• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Sign in to follow this  
badlatitude

Here it Comes! GOP Goes After Social Security, Raise Retirement Age

Recommended Posts

Chairman Sam Johnson, the Republican Chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee of Ways and Means, just introduced a bill that would deeply cut Social Security as we today know it, not to mention his intention to raise the retirement age from 67 to 69. 

If the bill passes, which many expect that it will in some form, it will affect all Americans 49 and younger

10.jpg

http://news.groopspeak.com/republicans-announce-plans-for-drastic-cuts-to-social-security-raise-retirement-age/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it has been said that there are only really two forms of political suicide ...

1. Ignoring a baby when the cameras are rolling.

2. Fucking with Social Security.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, mikewof said:

it has been said that there are only really two forms of political suicide ...

1. Ignoring a baby when the cameras are rolling.

2. Fucking with Social Security.

That was BD*

 

 

 

 

 

*before Donald

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mikewof said:

it has been said that there are only really two forms of political suicide ...

1. Ignoring a baby when the cameras are rolling.

2. Fucking with Social Security.

The House has always been slightly crazy; this will go nowhere, limited by the Senate from moving forward and killing any chance the GOP has of saving the House.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this blanket raising of retirement age has to stop somewhere.

I get that we are living longer and there's going to be a twenty year bump where the falling numbers in gen x and gen y just cant support the boomer generation.

But this one size fits all policy is just stupid. We raised our retirement age from 60 (for women) back to 65 for all (fair enough) then up to 67. Many people that worked in manual labour all their lives just can't keep working that long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Three ways to save SS.  

Raise the eligibility age.

means test eligibility 

raise the ceiling on contributions.

 

which one will Trump chose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

Three ways to save SS.  

Raise the eligibility age.

means test eligibility 

raise the ceiling on contributions.

 

which one will Trump chose?

I think Trump stays out, nothing in it for him until something is passed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In...2026...2035...2056...etc.  WTF?. Forward-looking like this shows the right is quite pessimistic on simply "burning the whole thing down" during the reign of 45.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Foreign occupations, wars, and military interventions have their consequences.

Take your pick as you can't have both.

You are 20 trillion in debt for fuck's sake.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Spatial Ed said:

Three ways to save SS.  

Raise the eligibility age.

means test eligibility 

raise the ceiling on contributions.

 

which one will Trump chose?

More workers. You know. Immigration...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Raz'r said:

More workers. You know. Immigration...

Encourage more breeding in the Christian Right. I'm not sure how you accomplish that, with the emphasis on virginity and other such wacky concepts being such a big thing. Unless he's a close relative. That's OK, sorta. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mickey Rat said:

Foreign occupations, wars, and military interventions have their consequences.

Take your pick as you can't have both.

You are 20 trillion in debt for fuck's sake.  

SS is a little different, most of the money (other than a little bit for a handful of expatriates) just re-enters the U.S. economy almost instantly. For defense though, a large percentage (about 25% or so?) bleeds out of the economy ... soldiers, sailors and airmen stationed overseas spend some money locally, defense contractors offshore a lot of profits, and of course, military surplus has little actual value, especially when it is blown to pieces in maneuvers or actual attacks.

This SS is a little different ... Boomers can make or break politics, but their children are a little oblivious to SS, many of them don't even expect it will be around in forty-some years. The generation between them, the Gen-Xers are tiny in numbers, and they can't support all those Boomers and their nooners, and those boomers are living long, they live pretty healthy, the math really sucks for SS now that so many retirees use Medicare. So some variation of this will eventually get pushed through.

I assume the trick will be too indebt SS to high heaven until Gen-X is ready to retire, then shut off Medicare, they don't have much voting power anyway. Then when the millennial are ready to retire, the age will be up to somewhere around 70, likely with some staged work/telework option of semi-retirement for them to keep their mitts away from their full benefits until they're 72 or so.

They already raised the age from 65 to 67 by staging over 30 years or so, they'll be able to do this, once enough guys like this Johnson fellow fall on their swords.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus, Bad Latte - why are you such a disingenuous partisan hack?  I recall several discussions here where the liberals all agreed that the only way to save SS was to raise the eligibility age.  So now we have a republican who is suggesting the same and suddenly its the end of the fucking world.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Spatial Ed said:

Three ways to save SS.  

Raise the eligibility age.

means test eligibility 

raise the ceiling on contributions.

 

which one will Trump chose?

People are living longer. How much can the younger tax payers afford the to pay retires?

The means test is the best way.
Too many wealthy people collect big checks just because they can and those who really need it are left out with very little.

It's kind of like Workers Comp. WKC is really designed to protect employers instead of taking care of the truly injured.

 

Both the Wk Comp and SS are not being used as intended. we can thank the Politicians and Lawyers for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will we as a country ever own up to what we want v. what we can afford,  and having personal responsibility for able bodied people to provide for themselves?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This will hit Trump and Republican supporters disproportionately won't it? From what I understand they tend to be older if not downright old.

Karma's a bitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it, you guys pay into your SS during your working life.

We pay compulsory superannuation..or at least our employers do..

Employer puts the equivalent of 9% of your salary PA into a registered (and regulated) fund (that was paid for by employees forgoing a national pay rise) The employee may make extra contributions from their net salary. Also the gove will tip in an extra $3000 a year or so if an employee puts in $3000 directly from their AWE. So someone like me could be putting 10,000 or more away..the trick is to choose a fund with low or no fees and a good investment record.

They may not touch this until retirement. It's not perfect, but most people my age, if they continued to work have a comfortable lump sum or pension by the time they hit retirement age.

There's a problem for those who had long periods of unemployment..but these still get a part old age pension or full old age pension depending on how much Super they have when they retire. (our age pensions are a means tested entitlement from  the general revenue, everyone qualifies if they are below a certain assets and income level (family home exempt)

You do get to choose the fund that takes your super...and in most cases move your money into another fund if your not happy . 

People who started work around 1983 should be fine by the time they reach retirement age (you cant retire early AND take your super out)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Meat Wad said:

People are living longer. How much can the younger tax payers afford the to pay retires?

The means test is the best way.
Too many wealthy people collect big checks just because they can and those who really need it are left out with very little.

It's kind of like Workers Comp. WKC is really designed to protect employers instead of taking care of the truly injured.

 

SS is caped.  Wealthy people don't get bigger checks by being more wealthy.  The SS check may be a vanishingly small amount of their money in truth.  

"If by the age of 22, you were contributing the maximum amount possible to social security and are scheduled to retire at the age of 65 in 2015, the year when this message was written, you would receive $2,452 monthly."

So yes, assuming he's paid in at the max, Bill Gates will get 2500 / month at 65.  Here's a cold hard truth.  My mother was getting $1900 / month FIFTEEN YEARS AGO.  By the time I retire, my check, in actual (non-inflation dollars) is going to be close to what she got.  There's already a pretty progressive decay in the payout through cooking of the COLA books.

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

What people usually mean is that they want to INCREASE the amount of income that is taxed through SSI but that the wealthy person no longer gains credit for the tax paid so that it breaks the money in, money out link. 

BTW:  the problem with the 'means' test is that it would actually require that you get deeply into a persons wealth to determine if they 'need' the money.  There's already tax on SSI if you're working or getting taxable income by some other means so the alternative is to take it away completely?  

What happens if someone is sitting on a $20,000,000 Florida home, taking out a loan (therefore not income) on said home and using that to support the lifestyle.  They have no intention of ever selling the home and will use it to cover the loan when they die.  Can you cut their SSI?  They have NO INCOME.  They're eating equity.  Are you going to forcibly evict them from their home or force them to sell it because of a government 'assessment' of it's value?  What happens if there's a market downturn and they stand to lose a bunch of money if they sell it now?   You REALLY want the government up in your business THAT much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

 

 

What happens if someone is sitting on a $20,000,000 Florida home, taking out a loan (therefore not income) on said home and using that to support the lifestyle.  They have no intention of ever selling the home and will use it to cover the loan when they die.  Can you cut their SSI?  They have NO INCOME.  They're eating equity.  Are you going to forcibly evict them from their home or force them to sell it because of a government 'assessment' of it's value?  What happens if there's a market downturn and they stand to lose a bunch of money if they sell it now?   You REALLY want the government up in your business THAT much?

Actually, yes. The deck is already terribly stacked against those that work for a living. Why can't the trust funders pay as well? i hear from righties all the time that the poor need to have skin-in-the-game. Why not the wealthy?

personally, I'd phase out SS payments on some graduated wealth scale.  County govt already assesses housing, and it's pretty easy to check bank and brokerage balances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Actually, yes. The deck is already terribly stacked against those that work for a living. Why can't the trust funders pay as well? i hear from righties all the time that the poor need to have skin-in-the-game. Why not the wealthy?

personally, I'd phase out SS payments on some graduated wealth scale.  County govt already assesses housing, and it's pretty easy to check bank and brokerage balances.

Personally, I'd MUCH rather just break the pay/payout ratio and tax people beyond $145K at some nominal rate (whatever the current break is) and pay for SSI  that way.

Collect taxes, pay for services.   Part of the reason people don't trust the government as it is is because taxes/services are so byzantine.  More clarity, less intrusion.  If you want to tax wealth, get it the old fashioned way - inflation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cmilliken said:

What happens if someone is sitting on a $20,000,000 Florida home, taking out a loan (therefore not income) on said home and using that to support the lifestyle.  They have no intention of ever selling the home and will use it to cover the loan when they die.  Can you cut their SSI?  They have NO INCOME.  They're eating equity. 

So some asshole who used the Florida  homestead exemption to welch on their debts elsewhere should be protected? Screw that.

the problem is not enough people being able to contribute enough to the economy (ak being valuable enough earners) to support themselves. Every time this is raised Republicans go on some moronic bootstrap rant while ignoring the reality of the millions that need to bootstrap themselves(a mathematical impossibility), and the Democrats throw handouts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Means test SS.  Until you have depleted your personal wealth, you can't draw.  After that we'll give you three hots and a cot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cmilliken said:

 

SS is caped.  Wealthy people don't get bigger checks by being more wealthy.  The SS check may be a vanishingly small amount of their money in truth.  

