Now, I’m not saying this affects them all, but I do believe it affects enough of them to cause a problem. I’ll explain what I mean. People love to take credit for things, and it’s no different in politics. Politicians want to have their name behind a bill that changes our political and social landscape. They’re willing to go to such extremes as to curtail the efforts of others.
I think this is where we are at with Democrats and Republicans. One side tries to do a good thing while the other side calls them Nazi’s. And one side tries to do a good thing, while the other accuses of ‘bait and switch’ tactics.
While some of it might be true, we need to start working together on things. Politicians could learn a thing or two from Robert Yates: “It is amazing what can be accomplished when nobody cares about who gets the credit.”
Take our looming Social Security issue. It needs to be fixed. The Bush administration wants badly to push through this idea of “personal accounts” while Democrats (and even other Republicans) say this is an incredibly stupid idea—They’re probably right.
It doesn’t take away from the fact that there is a problem and the two sides need to sit together to find a meaningful solution.
June 22nd, 2005 at 7:08 am
Why not just make this thing VOLUNTARY?
My company has a 401K program, and I can at least contribute $30 extra a month, knowing I should get a healthy return on that investment once an old fart.
I’d feel even better if I could invest what Uncle Sam already helps himself to, and also put that in the 401K.
Odds are, I’d be even better off with my investment.
By the way, when the concept of Social Security was introduced in the 1930s, life spans were shorter.
The genuises who came up with this concept never took into account the possibility that life spans would increase, and more money might possibly be needed.
So much for Democrats being “pro-choice” on any issue other than abortion!
June 22nd, 2005 at 8:58 am
I believe I read that the average life span was like 62 when they set the age at 65. They didnt even expect people to make it to social security.
I believe there is not a bigger problem facing young worker’s in America today. If we do nothing and when I turn 69, and they tell me they have nothing it will be a disgrace. That would like me taking poeple’s money and not providing a service that they paid for.
Republicans need to scream from the rooftops if Democrats hold progress on reform.
June 22nd, 2005 at 11:38 am
I won’t come out on either side, as not to offend reps or dems. But Ramdac’s point is true across almost every issue, not just ssi. While dems give in to every bleeding heart liberal minority/private interest group, rebublicans are stuffing their pockets from the corporations and rich friends.
The issue isn’t just who wants to take the credit, but also that no one wants to take the blame when it goes wrong or doesn’t live up. Or isn’t popular in the shortterm… causing people not to re-elect them.
The overwhelming majority of politicians do not want to give up their power, prestige, status, etc. even the minute after they get it. I think most politicians look at it as a lifetime career. Not as a calling to get in for 4 to 8 years, do their best, and get out.
June 22nd, 2005 at 11:43 am
Haha, Chris. That’s a great line about democrats not being pro-choice.
June 22nd, 2005 at 2:33 pm
Jimvford, That is a great point. I think that is exactly why Bush waited untill his second term to come out with his plan for fixing Social Security.
Dont get me wrong, Bush’s plan isnt the best plan. I dont believe we should do it the way the white house says, because it is still handing over money and hoping.
However, I dont think that leaving it alone and work itself out is the answer by far.
June 22nd, 2005 at 5:49 pm
I can’t say that I am concerned with social security, not in the slightest bit. After I have completed college, I will be an educator. Therefore, as a future Texas educator, I am only eligible for reduced, or no social security benefits!
Hopefully, I and other teachers will learn to save for their retirement instead of depending on what the last generation did as work. The reason why texas teachers are not given the same social security benefits as other texas employees are is due to their civil-service pensions.
So my plan isn’t to depend on some dumb-ass political pay check, but to depend on myself, to save, and plan for my retirement, so that I don’t have to worry about such things. The way to do that, is to save starting young in life, and watching what you buy, and not buying something that you can’t afford.
Hopefully, if I have a future spouse, he’ll be as intelligent as I am, and not depend on that government paycheck, of ocurse if you get it,
thats nice, and you can buy something fun or whatever when you hit that mid life crisis, but its best not to leave that as your only source of income. Save, and plan, thats the safest way.
http://www.clarkcountylegal.com/social.htm
Teachers find Loophole
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4081165.stm
June 22nd, 2005 at 6:38 pm
I only have three things to say:
http://www.vanguard.com
http://www.morningstar.com/
https://www.fidelity.com/
June 22nd, 2005 at 7:00 pm
those type of things are other ways to save and not worry about social security. Eventually social security won’t exist, it’ll be something in the history books, for economics classes to study and think of why it worked for the time period, and stopped working in the early 20 century.
People can find a way to live without social security, but all we have to do is stop planning on it to support us, and start plannin on how were going to support ourselves.
Then of course, that gets me into, the whole foodstamps, and disability, and other government checks that some people choose to live off of. I’m not talking about people who really can’t work, but people who live off of the rest of the community, because they made bad choices in their lives. Its a touchy subject, but some people shouldn’t live off of the rest of us.
June 22nd, 2005 at 7:22 pm
Ditto, meanwhile, money is still being taken out of your check.
Let me say that twice so it will sink in.
Even though you aren’t planning on it being there, which is smart . . . . THEY ARE STILL TAKING IT OUT OF YOUR CHECK.
Let me emphasis this again. You work X amount of hours in a week, and a certain percentage of that is taken out of your check for the sole purpose of going to your retirement. The very retirement you will never be able to use.
Meanwhile, you have LESS money to spend or yourself or donate to charitable causes, because the money you would typically stick into a retirement fund such as Vanguard is literally disappearing with no return for your money.
The tax system is not suppossed to work that way. And we shouldn’t just sit idely by and let it.
