What's your take on the issues addressed by Bernanke?

[Dumpy Dooby]

General fund took money from SS fund. General fund should pay it back, but in order to do that, the general fund needs to be in the black.

edit: That would also require our politicians to actually put the money back, which might require more competence than any of them have. x2

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by hsmith

Raise the age
set a limit to what people can get back (what they put in)
make it off limits for the fed to borrow against

and of course, get rid of it all together.

You can't limit people to taking what they put in. Why? Because the system already returns an anemic 2.2% on our money to give zero would just be an atrocity.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Bernanke actually presented some really interesting statistics regarding that. He said that the population of retirees will make up 20% of the total population by 2030 (I believe it was 2030). That may not seem like much, but it's currently 12% ... so that's almost doubling the amount that we have now, percentage-wise.

Yes which means the 88% that isn't retired will drop to 80%...which further means that only about 60% of our population is working now that would drop to 52%

52% supporting 20% is a LOT different than 60% supporting 12% that translates into a doubling of the current tax rate if the system were to remain intact exactly as it sits right now.

[Dumpy Dooby]

What about the blokes that die off before they get all the money they put in? Stick their money back in the system. What happens to do it now? It goes to the family or what?

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

You can't limit people to taking what they put in. Why? Because the system already returns an anemic 2.2% on our money to give zero would just be an atrocity.

i'd say with interest would be acceptable.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Yes which means the 88% that isn't retired will drop to 80%...which further means that only about 60% of our population is working now that would drop to 52%

52% supporting 20% is a LOT different than 60% supporting 12% that translates into a doubling of the current tax rate if the system were to remain intact exactly as it sits right now.

we are so fucked

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

It's a payment in exchange for another payment in the future.

Look I think the program is a joke and has been horribly mismanaged so if you're looking forsomeone to justify SS its not me. I'm just telling you arguments and facts about how the system was designed and how to fix it.

I'd rather pay less now and save more on my own but you'r enever going to get that approved with democrats constantly blocking it. Bush's proposal would have basically done what you said and that got redflagged, beat to shit by the media by taking pieces of it out of context.

People need to learn to provide for themselves if you're going to tax me in the name of SS then I damn sure better get some money back reguardless of what i save on my own. Thats the whole point of the system. The system was setup to lure people out of the work force and into retirement by promising them reguardless of income a check from the government based on payments throughout their working lives.

I agree that it's broken, and honestly we would probably be better off now if it had never existed to begin with. But I also recognize that we will never be able to just get rid of it. So we can either keep the current system and just raise taxes as more and more people retire and the people who do retire live longer and longer...Or we can re-think the entire system.

I was just trying to think of an equitable way of keeping the system in some form without doubling the tax rate. Really the goal should be to keep our senior citizens from living in poverty. Anything above that is just handing out money to people who don't need it and taking it from people who do.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Raise the age at which people start getting social security? (currently 67)

fine

Increase social security taxation on individuals with an anual income of $100K or more? (right now, ~$100K is the cutoff; social security taxation doesn't increase after that)

Only if their benefits increase as well.

Try to get the economy strong again and let the general fund pay back the social security fund? (dow just broke 6½yr high yesterday ... so we might be heading' this route)

I don't know all of the options, so I'll leave it to you guys to start the discussion and add to it.

Wont matter. Even if the SS fund had all the money it was owed, they would still run a deficit in ~2042.

[Dumpy Dooby]

If we get it up high enough, we can just cash it out completely and do away with it. It's a stupid idea anyway.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I agree that it's broken, and honestly we would probably be better off now if it had never existed to begin with. But I also recognize that we will never be able to just get rid of it. So we can either keep the current system and just raise taxes as more and more people retire and the people who do retire live longer and longer...Or we can re-think the entire system.

I was just trying to think of an equitable way of keeping the system in some form without doubling the tax rate. Really the goal should be to keep our senior citizens from living in poverty. Anything above that is just handing out money to people who don't need it and taking it from people who do.

I'm ok with rethinking the system but taking from those that pay inthe most and giving it away to those that pay in the least is

I think that raising the retirement age, decreaseing benefits and raising the income limits represent the best compromise.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I'm ok with rethinking the system but taking from those that pay inthe most and giving it away to those that pay in the least is

I think that raising the retirement age, decreaseing benefits and raising the income limits represent the best compromise.

Bernanke talked about the people that had to suffer to make us prosperous enough to have these multimillionaires that would be spilling money over the sides onto the poor folk. It reminds me of the people that seek "retributions."

I view it as a means of the rich buying their way out of a revolution. When the rich aren't forced to splash money around, then the poor get pissy. We wind up with another 18th century France. So alas, the rich must pay the poor to keep them under control. I certainly don't think that it's RIGHT by any means. I don't think that the rich ought to pay off the poor, but historically, these ideas of evening the taxation playing ground just haven't worked. Looks good on paper, and it sounds quite fair, but the power of comparison supercedes rationality and inhibition.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Bernanke talked about the people that had to suffer to make us prosperous enough to have these multimillionaires that would be spilling money over the sides onto the poor folk. It reminds me of the people that seek "retributions."

I view it as a means of the rich buying their way out of a revolution. When the rich aren't forced to splash money around, then the poor get pissy. We wind up with another 18th century France. So alas, the rich must pay the poor to keep them under control. I certainly don't think that it's RIGHT by any means. I don't think that the rich ought to pay off the poor, but historically, these ideas of evening the taxation playing ground just haven't worked. Looks good on paper, and it sounds quite fair, but the power of comparison supercedes rationality and inhibition.

Please show me where a flat tax with the same personal exemptions for all hasn't worked...or just show me where a flat tax hasn't worked in a similar situation to the US.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I'm ok with rethinking the system but taking from those that pay inthe most and giving it away to those that pay in the least is

I think that raising the retirement age, decreaseing benefits and raising the income limits represent the best compromise.

If we raise the income limits, we will also have to allow those people to draw more from the system as well... either that or you have to say that you are raiseing or removing the cap but not increasing the payout for those who will be paying in more.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Please show me where a flat tax with the same personal exemptions for all hasn't worked...or just show me where a flat tax hasn't worked in a similar situation to the US.

Please show me where a flat tax with the same personal exemptions for all has worked...or just show me where a flat tax has worked in a similar situation to the US. Obviously the US situation doesn't work too well. I honestly don't know much about world economics, so if you know of a country that does it successfully, please share.

Historically, though, the power of comparison has plagued the poor, which is why countries with lower HDI tend to be more religious; the people of those countries resolve their "plague" by inventing (or "believing in," whichever you prefer) an even playing ground in the afterlife. This is also why poor communities tend to have more crime as well. Like I said, the power of comparison will supercede rationality.

[SICKGUY]

by time im ready to retire, the age to collect SS is gonna be 120

[thomez]

Originally Posted by 7960

my first question would be why is there a limit for SS taxation? everyone should pay equal...if I make $100,000 or $1,000,000/year our tax RATE should be the same. Why are people making $100k paying in the same as people making $1M?

because there is an upper limit on benefits, and people should NOT be losing over $12,000 a YEAR to fund freaking Social Security when they will get back 800 a month for a few years until they croak, and they don't even need it anyway if they are making a mil a year or whatever. It's a big steaming pile.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

What about the blokes that die off before they get all the money they put in? Stick their money back in the system. What happens to do it now? It goes to the family or what?

no, only a spouse or a child under 18 will get their benefits.

if not, every dime they ever put in is put back in the system, and they just lost ~ 10% of their life earnings

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Phantom

I agree on that one. If SS is a redistribution/welfare net, the cap makes no sense

so some people should pay into the system in a year more than they could ever draw in their lifetime? talk about a scam

oh wait, that is what Social Security is - the biggest sham on the planet

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Please show me where a flat tax with the same personal exemptions for all has worked...or just show me where a flat tax has worked in a similar situation to the US. Obviously the US situation doesn't work too well. I honestly don't know much about world economics, so if you know of a country that does it successfully, please share.

Historically, though, the power of comparison has plagued the poor, which is why countries with lower HDI tend to be more religious; the people of those countries resolve their "plague" by inventing (or "believing in," whichever you prefer) an even playing ground in the afterlife. This is also why poor communities tend to have more crime as well. Like I said, the power of comparison will supercede rationality.

Flat Tax hasn't been tried in a country the size of the US. However it has been used in Hong Kong and it worked along with a host fo smaller european countries.