"If by the age of 22, you were contributing the maximum amount possible to social security and are scheduled to retire at the age of 65 in 2015, the year when this message was written, you would receive $2,452 monthly."

So yes, assuming he's paid in at the max, Bill Gates will get 2500 / month at 65.  Here's a cold hard truth.  My mother was getting $1900 / month FIFTEEN YEARS AGO.  By the time I retire, my check, in actual (non-inflation dollars) is going to be close to what she got.  There's already a pretty progressive decay in the payout through cooking of the COLA books.

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

What people usually mean is that they want to INCREASE the amount of income that is taxed through SSI but that the wealthy person no longer gains credit for the tax paid so that it breaks the money in, money out link. 

BTW:  the problem with the 'means' test is that it would actually require that you get deeply into a persons wealth to determine if they 'need' the money.  There's already tax on SSI if you're working or getting taxable income by some other means so the alternative is to take it away completely?  

What happens if someone is sitting on a $20,000,000 Florida home, taking out a loan (therefore not income) on said home and using that to support the lifestyle.  They have no intention of ever selling the home and will use it to cover the loan when they die.  Can you cut their SSI?  They have NO INCOME.  They're eating equity.  Are you going to forcibly evict them from their home or force them to sell it because of a government 'assessment' of it's value?  What happens if there's a market downturn and they stand to lose a bunch of money if they sell it now?   You REALLY want the government up in your business THAT much?

You miss the point, Do the even need it. PERIOD.

SS was meant as a Social Safety Net.

It has become a right, not included in the constitution.

I'm all for dissolving SSs and SSD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

So some asshole who used the Florida  homestead exemption to welch on their debts elsewhere should be protected? Screw that.

the problem is not enough people being able to contribute enough to the economy (ak being valuable enough earners) to support themselves. Every time this is raised Republicans go on some moronic bootstrap rant while ignoring the reality of the millions that need to bootstrap themselves(a mathematical impossibility), and the Democrats throw handouts.

Wow, you guys have it bad. Ain't ain't Income folks. The real issue is wealth. The wealthy can hide income. The wage earners? Not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Meat Wad said:

You miss the point, Do the even need it. PERIOD.

SS was meant as a Social Safety Net.

It has become a right, not included in the constitution.

I'm all for dissolving SSs and SSD.

Sweet. I hope Congress feels the same way and kills it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Meat Wad said:

You miss the point, Do the even need it. PERIOD.

SS was meant as a Social Safety Net.

It has become a right, not included in the constitution.

I'm all for dissolving SSs and SSD.

Many people agree with you. Unfortunately, the window has closed for your best chance to do something about it. 59,000,000 people now depend on Social Security, and I can't think of any rational way to end that without hurting a lot of people. The stock market is a great tool for building wealth, but highly undependable as evidenced in the recessions of 1960, 1969, 1973, 1980, 1981, 1990, 2001, 2007. Crashes of 1987, mini-crash of 1989, Dot com bubble, 2000, The financial crisis of 2007-2008, and the stock market selloff of 2015-2016. George Bush tried to drown it by putting the Iraq War and Medicare part D on the national credit card, but that didn't work.

The next best chance comes after the baby boomers die off, but resistance from Gen X may be too difficult to deal with. Good luck, it will take a helluva salesman and a peachy economy to convince anyone of changing systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It started with Robin Hood.  Stealing from the rich to pay to the poor and downtrodden.   FDR decided that seemed like a good idea but lets disguise it by making everyone who works pay into it and delay the payments until folks had only a few years left before death.  In CA they had a bunch of SS wannabes, but pyramid schemes were declared illegal.  Ponzi tried again and it worked for a while-heck, Madoff seemed to do fine with the concept; again, for a while.  State lotteries are another form of stealing money on a dream and giving "just enough" back so folks continue to pay into it.  If you work your whole life at a decent wage, you only get pennies back for what you pay into it.  That's right, it only truly benefits folks who get disabled or can't work for a decent wage.   S'OK; I contribute to lots of charities.  SS is just another one-but I can't write off my contribution, darn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Jesus, Bad Latte - why are you such a disingenuous partisan hack?  I recall several discussions here where the liberals all agreed that the only way to save SS was to raise the eligibility age.  So now we have a republican who is suggesting the same and suddenly its the end of the fucking world.  

 I recall no conversation where liberals all agreed that the only way to save SS was to raise eligibility. There are other, more attractive ways to accomplish this and less painless for truck drivers, and ditch diggers, and others, whose backs will not allow them to continue in their trade craft. You want disingenuous partisan hacks? try to pull this off in an election year and you won't know what hit you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

Means test SS.  Until you have depleted your personal wealth, you can't draw.  After that we'll give you three hots and a cot.

