The Media and Social Security

[vern_humphrey]

beckers:

I think this might be an interseting tibit about Social Security.

Dems Invoke FDR

Senate Democrats gathered at the Franklin Roosevelt Memorial (search) today to invoke the image of FDR in calling on President Bush to remove private accounts from his Social Security (search) proposal. But it turns out that FDR himself planned to include private investment accounts in the Social Security program when he proposed it.

In a written statement to Congress in 1935, Roosevelt said that any Social Security plans should include, “Voluntary contributory annuities, by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age,” adding that government funding, "ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."

foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146409,00.html

And if we had transitioned to Roosevelt’s self-supporting annuity plans in 1945, when the Depression was over and we had lots of workers and few retirees, this would be a different country. Elderly people would be living in comfort, instead of eking out a miserable existance on the pittance Social Security pays.

 

[katherine2]

Social Security reflects our commitment as a society to ensure a minimum level of security for all workers, their families, and persons with disabilities. Any changes in this essential program should extend our individual commitment to care for others across generational and economic lines. Because of the program’s commitment to workers, their families, and persons with disabilities, the Social Security reform discussion should address not only economic and political issues but also moral issues.

 

[vern_humphrey]

katherine2:

Social Security reflects our commitment as a society to ensure a minimum level of security for all workers, their families, and persons with disabilities. Any changes in this essential program should extend our individual commitment to care for others across generational and economic lines. Because of the program’s commitment to workers, their families, and persons with disabilities, the Social Security reform discussion should address not only economic and political issues but also moral issues.

Social Security reflects our gullability as a society, maintaining a system that milks young workers of all they might otherwise save, and returning to them a pittance when they are no longer able to work.

It provides billions of dollars for politicians to rip off and squander for their own agendas.

 

[JamesD]

I just figured it out!

If someone retiring at 65 today. Having worked full time for minimum wage from 18 years old (1956). And saving 4% of that minimum wage salary and investing it in Nasdaq spider fund. Would have $130,405 in that account!

I did this by getting the minimum wage history
dol.gov/esa/minwage/chart.htm
and, Nasdaq historical records:
finfacts.com/Private/curency/nasdaqcompositeperformance.htm

This is probably conservative because I don’t think that dividends are taken into account.

Thats a guy working 40 hrs/wk 50 wks/ yr at minimum wage!

 

[katherine2]

Social Security reflects our commitment as a society to ensure a minimum level of security for all workers, their families, and persons with disabilities. Any changes in this essential program should extend our individual commitment to care for others across generational and economic lines. Because of the program’s commitment to workers, their families, and persons with disabilities, the Social Security reform discussion should address not only economic and political issues but also moral issues.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Without Social Security people would save and invest for their future needs. This investment would spur economic growth and produce new jobs.

 

[katherine2]

Joe Kelley:

Without Social Security people would save and invest for their future needs. This investment would spur economic growth and produce new jobs.

So true. We didn’t have Social Security messing up the economy in 1929.:whacky:

 

[vern_humphrey]

katherine2:

So true. We didn’t have Social Security messing up the economy in 1929.:whacky:

What a remarkably nonsensical comment.

Are you claiming that Social Security would have PREVENTED the Great Depression? If not, what IS your point?

 

[katherine2]

vern humphrey:

Are you claiming that Social Security would have PREVENTED the Great Depression? If not, what IS your point?

People with (depending on their age) either short memories or no knowledge of history keep claiming if you strip away the catholic-inspired social welfare systems we have people would magically fullfill all of these charitable needs indivudually. Well, we only have to look back to the before the New Deal to see that is a bunch of bunk.

Social Security has saved millions of elderly Americans from poverty.

 

[caroljm36]

I’m afraid people wouldn’t save or would find some way to borrow it out. I worked in a lot of off-books jobs where no one would let the owner withhold even though it would make them legal, and would whine whenever it was suggested, then worry and fret and drink because they were afraid of the IRS catching them, then whine later because they knew they had no social security coming. They drew against their checks…lots of people live like this, week to week. Mabye it’s all the legal penny ante gambling machines. Don’t know about your town but mine has filled up with check-cashing joints. Even more stable types don’t start saving until it’s too late.

Those are the people who will be outta luck with private accounts. They would have to be absolutely mandatory and off-limits.

 

[katherine2]

caroljm36:

I’m afraid people wouldn’t save or would find some way to borrow it out. I worked in a lot of off-books jobs where no one would let the owner withhold even though it would make them legal, and would whine whenever it was suggested, then worry and fret and drink because they were afraid of the IRS catching them, then whine later because they knew they had no social security coming. They drew against their checks…lots of people live like this, week to week. Mabye it’s all the legal penny ante gambling machines. Don’t know about your town but mine has filled up with check-cashing joints. Even more stable types don’t start saving until it’s too late.

Those are the people who will be outta luck with private accounts. They would have to be absolutely mandatory and off-limits.

Very true.

The other losers under the President’s plan are large families, the disabled, and stay at home moms, widows, and women whose husband leaves his family. All of these have protection udner Social Security. Under the President’s plan, what is the requirement at a breadwinner take care of anyone but himself? What happens to women in a divorce? What about dependent children?

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

katherine2:

People with (depending on their age) either short memories or no knowledge of history keep claiming if you strip away the catholic-inspired social welfare systems we have people would magically fullfill all of these charitable needs indivudually. Well, we only have to look back to the before the New Deal to see that is a bunch of bunk.

Social Security has saved millions of elderly Americans from poverty.

There is just as many elderly that are in severe poverty because their social security doesn’t cut it.Elderly people dying because they can’t afford to turn the air on in 100 degree weather.

 

[JamesD]

katherine2:

Very true.

The other losers under the President’s plan are large families, the disabled, and stay at home moms, widows, and women whose husband leaves his family. All of these have protection udner Social Security. Under the President’s plan, what is the requirement at a breadwinner take care of anyone but himself? What happens to women in a divorce? What about dependent children?

I think you are way too sceptical regarding what the president might want to have the congress do. I have never heard anyone suggesting social security benefit reductions for the disabled or survivors etc. I do not think that anyone is suggesting that SS go to a pure “save for your own retirement system”.

Consider what both democrats (before W won) and republicans are saying is the problem. “There will be too many retired drawing benefits for the number of workers paying payroll taxes.” This has nothing to do with survivors, disabled etc. They are not the problem and I have heard no one suggest a change for them.

What I have heard being proposed is to take a portion of the payrole tax. (4% of gross pay would be ~ 1/4 of the payrole tax). What would happen to the rest of payrole tax? It would pay for the benefits of those retired, disabled, survivors etc. Currently the take in payrole taxes has been more than needed to pay the current beneficiaries. What has been done with this excess? Spent on other government programs welfare, military etc! What a way to soak the poor!

If, instead these excess revenues had been invested for the taxpayer there would be plenty of money for benefits. This assumes of course that the gov. does a good job of investing. Perhaps it could. But, what a huge influence the government would have. What industries would get investment? There would always be an objection to some investment. (The business exploites people, pays for abortion, pays off terrorists, contributes to religion…) That is one major reason why the investment must be made by people and not the Gov!

It would be an awfull sin for me (my generation) to demand that my (our) children pay so much for my foolishness. That will be the foolishness if we continue on this path of soaking the regular wage earner while at the same time creating a financial time bomb for our children and grandchildren.

The system should be, and needs to be improved. The people who exagerate the changes and react with doom and gloom to any suggestion of change are doing a diservice to the next generation.

I often wonder if those kids after realizing that the generation before caused them so much financial burden by being foolish with its tax system and by killing their brothers and sisters, will say yeah lets euthanize the old greedy coots!

 

[HagiaSophia]

katherine2:

Very true.

The other losers under the President’s plan are large families, the disabled, and stay at home moms, widows, and women whose husband leaves his family. All of these have protection udner Social Security. Under the President’s plan, what is the requirement at a breadwinner take care of anyone but himself? What happens to women in a divorce? What about dependent children?

1. The change is a voluntary OPTION - not a mandatory join.
2. In a plan as far reaching as this one would be, perhaps it would be best to wait until all the details are laid out, debate amongst state representatives is occurring before we start the gnashing of teeth and running around with “the sky is falling, the sky is falling”.

 

[katherine2]

Lisa4Catholics:

There is just as many elderly that are in severe poverty because their social security doesn’t cut it.Elderly people dying because they can’t afford to turn the air on in 100 degree weather.

1. Before Social Security, a third of Americans fell into poverty when they became elderly. Today, the poverty rate for elderly Americans is less than what it is for the general population.
2. true, even with Social Security we need more for a secure retirement. Personal savings is a part of that and so are private pensions. We need a sense of responsibility for the first and strong unions to acheive the second. Social Insurance only provides one leg of this three legged stool.
3. If you know of any such elderly people, please encourage them to learn about LIHEAP, a federal program that helps people in just such circumstances. They should apply quickly, before George Bush axes this program to death.

 

[katherine2]

JamesD:

I think you are way too sceptical regarding what the president might want to have the congress do.

Let me walk you through your post.

I have never heard anyone suggesting social security benefit reductions for the disabled or survivors etc. I do not think that anyone is suggesting that SS go to a pure “save for your own retirement system”.

You are right. The President’s plan is to cut 1/3 out of Social Security. 2/3rds would be left. This does mean that retirees, survivors and the disabled would get 2/3rds of what they now get in traditional Social Security.

Consider what both democrats (before W won) and republicans are saying is the problem. “There will be too many retired drawing benefits for the number of workers paying payroll taxes.” This has nothing to do with survivors, disabled etc. They are not the problem and I have heard no one suggest a change for them.

There is a problem with long term Social Security financing. Survivors and the disabled as well as retirees all draw from the same Social Security program.

What I have heard being proposed is to take a portion of the payrole tax. (4% of gross pay would be ~ 1/4 of the payrole tax).

Its closer to 1/3rd.

What would happen to the rest of payrole tax? It would pay for the benefits of those retired, disabled, survivors etc.

at 2/3rds of the current benefits.

Currently the take in payrole taxes has been more than needed to pay the current beneficiaries. What has been done with this excess? Spent on other government programs welfare, military etc! What a way to soak the poor!

If, instead these excess revenues had been invested for the taxpayer there would be plenty of money for benefits. This assumes of course that the gov. does a good job of investing. Perhaps it could. But, what a huge influence the government would have. What industries would get investment? There would always be an objection to some investment. (The business exploites people, pays for abortion, pays off terrorists, contributes to religion…) That is one major reason why the investment must be made by people and not the Gov!

Except that is not President Bush’s plan. He said the investment options would be very limited and follow the model of the federal employee Thrift Savings Plan. Bush said it would be this way too guard people from making bad investment decisions.

The Thrift Savings Plan, gives about 5 options. One is mostly Treasury Bonds – the same instrument that the government is currently investing the Social Security surplus funds in. If what the government is doing now is so bad, why is this being continued (in full disclosure, I own several T-bonds myself and I consider it a very safe investment). The stock option is a broad fund in which the investor will not have the option to pick individual companies and no ability to divest himself from abortion.

The system should be, and needs to be improved. The people who exagerate the changes and react with doom and gloom to any suggestion of change are doing a diservice to the next generation.

The system does need to be improved. But I think I have given you a fair description what the president has said about his plan. if I am wrong, please point out where.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

The Thrift Savings Plan, gives about 5 options. One is mostly Treasury Bonds – the same instrument that the government is currently investing the Social Security surplus funds in. If what the government is doing now is so bad, why is this being continued (in full disclosure, I own several T-bonds myself and I consider it a very safe investment). The stock option is a broad fund in which the investor will not have the option to pick individual companies and no ability to divest himself from abortion.

Can we please quit talking about the so-called trust fund. This is just a way to obscure the fact that there are no real assets in the Social Security system. The US government cannot buy it’s own bonds. Individuals can hold US T-bills, which would represent a real asset.

 

[vern_humphrey]

katherine2:

People with (depending on their age) either short memories or no knowledge of history keep claiming if you strip away the catholic-inspired social welfare systems we have people would magically fullfill all of these charitable needs indivudually. Well, we only have to look back to the before the New Deal to see that is a bunch of bunk. {/QUOTE]

People with (depending on their age) either short memories or no knowledge of history keep claiming these are catholic-inspired social welfare systems (and not offering a shred of proof.) They would also like to claim that the progress we have made is because of, not in spite of, vast, wasteful government programs. But anyone who understands historuy and economics can see that is a bunch of bunk.

katherine2:

Social Security has saved millions of elderly Americans from poverty.

Social Security, by stealing all their surplus income during their working lives, has condemned millions of elderly Americans to poverty.

If you dispute that, note the calculations I posted.

Explain to us how, when the time value of a person’s Social Security “contributions” is a couple of million dollars, that person gets so little in return that they often have to choose between paying for their prescritions and paying for their heating in the winter?

 

[vern_humphrey]

katherine2:

People with (depending on their age) either short memories or no knowledge of history keep claiming if you strip away the catholic-inspired social welfare systems we have people would magically fullfill all of these charitable needs indivudually. Well, we only have to look back to the before the New Deal to see that is a bunch of bunk.

Social Security has saved millions of elderly Americans from poverty.

 

[katherine2]

vern humphrey:

If you dispute that, note the calculations I posted.

Your math is messed up, Vern. Use a calculator.

Explain to us how, when the time value of a person’s Social Security “contributions” is a couple of million dollars, that person gets so little in return that they often have to choose between paying for their prescritions and paying for their heating in the winter?

Your math is wrong.