Campaign Against Social Security based on Deliberate Deception

Commentary: Campaign to slash Social Security benefits is based on deliberate deception | McClatchy

another example of why people need to research issues and not believe everything we hear...as Spartan 1 discovered in the post about the Dream Act.

Social Security is an example of a government program that works well.

Privitization would be a blunder of epic proportions.

However, assuming my wife OR I live to be 83/82 our benefit will be sliced 25%.

To me that's a big deal even if she's the only one around.

Either taxes go up or benefits are reduced-take your pick.

The writer does neither.

Choosing the Nation's Fiscal Future

Here are some solutions. Take your pick.

Privitisation of SS is another case of big money with vested interests selling something to an unwitting public under false pretenses.

Privitisation of SS is another case of big money with vested interests selling something to an unwitting public under false pretenses.

They wouldn't be selling it me under false pretenses. I would prefer control over my own retirement savings, including social security. As an american citizen, I feel I should have the right to make that choice. Further more, what gives the government the right to confiscate retirement savings out of my paycheck with no guarantee I'll get it back when I retire?

They wouldn't be selling it me under false pretenses. I would prefer control over my own retirement savings, including social security. As an american citizen, I feel I should have the right to make that choice. Further more, what gives the government the right to confiscate retirement savings out of my paycheck with no guarantee I'll get it back when I retire?

You do have control over your own retirement savings - Social Security is just your safety net, NOT your primary savings plan.

ANd the plans I have seen so far are just proposing changes to people who are decades from retirement age.

You do have control over your own retirement savings - Social Security is just your safety net, NOT your primary savings plan.

ANd the plans I have seen so far are just proposing changes to people who are decades from retirement age.

12.4% of my take home pay across my entire lifetime is a "safety net"? I'm only allowed to contribute up to $16,500 annually to my 401K. If I make 106K a year I'll contribute $13,144 to social security. That's not a safety net, it's a major component of my retirement plan.

It's my money, if I want control over it, I should be given control. Period.

Social Security is a safety net - for disability, death, and retirement.

Guarantee that you (and your family) will never need it for any reason and I would support you wanting to opt out.

But since you can't guarantee that, I won't.

And your IRA is not the only way to save for retirement - that's just the one that gives you the most tax advantages.

12.4% of my take home pay across my entire lifetime is a "safety net"? I'm only allowed to contribute up to $16,500 annually to my 401K. If I make 106K a year I'll contribute $13,144 to social security. That's not a safety net, it's a major component of my retirement plan.

Wrong again.

It's 6.2% of your GROSS pay.

The other 6.2% of the GROSS paid by the employer and if you are the boss then it is a business expense.

Social Security is a safety net - for disability, death, and retirement.

Guarantee that you (and your family) will never need it for any reason and I would support you wanting to opt out.

But since you can't guarantee that, I won't.

And your IRA is not the only way to save for retirement - that's just the one that gives you the most tax advantages.

Read the front page of that little pamphlet they send you each year. It is a "compact between generations". There is no guarantee.

But you changed the subject, I am arguing that 12.4% (8.8% if you want to exclude the extremely expensive disability insurance portion) is a substantial portion of our retirement investment. The idea that we have have no control over how that money is saved and invested is ridiculous!

Wrong again.

It's 6.2% of your GROSS pay.

The other 6.2% of the GROSS paid by the employer and if you are the boss then it is a business expense.

DUH! If they weren't writing a check the government, they'd be writing a check to you.

Social Security is a safety net - for disability, death, and retirement.

Guarantee that you (and your family) will never need it for any reason and I would support you wanting to opt out.

But since you can't guarantee that, I won't.

And your IRA is not the only way to save for retirement - that's just the one that gives you the most tax advantages.

Yes, the death benefit is a whopping $255. Go look it up it's a total joke. I would absolutely opt out if it meant i could put just 50% of my SS contributions in my personal retirement account.

I've already paid more into SS than i will ever get back in my lifetime.

DUH! If they weren't writing a check the government, they'd be writing a check to you.

Calling bull..,..dream on.

Any way SS comes from your GROSS and not NET pay. Gross not net, remember shopper.

Anyone claiming SS comes from their NET pay has serious credibility issues.

I have looked over 100 of retirement plans in different stages and darn few folks can do better than SS on their own.

You have to save 15%-20% of your income beginning in your early 20s to even come close.

An inflation-adjusted benefit based on two lives with 100% survivor benefit remains the Cadillac.

Furthermore, defined benefit plans like SS eliminate market risk-see 2008.

Shopper, you shouldn't try to argue with arithmetic.


:rolling:

Calling bull..,..dream on.

Any way SS comes from your GROSS and not NET pay. Gross not net, remember shopper.

Anyone claiming SS comes from their NET pay has serious credibility issues.

I have looked over 100 of retirement plans in different stages and darn few folks can do better than SS on their own.

You have to save 15%-20% of your income beginning in your early 20s to even come close.

An inflation-adjusted benefit based on two lives with 100% survivor benefit remains the Cadillac.

Furthermore, defined benefit plans like SS eliminate market risk-see 2008.

Shopper, you shouldn't try to argue with arithmetic.


:rolling:

A handy dandy search on Google turns up an awful lot of data indicating you are the one who needs to brush up on his math. ;-)

Google

Again, my points: it's my money, it's my retirement, I should have control over it if I choose, and two, it does represent a very large investment, not a "safety net".

A handy dandy search on Google turns up an awful lot of data indicating you are the one who needs to brush up on his math. ;-)

Google

Again, my points: it's my money, it's my retirement, I should have control over it if I choose, and two, it does represent a very large investment, not a "safety net".

So when you lost 50% of it in 2008 you'd accept that and up your retirement age?

So when you lost 50% of it in 2008 you'd accept that and up your retirement age?

If the accounts didn't allow short term trading, I seriously doubt anyone would have lost that much in the last market correction. Besides, this downturn was a once in a hundred year storm, there's no reason why the federal government couldn't step in a help replace lost saving for low income workers if they felt the situation warranted it.

Independent of all this, if the choice to manage your own retirement savings was made by an individual, they would have to live with that decision.

You must see a world I don't - where average adults are perceived as children government must constantly coddle and herd. I wonder why that is.

I couldn't agree with you more, 30Ashopper. We lost our butt in the crash and I, as LVT, was not rich in the first place. Having said that, our lifestyle has not changed one bit but our kids will get a lot less than they would have. Our lifestyle has not changed because over our working lives both of us planned, saved and progressed toward our retirement. Social Security was a part of the planning, not because we believed religiously in it, but because it was a piece of our retirement planning. It also was not the bulwark of that plan nor should it have been.
The point I am trying to make is that you must plan for your retirement as early as possible and stick to the plan you develop with alterations as deemed necessary along the way. I am a great believer in this country. I also believe that if you earn it honestly and productively, you are entitled to spend those earning anyway you see fit and to make as much as you wish to make. Something many do not take into consideration is the fact that you can only be so happy in life and money alone does not bring that about. While I might be an old fat guy, I'm not a rich one but I certainly do not begrudge those who are through honest endevour, their just rewards. Many of them contribute much of their fortunes to worthy causes and that should also be recognized.

If the accounts didn't allow short term trading, I seriously doubt anyone would have lost that much in the last market correction. Besides, this downturn was a once in a hundred year storm, there's no reason why the federal government couldn't step in a help replace lost saving for low income workers if they felt the situation warranted it.

Independent of all this, if the choice to manage your own retirement savings was made by an individual, they would have to live with that decision.
You must see a world I don't - where average adults are perceived as children government must constantly coddle and herd. I wonder why that is.

So to sum up, you want to be in charge of your retirement money, but you have no realistic concept of risk (there's been FAR more than 1 major economic downturn in the last 100 years). You want the government to bail you out when you screw up, but then you complain that they coddle you.

A handy dandy search on Google turns up an awful lot of data indicating you are the one who needs to brush up on his math. ;-)

Google

Again, my points: it's my money, it's my retirement, I should have control over it if I choose, and two, it does represent a very large investment, not a "safety net".

Au contraire...mon frere.

Translated into Southernese: You should tune up your Google machine.

To wit:

One man's retirement math: Social Security wins / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

For 45 years, the defense-industry analyst paid into the system until his retirement in 1994. But with all the recent hoopla over reform, Mr. Logue, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology graduate, decided to go back and check his own records. Would he have done better investing his money than the bureaucrats at the Social Security Administration?

He recorded all the payroll taxes he paid into the system (including the matching amount from his employer), tracked down the return the Social Security Trust Fund earned for each of the 45 years, and then compared the result with what he would have gotten had he been able to invest the same amount of payroll tax money over the same period in the Dow Jones Industrial Average (including dividends).

To his surprise, the Social Security investment won out: $261,372 versus $255,499, a difference of $5,873.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You don't rebuild your own transmissions or work on your teeth.

Besides, you still think SS comes from your NET. :idontno:

"If the extra return from privatization is not very advantageous, "why even consider changes that all agree would be very disruptive?" asks Logue."

So to sum up, you want to be in charge of your retirement money, but you have no realistic concept of risk (there's been FAR more than 1 major economic downturn in the last 100 years). You want the government to bail you out when you screw up, but then you complain that they coddle you.

Huh? I don't need any help from the guvment, I'd like control over my retirement investments. I don't expect to be bailed out. I was making a concession for the SWGB's of the world, who worry that a once in a 100 year downturn might impact his party's voter block. My point being, just because we give people more control over their life long savings (12.4% of all their GROSS pay over their life time (happy now Buz?)) doesn't mean the guvment has to completely abandon the populace under extreme circumstances.

Here's a good example: 99% of the time we live on our own, taking care of ourselves. Once in a blue moon a large storm comes in a hammers our coast. So the federal government steps in and helps where it is needed. This doesn't mean Barack Obama has to come down here, take your hand, and walk you across the street at every stop light.

Under a plan like this our retirement savings is far safer than it is today because it exists in a system where you alone control it. You would also live better later in life because your return on your investment would be greater. It also gets all the surplus money out of the hands of current politicians, forcing them to act more responsibly.