With any other tax, like it or hate it, you are at least getting a return for your money. A certain percentage of my check goes to things that suppossedly benefit sociaty - schools, roads, law enforcement, national security, pay my congress man to make sure he represents me fairly, etc. However, social security is being ripped out of your check and thrown into a mystical void, never to be seen again.
When you look at it in that light, I think it is something to be concerned about. Your money is literally being stolen from you.
Oh, and about that future spouse thing . . . . I plead you not to marry anyone who isn’t as intelligent as yourself. If they even give the slightest hint they aren’t interested in planning for the future, dump them like a ton of bricks.
June 22nd, 2005 at 8:07 pm
“Haha, Chris. That’s a great line about democrats not being pro-choice.”
What can I say?
It’s a personal decision between me………..and my registered financial consultant.
And if the Democrats want the government to keep its hands off any given female’s uterus, then it sure as hell better keep its hands off my retirement plans.
June 22nd, 2005 at 8:08 pm
I was just adding the spousal part, because some women and men even depend on their spouse for the income, so I was just saying that in general, not just for myself, that hopefully, their not planning on just living off of social security.
All I’m saying, is that, you shouldn’t solely depend on social security. That my plan is to save, and do other things for my retirement.
However, I’m not saying that a social security check wouldn’t be nice. Of course I am paying for social security, that money will never go to anyone in my generation, but that money will go to the next generation. So the money taken from my parents and you parents, is what will fuel our generations social security and not our own paychecks.
I will still pay money to socail security just like everyone else, but instead of getting a check like everyone else will when their 65, I’ll be getting a slightly smaller check or nothing at all, and thats because of my civil-service pension. Which will make up for the loss of social security.
I will be fine after I retire, if I plan my life and money like I should be doing. If I don’t, then thats my own fault and I truly don’t think that others should have to pay for my poor judgements and misfortunes. If a person plans accordingly, then they won’t have to worry about mishaps.
I know about the social security problems that Texas teachers have, and I’m still goin into the career. I know the issues going into it, so therefore, I have a plan as how to compensate for it.
June 22nd, 2005 at 9:32 pm
I think you you’ve got it backwards, but if I’m wrong, someone please correct me:
The way I understand it, the money being taken out of our check is being used for current social security recipients and other programs. The working supports the retired, not visa-versa.
By the time the boomers are all retired, their will not be enough workers in our possition to continue to fund the system. And these boomers, because they didn’t see the problem coming, didn’t necessarily plan for retirment. So, us, as young-ens, will also have the Bewicks to look out for. If you don’t give them enough money to have a comfortable retirment travelling the globe, they’ll start to post to our blogs and get us all fired up!
June 23rd, 2005 at 12:10 am
your right…. i did get it backwards… I had my head all confused, sorry!
June 23rd, 2005 at 8:16 am
I tell you what, I would love to be in sales with this method. I would love to sale something, receive the money and never have to deliver the product. I could make alot of money quick that way.
I am paying to something I will never recieve so it pisses me off. I realize the answer cannot be to just stop paying because people getting paid now who were promised wouldnt get paid.
So.. I save anyway. because social security (if I get it) probably wont be enough anyway.
June 23rd, 2005 at 9:04 am
SS is not enough NOW for people who DO receive it.
The ROI is horrible.
I work for a quasi governmental agency. Recently, we had the option to get on the states retirement plan. We ran the numbers and voted it down (wa majority of us anyway). The percentage we would get back on our money if invested else where was horrible even IF we retired at full salary. On top of that, you had a minimum 10 year vestment period. So if you leave in year 9 tough luck. You get nothing and they keep your money which is what keeps the system afloat. (much like what Ditto is talking about)
It was a no brainier for me. Why not keep my money and invest it in my own accounts? The odds are that I will get back a greater return than SS and my personal security is never tied to any one particular job.
One of Presidents Bush’s big motivations for pushing this plan is because he knows Janitors who worked for the state of Texas who retired early as millionaires from setting aside income into mutual funds.
June 23rd, 2005 at 9:49 am
ditto50997 makes a good point about not relying on social security. But so does everyone else in here. I don’t think anyone born after the 60’s believes that ssi will reliably be here for us when we retire. As with any entitlement program though… there is a LOT of opposition to reducing or eliminating something many people feel “entitled” to. As with other government programs. Now welfare, food stamps, medicaid, disability, etc…. I know hordes of jackasses that abuse each of them. For every dollar I make, a nickel of it goes to support those assholes. Doesn’t sound like much, till you figure that addes up to a few thousand dollars a year. Money I’ll never see again. Money some drunk ass is using to buy beer/cigarettes, have more babies, NOT work, etc. Of course, I’m excluding those truly in need.
Anyway, I think most prudent people would agree that we need to be saving independently of ssi and be ready in case it’s not there in the future. But for those in the ages of 40++, they’ve counted on ssi being part of their retirement plan and we certainly need to make sure we continue until that crop is gone. Otherwise we’ll end up having our broke parents and church families moving in with us!
June 25th, 2005 at 9:32 pm
Hey Everybody,
I found this calculator online to help you predict how much you will receive in SS benefits assuming the system works:
http://www.ssa.gov/planners/calculators.htm
Keep in mind, inflation is about 3 or 4 percent a year. So whatever your numbers comes out to be sure to subtract inflation to find out your real buying power.
The calculator can do this for you by selecting “Future Dollars”.
Side Note: I just calculated mind using the calculator and the monthly returns are a lot higher than I expected. I wonder if the figures are accurate. If they are accurate, with SS AND my Mutuals Ill be in REALLY good shape