What? It's been coming out of my paycheck for decades. Because I'm responsible and work my ass off, I should take it in the ass? Same with Medicare.

Why should I have to liquidate my assets instead of getting the money I paid into the social system back? That wasn't the deal. I paid into SS and Medicare beginning in 1988. Give me my money back or just plain stop taking it. Or, be honest about it at least.

I was poor as shit for a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Wow, you guys have it bad. Ain't ain't Income folks. The real issue is wealth. The wealthy can hide income. The wage earners? Not so much.

Yup. as cmilliken agrees, we aren't short of investment capital at the moment so why let it get a free ride?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Many people agree with you. Unfortunately, the window has closed for your best chance to do something about it. 59,000,000 people now depend on Social Security, and I can't think of any rational way to end that without hurting a lot of people. The stock market is a great tool for building wealth, but highly undependable as evidenced in the recessions of 1960, 1969, 1973, 1980, 1981, 1990, 2001, 2007. Crashes of 1987, mini-crash of 1989, Dot com bubble, 2000, The financial crisis of 2007-2008, and the stock market selloff of 2015-2016. George Bush tried to drown it by putting the Iraq War and Medicare part D on the national credit card, but that didn't work.

The next best chance comes after the baby boomers die off, but resistance from Gen X may be too difficult to deal with. Good luck, it will take a helluva salesman and a peachy economy to convince anyone of changing systems.

There are many who wish to weed out the corruption and just let them die.
And do not think I am not on either side.
I get a medical annuity for my paraplegia and just started getting SSD at the age of 60. I probably could have started getting it 10 year earlier.
I know so many people that are gaming the system, I wish they would say, "SORRY, but you are all gonna die a slow death."
This country has not seen anything like the rest of the world has seen.

Grow up and get a life i say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Yup. as cmilliken agrees, we aren't short of investment capital at the moment so why let it get a free ride?

Tell you elected Reps to FIX THE GODDAMN SYSTEM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Meat Wad said:

There are many who wish to weed out the corruption and just let them die.
And do not think I am not on either side.
I get a medical annuity for my paraplegia and just started getting SSD at the age of 60. I probably could have started getting it 10 year earlier.
I know so many people that are gaming the system, I wish they would say, "SORRY, but you are all gonna die a slow death."
This country has not seen anything like the rest of the world has seen.

Grow up and get a life i say.

I'll agree with you there, there are a lot of people that want the easy way. I have seen it first hand, and I've seen it in the VA system as well. If there is anything Trump can do about this I'll welcome it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, badlatitude said:

 I recall no conversation where liberals all agreed that the only way to save SS was to raise eligibility. There are other, more attractive ways to accomplish this and less painless for truck drivers, and ditch diggers, and others, whose backs will not allow them to continue in their trade craft. You want disingenuous partisan hacks? try to pull this off in an election year and you won't know what hit you.

You and Meli have a good point with trades and assembly workers. Forty-some years, even thirty-some years of that and your joints are worn out.

The issue is mostly Medicare. Before Medicare came in for retirees in 1965, SS had money in the bank, they were as profitable as FHA is now. But the Medicare was a double whammy, it was/is expensive and it helped retirees live longer, extending their benefits.

The reality is that we pay in for our SS cash benefits, but our Medicare benefits are a blatantly socialist, blatantly subsidized single payer healthcare service. That truth may not sit well with Republicans, but they don't turn down the benefits out of any principle.

I only stayed at a Holiday Inn and I'm genuinely clueless on the specifics, but the way I would fix it is to embrace the socialism of healthcare, feed single payer ObamaCare young'ns into the Medicare, staged over their lifetimes,  and then they can pay for their late-life healthcare costs with their early-life health. And since everyone is living longer, some kind of semi-retired, 15 hour a week instructional positions with Job Corps would help everyone ... make a extra few shekels in retirement by training others in whatever you did. NYC has a volunteer mentoring program like that with SCORE, it works well, just add a little salary, expand to trades and even minimum wage jobs, and follow that model.  https://newyorkcity.score.org/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

We pay compulsory superannuation..or at least our employers do..

 

I paid into Australian superannuation, what happened to that dough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, mikewof said:

I paid into Australian superannuation, what happened to that dough?

It should still be there.(depending on when you were working here) If you have an Australian TFN.

The ATO will happily find it for you.

https://www.ato.gov.au/forms/searching-for-lost-super/

 

As a foreign worker no longer resident, they'll let you withdraw it but tax around 38% of it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Modurn-ate said:

With modern medicine and health care there is no reason not to raise it to 85yrs. Hell kids do not even leave home before almost 30yo!

Shut the fuck up :D

Like I want to be working AND looking after two "kids" when i'm 85

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Modurn-ate said:

My comment was USA based as they are proven to be better and longer at everything, plus live to 100+years  eazy

Hmmm I though american kids were put out to work picking punkin when they graduated 4th grade?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mikewof said:

You and Meli have a good point with trades and assembly workers. Forty-some years, even thirty-some years of that and your joints are worn out.

The issue is mostly Medicare. Before Medicare came in for retirees in 1965, SS had money in the bank, they were as profitable as FHA is now. But the Medicare was a double whammy, it was/is expensive and it helped retirees live longer, extending their benefits.

The reality is that we pay in for our SS cash benefits, but our Medicare benefits are a blatantly socialist, blatantly subsidized single payer healthcare service. That truth may not sit well with Republicans, but they don't turn down the benefits out of any principle.

I only stayed at a Holiday Inn and I'm genuinely clueless on the specifics, but the way I would fix it is to embrace the socialism of healthcare, feed single payer ObamaCare young'ns into the Medicare, staged over their lifetimes,  and then they can pay for their late-life healthcare costs with their early-life health. And since everyone is living longer, some kind of semi-retired, 15 hour a week instructional positions with Job Corps would help everyone ... make a extra few shekels in retirement by training others in whatever you did. NYC has a volunteer mentoring program like that with SCORE, it works well, just add a little salary, expand to trades and even minimum wage jobs, and follow that model.  https://newyorkcity.score.org/

Mike, part of the problem is our politicians don't look past lobbyists to discover an answer; there isn't an original thinker in the whole bunch. Until we make a national discussion our priority, nothing will change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is great- younger folk are already pissed off that boomers won't retire (and get out of the way), and righties seem to actually like the idea of aged poor (people must be punished for their bad decisions, after all).  What could possibly go wrong?  Kids staying at home forever is just a start.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, austin1972 said:

What? It's been coming out of my paycheck for decades. Because I'm responsible and work my ass off, I should take it in the ass? Same with Medicare.

Why should I have to liquidate my assets instead of getting the money I paid into the social system back? That wasn't the deal. I paid into SS and Medicare beginning in 1988. Give me my money back or just plain stop taking it. Or, be honest about it at least.

I was poor as shit for a long time.

SS will be there when you need it.  If you've saved a small fortune, use it.  When you no longer have enough to provide basic needs, SS will kick in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Spatial Ed said:

SS will be there when you need it.  If you've saved a small fortune, use it.  When you no longer have enough to provide basic needs, SS will kick in.

So what kind of horizon would you need to effectively plan that?   2023, for example, is only 6 years away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mikewof said:

You and Meli have a good point with trades and assembly workers. Forty-some years, even thirty-some years of that and your joints are worn out.

The issue is mostly Medicare. Before Medicare came in for retirees in 1965, SS had money in the bank, they were as profitable as FHA is now. But the Medicare was a double whammy, it was/is expensive and it helped retirees live longer, extending their benefits.

The reality is that we pay in for our SS cash benefits, but our Medicare benefits are a blatantly socialist, blatantly subsidized single payer healthcare service. That truth may not sit well with Republicans, but they don't turn down the benefits out of any principle.

I only stayed at a Holiday Inn and I'm genuinely clueless on the specifics, but the way I would fix it is to embrace the socialism of healthcare, feed single payer ObamaCare young'ns into the Medicare, staged over their lifetimes,  and then they can pay for their late-life healthcare costs with their early-life health. And since everyone is living longer, some kind of semi-retired, 15 hour a week instructional positions with Job Corps would help everyone ... make a extra few shekels in retirement by training others in whatever you did. NYC has a volunteer mentoring program like that with SCORE, it works well, just add a little salary, expand to trades and even minimum wage jobs, and follow that model.  https://newyorkcity.score.org/

Having had my own business, that was pretty much my plan- gradually phase out.  The guy I  apprenticeshiped with did that, and it worked nicely.  I don't see many 50 something CEO's going along with it, or ambitious 30 or 40 year old climbers.  When control is important, kindness goes out the window.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

SS will be there when you need it.  If you've saved a small fortune, use it.  When you no longer have enough to provide basic needs, SS will kick in.

 

The average health care costs after Medicare for a couple retiring at 65 is $260,000, up from $245,000 in one year.  That's HEALTH CARE.  Nothing else.

http://time.com/money/4453094/your-retirement-health-care-tab-260000/

SS will be necessary pretty quick for virtually everyone.  Relying on the 'paydown' principle might help delay the inevitable  but it's not going to save SSI. 

Healthcare costs EAT EVERYTHING.  Unless you've been incredibly lucky, you can't out save it.  You can't out earn in.  It will consume everything any average person has set aside.

It's just math. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cmilliken said:

 

The average health care costs after Medicare for a couple retiring at 65 is $260,000, up from $245,000 in one year.  That's HEALTH CARE.  Nothing else.

http://time.com/money/4453094/your-retirement-health-care-tab-260000/

SS will be necessary pretty quick for virtually everyone.  Relying on the 'paydown' principle might help delay the inevitable  but it's not going to save SSI. 

Healthcare costs EAT EVERYTHING.  Unless you've been incredibly lucky, you can't out save it.  You can't out earn in.  It will consume everything any average person has set aside.

It's just math. 

 

Yep.  My old man has consumed his entire life's income in healthcare over the last 5 years or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

As I understand it, you guys pay into your SS during your working life.

We pay compulsory superannuation..or at least our employers do..

Employer puts the equivalent of 9% of your salary PA into a registered (and regulated) fund (that was paid for by employees forgoing a national pay rise) The employee may make extra contributions from their net salary. Also the gove will tip in an extra $3000 a year or so if an employee puts in $3000 directly from their AWE. So someone like me could be putting 10,000 or more away..the trick is to choose a fund with low or no fees and a good investment record.

They may not touch this until retirement. It's not perfect, but most people my age, if they continued to work have a comfortable lump sum or pension by the time they hit retirement age.

There's a problem for those who had long periods of unemployment..but these still get a part old age pension or full old age pension depending on how much Super they have when they retire. (our age pensions are a means tested entitlement from  the general revenue, everyone qualifies if they are below a certain assets and income level (family home exempt)

You do get to choose the fund that takes your super...and in most cases move your money into another fund if your not happy . 

People who started work around 1983 should be fine by the time they reach retirement age (you cant retire early AND take your super out)

 

Nice....Democrats wouldn't go for privatization here. Government has to control the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Dog said:

Nice....Democrats wouldn't go for privatization here. Government has to control the money.

 

1 hour ago, cmilliken said:

 

The average health care costs after Medicare for a couple retiring at 65 is $260,000, up from $245,000 in one year.  That's HEALTH CARE.  Nothing else.

http://time.com/money/4453094/your-retirement-health-care-tab-260000/

SS will be necessary pretty quick for virtually everyone.  Relying on the 'paydown' principle might help delay the inevitable  but it's not going to save SSI. 

Healthcare costs EAT EVERYTHING.  Unless you've been incredibly lucky, you can't out save it.  You can't out earn in.  It will consume everything any average person has set aside.

It's just math. 

 

 

How does privatization fix this Dog? How do you fix the basic math problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Dog said:

Nice....Democrats wouldn't go for privatization here. Government has to control the money.

I thought we already had a profit driven health care system in this country. Perhaps when Republicans can operate a private enterprise geared to the public efficiently and in the public's interest, you might have something. Until then, I look at the Republican graveyard of good intent. Mental health, 300,000 in prison and the rest homeless. Prisons, where we find laws to throw people in jail to keep them filled and they still fail. Defense, where we pay private contractors enormous sums for cost overruns, then make a general a vice president of the company. Chicago parking meters, where Morgan Stanley went in and made it impossible for the city to add parking garages, where in the end Morgan Stanley makes $9.58 billion while the city of Chicago earns a paltry $1.15 billion. The list goes on and it is long. I might be swayed by privatization, but not until I see it done right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument toward privatization has two basic legs.

1)  Allowing people to invest in the capital markets allows for the potential of higher than inflation growth and the potential to create wealth beyond simply saving money.  They would almost assuredly do better than the government T-Bill strategy.

2)  Having a 'running total' of how much you've saved gives people an incentive to save more in the long run since they can see their own shortfall in retirement.

 

The counter arguments are:

1)  The capital markets can create wealth but there is volatility.  Truly 'safe' returns - those you'd want for permanent retirement capital - do not  generate anywhere near the kinds of returns you'd really need to beat inflation over time - real inflation - things like health care costs - not COLA bullshit numbers.  Social security essentially buys 100% T-Bills.  ANYTHING beyond that level of return requires risk of SOME kind.  If it's backstopped by the government anyway, the capital markets will respond accordingly - see Sallie Mae as an example of 'free market' GSEs.

1a)  The capital markets can't  adsorb the kinds of injection of capital that privatizing SSI would result in.  PEIs are already grossly elevated by historical standards.

2)  People don't save money, even when they know they should.  They just don't.  Without mandatory extraction, people won't save.  Since we're not going to let people die in the streets, EVEN IF THEY DESERVE IT, the whole argument is pretty moot.   Responsible people will save regardless, irresponsible or unable people won't save, no matter if they have a running total or warnings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

The argument toward privatization has two basic legs.

1)  Allowing people to invest in the capital markets allows for the potential of higher than inflation growth and the potential to create wealth beyond simply saving money.  They would almost assuredly do better than the government T-Bill strategy.

2)  Having a 'running total' of how much you've saved gives people an incentive to save more in the long run since they can see their own shortfall in retirement.

 

The counter arguments are:

1)  The capital markets can create wealth but there is volatility.  Truly 'safe' returns - those you'd want for permanent retirement capital - do not  generate anywhere near the kinds of returns you'd really need to beat inflation over time - real inflation - things like health care costs - not COLA bullshit numbers.  Social security essentially buys 100% T-Bills.  ANYTHING beyond that level of return requires risk of SOME kind.  If it's backstopped by the government anyway, the capital markets will respond accordingly - see Sallie Mae as an example of 'free market' GSEs.

1a)  The capital markets can't  adsorb the kinds of injection of capital that privatizing SSI would result in.  PEIs are already grossly elevated by historical standards.

2)  People don't save money, even when they know they should.  They just don't.  Without mandatory extraction, people won't save.  Since we're not going to let people die in the streets, EVEN IF THEY DESERVE IT, the whole argument is pretty moot.   Responsible people will save regardless, irresponsible or unable people won't save, no matter if they have a running total or warnings.

Originally, and probably the biggest counter argument, SS is NOT a savings vehicle. It's a payroll tax, that pays benefits a minimum backstop of income to avoid poverty after a lifetime of working. 

Might as well treat it as what it is now, a payroll tax on the young, to make older middle income folks retirement more cushy. 

 

It's still NOT a savings account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

1)  Allowing people to invest in the capital markets allows for the potential of higher than inflation growth and the potential to create wealth beyond simply saving money.  They would almost assuredly do better than the government T-Bill strategy.

What's the total of potential earnings above inflation for the entirety of the pool of investors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Originally, and probably the biggest counter argument, SS is NOT a savings vehicle. It's a payroll tax, that pays benefits a minimum backstop of income to avoid poverty after a lifetime of working. 

Might as well treat it as what it is now, a payroll tax on the young, to make older middle income folks retirement more cushy. 

 

It's still NOT a savings account.

All true ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These changes would impact me as I'm first eligible in 2025. Fortunately I've not planned on receiving anything.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Amati said:

So what kind of horizon would you need to effectively plan that?   2023, for example, is only 6 years away.

Means testing could be immediate.  Use your savings first, then suck off the teete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

Means testing could be immediate.  Use your savings first, then suck off the teete.

Admirable goal, however impossible to implement. Income is difficult enough to measure and report. Wealth is near impossible. A wealthy person's "savings" might be zero, or even less than zero, while their worth is astronomical and unmeasurable. Intangibles, trademarks, good will, real estate, heirlooms, art, jewels, offshore holdings, sailboats, etc. etc.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, daddle said:

Admirable goal, however impossible to implement. Income is difficult enough to measure and report. Wealth is near impossible. A wealthy person's "savings" might be zero, or even less than zero, while their worth is astronomical and unmeasurable. Intangibles, trademarks, good will, real estate, heirlooms, art, jewels, offshore holdings, sailboats, etc. etc.

 

Nope. Lots of stuff is easily traceable, and there are Estate taxes for the rest.

 

in a fair world that is...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Meat Wad said:

You miss the point, Do the even need it. PERIOD.

SS was meant as a Social Safety Net.

It has become a right, not included in the constitution.

I'm all for dissolving SSs and SSD.

They could start by eliminating it for Republican voters and see how that goes.

They should be all in favour of it so no political fallout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Nope. Lots of stuff is easily traceable, and there are Estate taxes for the rest.

 

in a fair world that is...

And how much would that be worth in a 90% buyers market?  Even in a fair world?  Going from affluence to penury in a couple of years? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Amati said:

And how much would that be worth in a 90% buyers market?  Even in a fair world?  Going from affluence to penury in a couple of years? 

Hmm? Not sure I follow....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Hmm? Not sure I follow....

Spend your wealth and get rid your stuff in a buyer's market- kind of like the used sailboat market now.  Although the woes of the used sailboat market that we've been seeing might be more a result of the aging baby boomers and the concomitant economic stress that goes with it.  I know more than a few folks over 65 using their social security check to feed the sailboat fund...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Amati said:

Spend your wealth and get rid your stuff in a buyer's market- kind of like the used sailboat market now.  Although the woes of the used sailboat market that we've been seeing might be more a result of the aging baby boomers and the concomitant economic stress that goes with it.  I know more than a few folks over 65 using their social security check to feed the sailboat fund...

Yes, but is it the states responsibility to ensure you keep your wealth?  Or does the state just provide a safety net for those who need it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

Yes, but is it the states responsibility to ensure you keep your wealth?  Or does the state just provide a safety net for those who need it?

Seems to be the former now, especially in battles over the tax code.  If we were to relegate Social Security to welfare, how many years would be necessary to make the transition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Amati said:

Seems to be the former now, especially in battles over the tax code.  If we were to relegate Social Security to welfare, how many years would be necessary to make the transition?

Hmmm, good question. The wealthy don't care. The poor wouldn't be impacted, it would be the middle class losing an entitlement. i would suggest it's a long transition, likely starting with "more SS is taxable" and ending with "SS goes away on a sliding scale of wealth" 10 years out or so.

 

Has about as much chance of passing as Madonna feeling like a virgin, again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

Hmmm, good question. The wealthy don't care. The poor wouldn't be impacted, it would be the middle class losing an entitlement. i would suggest it's a long transition, likely starting with "more SS is taxable" and ending with "SS goes away on a sliding scale of wealth" 10 years out or so.

 

Has about as much chance of passing as Madonna feeling like a virgin, again.

The sliding scale might drive conservatives nuts- as well as the newly retired- probably have to be 30-35 years?

you are referring to the Virgin Mary?  Unless Jesus had a sister by Joseph...

you know the old Episcopalian joke- Why did the church allow theology?  To keep agnostics in the church--

thankyou ladies and germs!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Amati said:

The sliding scale might drive conservatives nuts- as well as the newly retired- probably have to be 30-35 years?

you are referring to the Virgin Mary?  Unless Jesus had a sister by Joseph...

you know the old Episcopalian joke- Why did the church allow theology?  To keep agnostics in the church--

thankyou ladies and germs!

Madonna the washed up singer.  "like a vir-r-r-r-gin"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/11/2017 at 11:15 PM, austin1972 said:

What? It's been coming out of my paycheck for decades. Because I'm responsible and work my ass off, I should take it in the ass? Same with Medicare.

Why should I have to liquidate my assets instead of getting the money I paid into the social system back? That wasn't the deal. I paid into SS and Medicare beginning in 1988. Give me my money back or just plain stop taking it. Or, be honest about it at least.

I was poor as shit for a long time.

yep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting to hear everyone complain about every proposal that comes along to fix Soc Sec, Medicare or Medicaid - without proposing anything. They're all running in the red and getting much worse every year, so I guess our kids and grandkids should just keep paying more and more to support those on Soc Sec - without any sacrifice from recipients. Keeping in mind the kids and grandkids have been told they can expect much less if anything. Sound fair? And the vague tax the wealthy and corporations more doesn't work either, they aren't enough "wealthy" to make up the difference and corporations will just pass the increased burden on to their customers. If you can show the math to make the latter work, we'd all love to see it...

The only fair solution in my view is shared sacrifice, from recipients and contributors, probably phased in to avoid totally shocking the status quo. Flame away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What really ticks me off about the Republican proposals is the idea that anyone under 50 should just take it in the shorts, while those older and more likely to be Republican voters are protected. I have maxed out contributions since I was 19, now they want to change the rules on me after 30 years of putting in? SS is not everything I am counting on, but considering I will be putting a kid through college after retirement, it sure will make a difference. If the system needs to be adjusted, it should be done across the board including current recipients. I don't really think it has to be as dire as some are making it out to be. Some combination of increased immigration, raising of caps on max contributions, fixing the loopholes on carried interest and capital gains, and some other tweaks and it could be managed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should deplete all your tax deferred retirement savings and income before you can collect SS.  Assets like homes, yachts, collectibles need not be liquidated.  Just use your retirement savings first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The U.S. has gone soft. The "can do" attitude lost long ago. Spineless politicians leading a timid confused public. The majority afraid to rule...to tax the 1%. The politicians love war but are too timid to declare them.  Public loves war but would rather not line up to enlist. The population is unhappy yet still thinks all countries should follow our system...to the point of endless failed attempts at regime-change and nation-building around the world. Marching around in white hoods worried about particular shades of skin color? It's over. Failed. Cut it up. Give the northern part to Canada, the west to Mexico, and leave the rest to join the third world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

You should deplete all your tax deferred retirement savings and income before you can collect SS.  Assets like homes, yachts, collectibles need not be liquidated.  Just use your retirement savings first.

That just encourages gamesmanship. Find ways to hide money and assets and then start collecting.

 

12 minutes ago, MidPack said:

If you think it's easy, take a whack at it yourself http://www.crfb.org/socialsecurityreformer/

Some options may be missing, but the major levers are there. If you come up with an answer, make sure you acknowledge who's being asked to sacrifice something...

And when you're done solving this issue, Medicare is much worse!

christie_spending_revenue.jpg

Using that calculator, taxing all wages moves the problem out to 2070. Increasing immigration and taxing short term capital gains, carried interest, and closing some other loopholes available to the uber rich would close the gap entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, daddle said:

The U.S. has gone soft. The "can do" attitude lost long ago. Spineless politicians leading a timid confused public. The majority afraid to rule...to tax the 1%. The politicians love war but are too timid to declare them.  Public loves war but would rather not line up to enlist. The population is unhappy yet still thinks all countries should follow our system...to the point of endless failed attempts at regime-change and nation-building around the world. Marching around in white hoods worried about particular shades of skin color? It's over. Failed. Cut it up. Give the northern part to Canada, the west to Mexico, and leave the rest to join the third world.

I don't know about that, but we'd probably be better off as two or three countries .  Lincoln had a chance to cut the South loose, but didn't.  Maybe, in the future, the South can go it's own way.   California-Oregon-Washington State may want to form a country.  

When a turbo-christian like Ted Cruz can push his twisted agenda on more enlightened states, it's obvious we have a problem.  Also, I'm sure the mouth breathers in Kansas don't want to deal with my book-learning and belief in evolution.   Maybe something like this

main-qimg-d790fb9489f4a8bbfa04cca01a7367

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, LenP said:

That just encourages gamesmanship. Find ways to hide money and assets and then start collecting.

 

Using that calculator, taxing all wages moves the problem out to 2070. Increasing immigration and taxing short term capital gains, carried interest, and closing some other loopholes available to the uber rich would close the gap entirely.

If you hit the "wealthy" by taxing all income with the payroll tax, and means testing, and aging from 67 onwards, it increases revenue and whacks costs.  Pretty much balances it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites