|
|
04-12-2010, 07:05 PM
|
#141
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,558
|
From my standpoint, the purpose of SS is to keep people who have not planned for their retirement from becoming homeless or holding up liquor stores when they reach the end of their lives.
We don't need a better solution. We have it, and it is called private savings and investment.
SS needs to provide a safety net for the fairly large group of people that will not plan for their retirement and will not be able to work in any meaningful way past 65.
The amount of that safety net may need to be trimmed back to an affordable amount, but I think we are stuck with the basic system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jIMOh
This will come across as self righteous (I assume) but retirement at 65 is NOT a right. You EARN retirement.
If a better solution is needed, allow private citizens to buy into a government pension plan (for example every $1000 of contributions buys you a 1 credit, and every X credits gives you $Y of income.
If the government pension plan above gave a 3% return and was only invested in treasuries, it could be considered an "option" to essentially buy up a SS benefit they have more control over.
|
|
|
|
|
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!
Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!
|
04-13-2010, 07:19 AM
|
#142
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 5,105
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamlet
From my standpoint, the purpose of SS is to keep people who have not planned for their retirement from becoming homeless or holding up liquor stores when they reach the end of their lives.
We don't need a better solution. We have it, and it is called private savings and investment.
SS needs to provide a safety net for the fairly large group of people that will not plan for their retirement and will not be able to work in any meaningful way past 65.
The amount of that safety net may need to be trimmed back to an affordable amount, but I think we are stuck with the basic system.
|
Go back to the history of the SS. The idea came about during the depression because of some of the old being destitute. But it ultimately, was not the safety net you describe. That is why you are assigned a SSN it was to be your money. Of course it got perverted along the way.
As a side note - it is surprising that no one on this board has mentioned phasing out the current way SS$ is invested to a Bond/Stock market based investments. Simply putting SS$ into 30 treasury bonds from the start of your working life would outperform the current returns for SS.
Another aspect not mentioned is the racial disparity in SS. Look at the life expectations for white men or women vs black men or women. .
__________________
Sometimes death is not as tragic as not knowing how to live. This man knew how to live--and how to make others glad they were living. - Jack Benny at Nat King Cole's funeral
|
|
|
04-13-2010, 09:54 PM
|
#143
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 1,211
|
Would a VAT or NST be included in the gov's calculation of CPI? If so, it would give a nice one year boost to the income from my inflation linked bonds.
Cheers,
charlie
|
|
|
04-14-2010, 04:43 PM
|
#144
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: west bloomfield MI
Posts: 2,223
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamlet
From my standpoint, the purpose of SS is to keep people who have not planned for their retirement from becoming homeless or holding up liquor stores when they reach the end of their lives.
We don't need a better solution. We have it, and it is called private savings and investment.
SS needs to provide a safety net for the fairly large group of people that will not plan for their retirement and will not be able to work in any meaningful way past 65.
The amount of that safety net may need to be trimmed back to an affordable amount, but I think we are stuck with the basic system.
|
Why does the safety need to begin at age 66 or 67?
Why not age 68 or 70 or 72 or 74?
I agree we have the system in place
however the economics of that system do not balance right now (we take in more than we spend, and we do what with the excess? when we spend more than we take in we will do what with the taxes or benefits?
so we have a system in place which is broken, I am suggesting it be modified some.
__________________
Light travels faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak. One person's stupidity is another person's job security.
|
|
|
04-14-2010, 04:46 PM
|
#145
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: west bloomfield MI
Posts: 2,223
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dex
As a side note - it is surprising that no one on this board has mentioned phasing out the current way SS$ is invested to a Bond/Stock market based investments. Simply putting SS$ into 30 treasury bonds from the start of your working life would outperform the current returns for SS.
Another aspect not mentioned is the racial disparity in SS. Look at the life expectations for white men or women vs black men or women. .
|
LOL
two things
you said SS has a return
and
you said SS and life expectancy
neither were factored into original formula, and IMO neither are accounted for today either.
The way I see SS is it should be zero sum
payroll receipts should be equal to benefits paid
every year
every 5 years balance the checkbook (if IRS takes in more than it pays, lower the tax... if IRS has spent more than it took in, lower the benefits or raise age to start SS)
__________________
Light travels faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak. One person's stupidity is another person's job security.
|
|
|
04-14-2010, 06:07 PM
|
#146
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Leeward Oahu
Posts: 17,809
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jIMOh
so we have a system in place which is broken, I am suggesting it be modified some.
|
The "fixes" are many and varied. Any accounting student could "fix" the system (several on the board have offered ways to 'make it come out even'). The problem is political will. No political program (and let's face it, all government programs are now political) can be changed EXCEPT to add more benefits or lower taxes. Otherwise, there is too large a political price to pay.
Sorry to say it, but I no longer blame the elected representatives for this. I blame us. We are getting the government we deserve. When WE eventually decide that something needs to be done, it will get done. No politician is going to step out onto the tracks and stick his finger on the 3rd rail again. They'll all wait until the public demands a solution. Now all they are hearing is either "I'm not getting enough" or "I'm paying too much". So no politician is going to say "I have the perfect solution - I'll make ALL of you unhappy with me!"
Just my 2 cents worth, IMHO, YMMV, etc.
__________________
Ko'olau's Law -
Anything which can be used can be misused. Anything which can be misused will be.
|
|
|
04-17-2010, 12:08 AM
|
#147
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,558
|
I agree. The sad fact is that the politicians have given the people of the US exactly what they've continually asked for.
Unless we as a nation grow up and realize that we can't have lower taxes with continually higher spending we are in serious trouble.
|
|
|
04-17-2010, 08:31 AM
|
#148
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: May 2008
Location: No fixed abode
Posts: 8,764
|
__________________
"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement." - Anonymous (not Will Rogers or Sam Clemens)
DW and I - FIREd at 50 (7/06), living off assets
|
|
|
04-18-2010, 11:56 AM
|
#149
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,558
|
Because many people start having real difficulty working past the mid-sixties, especially the poorer segments of society that depend on SS the most.
If you work in the trades or construction, working past 65 is just not going to happen for most people. I can't see a lot of waitresses or nurses working into their 70s.
My grandmother is an exception that proves the rule. She worked part-time in nursing into her late 70s. She has a story about being mistaken for a patient at the nursing home she worked at .
I think a straight-forward trimming of benefits makes more sense than raising the retirement age, unless we continue to allow for a reduced benefit retirement at 62 or so and just use the higher retirement age as a way to scale back the benefits for the people retiring earlier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jIMOh
Why does the safety need to begin at age 66 or 67?
Why not age 68 or 70 or 72 or 74?
|
|
|
|
05-01-2010, 08:04 PM
|
#150
|
Dryer sheet wannabe
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 20
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by travelover
I think high inflation is more likely, as raising taxes takes congressional courage.
|
Um, they have already raised taxes on higher income earners, and are preparing the groundwork to get the rest of us. There simply aren't enough dollars in the high income brackets to pay trillions of dollars in spending/deficits.
I would say it takes WAY more courage to REDUCE taxes than to raise them.
And I would also absolutely say that it is very possible that Roth holders get screwed. They did it with SS, didn't they? Taxing 85% of SS, not even allowing you to recover your costs. Insanity.
Jim
|
|
|
05-02-2010, 01:40 AM
|
#151
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Leeward Oahu
Posts: 17,809
|
I would say it takes WAY more courage to REDUCE taxes than to raise them.
Jim[/QUOTE]
Very insightful. We all know it's impossible to cut spending. Too many votes to buy. Now that there are fewer (net) taxpayers than there are beneficiaries of government largesse, raising taxes is probably looked upon (by the majority) as a "good" thing. Once it reaches that point, there's no going back until some sort of "quantum" event occurs. Not looking forward to that day.
__________________
Ko'olau's Law -
Anything which can be used can be misused. Anything which can be misused will be.
|
|
|
05-02-2010, 05:51 AM
|
#152
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,068
|
I strongly disagree.
Lowering taxes is the easy way out and how politicians buy votes.
When was the last time the populace voted in someone with a motto of 'More Taxes for Everyone!' vs 'No New Taxes!'?
__________________
"We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.
(Ancient Indian Proverb)"
|
|
|
05-02-2010, 06:05 AM
|
#153
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,072
|
IMO - No. If a VAT is instituted... it will be an additional tax on consumption. Income taxes will not go down. You can still use the Roth to manage the income side of the tax equation.
Any sort of VAT will wait until we see the effects of the Income tax and Estate Tax reset in 2011.
If a consumption tax is enacted, it will probably be an energy consumption tax that encourages energy conservation and efficiency. Since energy costs are embedded in all goods and services... it will be like a VAT.
|
|
|
05-02-2010, 06:08 AM
|
#154
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 11,318
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by frequenttraveler
I would say it takes WAY more courage to REDUCE taxes than to raise them.
|
Politicians cut taxes all the time with no commensurate cut in spending. They don't even get filibustered and they get little blame for contributing to the deficit. Real courageous.
__________________
Idleness is fatal only to the mediocre -- Albert Camus
|
|
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
» Recent Threads
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
» Quick Links
|
|
|