MrFatbooty

Okay so yeah, we all know Social Security is messed up. Hell, even I am sick of it. The way I see it, I'm paying a bunch of social security taxes which go directly into the government's yearly budget and it's highly unlikely I'll ever get that money back.

What's weird is that for all the talk of this suddenly being the case, it's ALWAYS been the case. Social Security isn't a government retirement fund, it's a government old-age insurance policy that we as taxpayers are forced to buy into. With good financial planning, it's possible to take that money which gets siphoned out of one's wages and turn it into a whole lot more money, and then that money would negate the need for this insurance policy which is Social Security.

So the Republicans are trumpeting around this idea of personal accounts. But the problem those would create is how the hell does the government get the money to fulfill all of its current obligations to hand out Social Security benefits. It's not like the government is a company which can go bankrupt and disavow its pension plan. It has to pay, and it has to get the money from somwhere. I don't see how that problem can be easily solved. The money isn't going to magically materialize and I don't think anyone really wants the government to go even further into debt to finance the payment of its obligations.

So how do we balance the seemingly incongruous goals of both paying for the current obligations of the Social Security program as it exists now, and also making some way for folks my age to get some of their money back at some point in the future? I for one am sick of paying into the system. But at the same time, if we young folk were allowed to stick our money into privatized accounts, how would the system pay its bills?

So here's some idea which randomly occurred to me: let's have the government issue Social Security bonds. Rather than the typical Series EE savings bond which is purchased for half its face value and accrues interest for a certain number of years and then stops, it could be a savings bond with the same sort of properties as Social Security benefits have now. Like, you buy a bond and it's only good once you hit age 67, but it's prjected to follow inflation or better. So whatever we project inflation to be over the period of time from your age at time of purchase of the bond to the eligibility age, is the fraction of the bond you actually have to pay for. The incentive to invest is to hope that the projected interest ends up being more than the actual inflation of the dollar; and also it's a good way to force oneself to keep assets in a non-liquid form to put away for retirement. That way us young folks can, if we want, still put money away for retirement in a fashion similar to what the private account folks are saying should be like, but putting the money away doesn't cut off the revenue stream to the government and allows it to pay its current obligations under Social Security while phasing it out by the time the Social Security bonds come up for eligibility.

So yeah, this is me purely trying to wrap my head around the issue. I don't think private accounts alone will fix it because they'll abruptly cut off the revenue from the social security tax. Please feel free to post your thoughs on solutions or whatever, regardless of political views or party affiliation. I think this is more a generational issue than one of party, and I think it's weird that the man who hardly is favored in my generation is the unlikely champion for our cause. But whatever, let's try and keep the politics out of it and just crunch on the problem.

LT

god that's too long to read right now.

DakarM

private accounts would actually make things worse.

social security isn't in that bad of a shape. small changes can save it and extended it indefinetly

there is a great article on the topic in business week (no link I have a subscription)

ED9man

I concur

But I will say that social security is a load of shit and old age is a shitty by product of modern medicince and lifestyle. Old people just leech on society and make it harder for younger people with futures. Like around here they buy up all the houses so people who want to start families can't afford housing. They don't like to pay schooling either or anything that doesn't benefit them. It's ridiculous how selfish they are and how they don't want to put anything back into the community. They like to put more money into police and fire stations even though they are already more than adequate which our schools are suffering from budget cuts. They almost had to start charging for parking last year. They usually get their way too because they have so much free time they get organized and involved in local politics. Old people suck.

Like when I was in Stop and Shop today getting groceries because my mom's too sick to go out and they were all in my way. I wanted to run them over with those awesome motorized cart scooter things they get to use. :madfawk:

DakarM

you know nothing of this subject and this posts proves it.

ED9man

You're probably right.
But that's how I see it. I don't know much about politics but those are some of the actual issues we have here. I just connect old people and social security. I know there's more to it that but I don't know what.

brtecson

I personally think that we should look into raising the benefit age by a few years. I doubt that would solve the problem entirely, but it sure would help. That social security bond doesn't sound half bad either.

Bl@ck

spoken like a true conservative :bigok: you thinking of batting for the other team mike?

MrFatbooty

I agree that private accounts would be a bad idea in and of themselves. But see, I don't even like the concept of it existing in its current form. It'd be one thing if it was truly a retirement savings plan of some kind, but it's not. No one ever stands a chance of getting back the money they put into Social Security.

Also objecting was James Roosevelt Jr., whose grandfather, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, signed the Social Security Act into law. "He was adamant that Social Security was an insurance program … not an investment plan," James Roosevelt said.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=452757

Now personally I would have no objection to a government retirement plan as long as it would be possible to get my money out of it once I reach a certain age. But even if there were no problem with Social Security that wouldn't be the case.

I dunno if the social security bond thing will work, but maybe it's a way to reconcile the two needs of the social security program fulfilling its current obligations and also allowing ud young folk to recoup our investment as it were.
No, I'm a college kid making less than ten grand a year and I'm sick of paying hundreds of dollars into Social Security that I know I'll never get back.

And if I'm thinking like a "true conservative," then what does that make all these numbskulls (Bush included) that are trumpeting private accounts as the best thing since sliced bread?

Besides, I don't think I'm going outside the definition of liberal:

Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas;

Favoring proposals for reform,

And did you know that thew almighty "conservative" concept of the government keeping its hands out of economic affairs is also part of the definition of liberal?

a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets

Amazing eh?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberal

umop-apisdn

I don't pretend to know a shred about Social Security. My opinion is let everyone worry about their own retirement. SS will almost definately be done away with by the time it's "my turn". This is why I started my own IRA at 19. I will retire a millionaire thanks to compounding interest :bigok: