rescueme
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
That's fine for you, but what about the vast majority of the remaining folks that can't do what you are doing?I can find better, smarter, more efficient, and higher yielding options on my own.
That's fine for you, but what about the vast majority of the remaining folks that can't do what you are doing?I can find better, smarter, more efficient, and higher yielding options on my own.
I found 2006 U.S. life expectancy statistics here. People born after 2000 would have been 5 at the time this data was gathered, ...
I am not suggesting that retirement age should be different for blacks than for whites, but there is no way to get around the fact that losing (on average) over 50% of eligibility for benefits is a much larger effect than losing 25% of it.
But they are both "losers"An observation: Black LE is lower than white LE in the US.
An observation:
... Poor people live shorter lives, ...
we'd need to make these other determinations before deciding on what is "fair."
But to come full circle, SS payouts are very progressive - the poor generally get disproportionally higher payments relative to what they put in. For life - which is what SS was designed to do.
Agreed
I may have miscommunicated. #2 (taxing the individual accounts) is clearly not borrowing, it is taxation (though it is taxation of accounts the individuals wouldn't have had at all in the absence of this proposal, so that should help gain acceptance)
Maybe you mean that #2 and #3 are really one idea, #3 is just clarifying how fast dollars go into the individual accounts? If so, the problem is the 100% above, there are no "extra" dollars to fund the IAs.#3 (limit the portion of payroll tax that can be deposited into personal accounts) is not a revenue stream but a way to manage the channeling of the total funds collected as SS payroll taxes to help assure enough goes to the "common pool" to allow the monthly checks to be written.
I'm sure there are ways other than those suggested above to do this without more borrowing. But, that's not to say some borrowing couldn't be part of the mix. It's fashionable this year.
I can't think of any rational way to deal with the differences, and that's why I called out the comment from Emeritus. What's the point of even mentioning it? In fact, if I turned the argument around (if you say that a group receives less in some social services, they should pay less; then it holds that if they receive more in some social services they should pay more), I'm sure there would be howls from many corners. I'm not going to go there, and I don't support that thinking. It holds that I don't support the view from the other angle other......
One other thought comes to mind - it's almost impossible to be "fair", it's pretty straightforward to be "equal".
-ERD50
I am 39 years old and at this point don't expect a dime back from SS, and, despite the handy statements that I am sent regularly. For the good of all, I would be willing to continue to contribute some amount to pay for those who above a certain age who were "promised" benefits and will rely on them to live (sorry Mr. Gate and Mr. Buffett..you are out, as means testing is a great idea)
The bottom line for me is that I do not want the federal government having any part of my retirement planning or investing. I can find better, smarter, more efficient, and higher yielding options on my own.
I will agree to pay a small tax into a "social security"-like fund that will provide for those that simply don't have enough money to take reasonable care of themselves.
I, morally, cannot demand that other people fund my retirement with their hard earned money. And, I cannot understand why anyone would willingly choose the federal government to manage their money for them (ex: see federal deficit & debt). How about this to make everyone happy, let the federal government's retirement program compete in the open market with all the other investment options and those that think it's the best can send in their money for handling
Again, it's an interesting debate and I continue to be surprised by all of those who think SS is a good program for us all....
I chose age 5 because the original suggestion was to increase retirement age for everyone born after 2000, and the age 5's were the first age group in the statistics who would fit that description. However, white people have longer life expectancy than blacks up to age 75. At age 80, it is essentially equal, and over 80, life expectancy is a year or so longer for blacks than for whites. However, significantly fewer black people live to age 80 than whites, especially black men (see table B on pg 3 of the report).I'm not sure that LE at age 5 is relevant - I think you need to look at LE at retirement age, or maybe well into their wage earning years when they would have paid a significant amount into the system. Regardless, we'd probably still find a difference in LE across different groups.
Neither Emeritus nor I suggested that policy should be based on this. You "called him out" for something he didn't say. What we both said is that the raising the retirement age to 70 would affect blacks disproportionately, and the data bears that out. Maybe this discrepancy is, as suggested elsewhere in the thread, more of a high income/low income effect, and partly or fully canceled out by the progressive nature of SS benefits. Other policy changes that have been suggested, such as removing the income cap on SS tax, would, I suspect, affect white people disproportionately, because a greater percentage of white people than blacks have wages above the current cap.But the question remains - should we base policy on that? Is raising the retirement age across the board "unfair" to some? Maybe (or maybe not - since as I said, everyone gets paid "for life"), but then again it would be "unfair" to smokers, people with MS, probably all sorts of cross sections of society that might attract lawyers with class action law suits. Those groups will pay "disproportionately more" into the systems than others. Maybe we should charge more to people who come from families with long lives to compensate? Or people who take care of their health? It all gets rather silly. It's a life annuity - if you try to make it something else, it gets screwy.
I can't think of any rational way to deal with the differences, and that's why I called out the comment from Emeritus. What's the point of even mentioning it? In fact, if I turned the argument around (if you say that a group receives less in some social services, they should pay less; then it holds that if they receive more in some social services they should pay more), I'm sure there would be howls from many corners. I'm not going to go there, and I don't support that thinking. It holds that I don't support the view from the other angle other.
You know, this comes back to the problem with govt involvement in things - the "one size fits all" approach. If we were all educated and encouraged to save for our own retirement (doesn't take an advanced degree, some of the "simplest" people I can think of "get it"), we could do with our money what we want. If I died early, I could pass that money onto my heirs. Not so with SS. Which is "fairer" to a group with a short LE? Maybe SS is the "problem", not the "solution"?
One other thought comes to mind - it's almost impossible to be "fair", it's pretty straightforward to be "equal".
-ERD50
Frankly, in this economy, I think raising the age to 70 is a nonstarter simply because of its impact on unemployment even if it is the right thing to do actuarially. If you change the "workforce" from roughly ages 20-65 to 20-67 and then 20-70, you have a larger percentage of people who have to work in an era when there aren't enough jobs for those in the smaller workforce -- let alone the expanded one.What we both said is that the raising the retirement age to 70 would affect blacks disproportionately, and the data bears that out.
Two observations:
-- Present workers would still be benefiting from their payments into the common SS pool. These payments would buy them true insurance--a monthly check they'll receive if, in retirement, their individual investment accounts don't produce income up to a pre-defined level (the funds for these checks will come from future workers--just as the funds do today).
Yes, that could happen. There are at least two things that would oppose this tendency:Quick reality check- there will be gamers, ad dsome will go for the moon in their private accounts, figuring that they are backstopped by what you are calling the insurance aspect.
this is interesting. to me in this case, "free" means having a choice without being put in jail, having wages garnished etc. i don't get to choose if i participate in SS. so how does it compete in a free market? even within the mandated contributions, one does not get to elect how the money is invested.
futhermore, i would say most people support the idea of SS, many more would disagree with its operations. if by "support" you mean "pay in to," see above.
Ron,
What I meant is that in our free market system, where many alternatives are available, voters have declined the privatization option.
SS is just like any other fixed annuity, you don't get to pick how the issuer invests the funds. My understanding is that SS funds are invested in treasuries backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. It's a credit worthiness that investors continue to flock to.
The only threat to your investment in social security is the voter. Which leads me to assume that these arguments about SS serve an ideological agenda.
Actually, "voters" haven't declined anything other than that they didn't vote for enough supporters of "privatization" to get it passed. It's not like they were given a direct referendum on a single issue.What I meant is that in our free market system, where many alternatives are available, voters have declined the privatization option.
SS is just like any other fixed annuity, you don't get to pick how the issuer invests the funds. My understanding is that SS funds are invested in treasuries backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. It's a credit worthiness that investors continue to flock to.
Become self-employed. Then you could invest twice as much.Do tell how I could invest more than the mandated $6620/yr.
Become self-employed. Then you could invest twice as much.
So what do you do when the trust fund isn't available and the SS taxes coming in don't pay for what is promised ?
What's your plan then ?
Actually, "voters" haven't declined anything other than that they didn't vote for enough supporters of "privatization" to get it passed. It's not like they were given a direct referendum on a single issue.
Plus, as much as voters tend to support the generic idea that "we need change," they tend to oppose significant change when they hear the details of the proposal -- regardless of the issue involved.
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.Tax cuts don't pay for themselves
Makes no sense.and neither will SS.
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.
.