Social Security News Today - 06-28-05...................

[Cut-Throat]

No Social Security News today, we're still fighting the War in Iraq. We're busing changing the reason we went to war from "finding the WMD's" to "something else"?

So all those that were positive we'd have a S.S. Bill that included private accounts on the White House desk in 2005; How's it lookin' to you now? Are you betting by summer or fall or a cold day in hell?

If he walks like a duck, and he quacks like a duck....................

 

[Michael]

It looks like you were right.

 

[Eagle43]

Yeah, C-T, looks like you're right. My first check is due in 24 days. I'll just add it to the others and hopefully, live happily ever after.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

One year, 2 months and 12 days....................

JG

 

[TromboneAl]

You guys over 55 don't have much to worry about, since they say that they won't change anything for you. It's us SS Tweeners that are concerned. Too young to have our benefits frozen, but too old (or too retired) to take advantage of a potential private account scheme (though I don't think PAs will happen).

 

[Cut-Throat]

You guys over 55 don't have much to worry about, since they say that they won't change anything for you.  It's us SS Tweeners that are concerned.  Too young to have our benefits frozen, but too old (or too retired) to take advantage of a potential private account scheme (though I don't think PAs will happen).

Al,

Speaking with a friend of mine that is a Congressman, his belief was that when a bill is finally crafted, It probably won't change much for those over age 45. His guess was that it will look similar to the 1983 Bill, where tweaking was done in a few areas. Gradually Increasing retirmement age, increasing or removing the $90K cap, and small reductions in benefits. These will be passed on to those younger than 45 in all likeyhood. This was similar to what happened in 1983 when I was 32. My retirement age was increased, my taxes increased etc.

The main problem with Private Accounts was that it made the Social Security 'problem' worse. It was never about saving it, it was about dismantling it.

 

[laurence]

Well crap, at this point maybe I should completely eliminate SS from my calculations. At this rate it you will have to be 75 to collect when I get there, and that will (hopefully) be 30 years after I retire! But they didn't change the early SS collection yet (62), how long will that go unnoticed?

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I dont include social security or pensions in any of my calcs. Those are just gonna be gravy if and when they show up.

CT...any chance of having that congressman friend of yours hold off on changes until I'm 45 next year?

 

[Michael]

But they didn't change the early SS collection yet (62)...

Actually, they did.  People who have to wait longer to get full Social Security can still retire early at 62, but they are charged a greater penalty than those who could retire on full SS at 65.  IOW, someone who can only get full SS at 67 has their monthly check dramatically reduced if they take it at age 62.  Its designed to give the average person the same total life time pay out.

I hope CT is right about the age 45 thing, since I am over that age.  Although I would much rather be age 25, and just stay there forever. 

 

[farmerEd]

Well crap, at this point maybe I should completely eliminate SS from my calculations.  At this rate it you will have to be 75 to collect when I get there, and that will (hopefully) be 30 years after I retire!  But they didn't change the early SS collection yet (62), how long will that go unnoticed?

This wouldn't be so hard to swallow if they also raised the government employee retirement age to make it at least somewhat fair...still, in many places, govt employees can retire as early as 45 or 50 with a pension and guaranteed health insurance for life...so the average private sector employee needs to works something like 20 more years than a govt employee in order to be able to qualify...sound fair to anyone?

 

[vic]

If the SS age is raised to 67, does that also mean that Medicare does not kick in until then? I am more concerned about health care than the few hundred bucks I might (not) get

Vicky

 

[Mr._johngalt]

This wouldn't be so hard to swallow if they also raised the government employee retirement age to make it at least somewhat fair...still, in many places, govt employees can retire as early as 45 or 50 with a pension and guaranteed health insurance for life...so the average private sector employee needs to works something like 20 more years than a govt employee in order to be able to qualify...sound fair to anyone?

"Fair?" Of course not. Surprising? Not at all. If you are looking for
fairness in your treatment re. these issues, you are doomed to disappointment. Look out for yourself. No one else really gives a damn.

JG

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

All I know is somebody must be a Flip Flopper!

Or its got something to do with the events of 9/11.

 

[Michael]

If the SS age is raised to 67, does that also mean that Medicare does not kick in until then?

So far Medicare is still age 65 for everyone.

 

[haha]

This wouldn't be so hard to swallow if they also raised the government employee retirement age to make it at least somewhat fair...still, in many places, govt employees can retire as early as 45 or 50 with a pension and guaranteed health insurance for life...so the average private sector employee needs to works something like 20 more years than a govt employee in order to be able to qualify...sound fair to anyone?

Probably sounds perfectly fair to a government employee. Maybe they would like it a bit more if private sector employess had to work 25 years longer rather than only 20.

Ha

 

[Bookm]

This wouldn't be so hard to swallow if they also raised the government employee retirement age to make it at least somewhat fair...still, in many places, govt employees can retire as early as 45 or 50 with a pension and guaranteed health insurance for life...so the average private sector employee needs to works something like 20 more years than a govt employee in order to be able to qualify...sound fair to anyone?

Heh, working for the gub'ment has always been about the benefits, never the pay while employed. That's where things are supposed to even out. We suffer and scrounge during our working years, just hoping to make it to retirement to collect our benefits.

Bookm

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Heh, working for the gub'ment has always been about the benefits, never the pay while employed. That's where things are supposed to even out. We suffer and scrounge during our working years, just hoping to make it to retirement to collect our benefits.

Bookm

The benefits can be nice. In my case I always knew I could not work
for the government. Being a natural entreprenuer and anti-government
to boot..........well, it would not have worked out. Hell, I was lucky to
not discover my entrepreuerial inclinations until pretty far into my career.
Otherwise, I would have had even more trouble working for others.
As it was, my longest stint (one company) was 8 years, from age
21 to 29. Nothing else even close to that before I quit for good.

JG

 

[BUM]

Mornin' JG

I'm with you on this one. Pension, schmension. Not sure entreprenurialism was a destiny probably a destination. I just arrived there. But now that my friends, neighbors, and I am getting used to my retirement one thing really gets my attention. Many of my associates are:

Working and hating it - they don't want to understand my situation
Out on some disability - they can't believe its possible I'm retired
Retired w/ pensions - they are nice, friendly but, well... old.

There but for the grace of God, go I. Just out of college, I applied for jobs with the local phone company and post office. Everybody did. Thats what was expected. Didn't get hired.

 

[Eagle43]

Retired w/ pensions - they are nice, friendly but, well... old.

I resemble that remark.

 

[Michael]

Actually, the fact that there are so many government employees is a prime reason private sector employees have to work so long in the first place.  High taxes (income, sales, property, excise, etc...) increase the cost of living, which makes saving by private employees harder.  Add the fed's constant inflation policy to the high cost of living, and you have a recipe for many more years in the work force.

In addition, excess government spending is the prime reason there is nothing but IOUs in the Social Security trust fund.  The politicians "borrowed" the trust fund to pay the salaries of government employees.   Then some government employees have the temerity to lobby against making private sector pension plans solvent, and against paying back the trust fund.  Government spending is out of control, at all levels, and private sector employees have to pay a high price for it.

I wouldn't be surprised if private sector employees rebelled when asked to bail out the many insolvent state and local government pension plans, after government workers lobbied against private sector bail outs. Unless they become a bit more sympathetic to private sector employess before then.

 

[haha]

Waren Buffet on Social Security: (Interviewed by Lou Dobbs)

LD: The budget deficit is 3.6% of our GDP, and the trade deficit almost 6%. Yet the president is talking about Social Security. Does that surprise you?

WB: Well, it’s an interesting idea that a deficit of $100 billion a year (in Social Security), something 20 years out, seems to terrify the administration. But the $400-plus billion deficit currently does nothing but draw yawns. I mean the idea that this terrible specter looms over us 20 years out, which is a small fraction of the deficit we run now, seems kind of interesting to me.

LD: Do you have a quick answer for Social Security?

WB: Personally, I would increase the taxable base above the present $90,000. I pay very little in the way of Social Security taxes because I make a lot more than $90,000. And the people in my office pay the full tax. We’re already edging up the retirement age a bit. And I would means test as well.

LD: That’s a progressive idea. In other words, the rich would pay more.

WB: Yeah. The rich people are doing so well in this country. I mean, we never had it so good. It’s class warfare. My class is winning, but they shouldn’t be. Just take the estate tax. A couple of million people die every year, yet only 40,000 or so estates get taxed. We raise $30 billion from the estate tax. And, you know, I would like to hear the Congressmen say where they are going to get the $30 billion from if they don’t get it from the estate tax. It’s nice to say, “Wipe out this tax,” but we’re running a huge deficit, so where does the $30 billion come from?

The rest is at
http://www.investorplace.com/free/ldml29.htm?ak=5MY107

Ha

 

[Mr._johngalt]

I wouldn't be surprised if private sector employees rebelled when asked to bail out the many insolvent state and local government pension plans, after government workers lobbied against private sector bail outs.  Unless they become a bit more sympathetic to private sector employess before then.

People won't rebel. People today are mostly sheep (or lemmings).
It's a brave new world we live in.

JG

 

[Cut-Throat]

WB: Well, it’s an interesting idea that a deficit of $100 billion a year (in Social Security), something 20 years out, seems to terrify the administration. But the $400-plus billion deficit currently does nothing but draw yawns. I mean the idea that this terrible specter looms over us 20 years out, which is a small fraction of the deficit we run now, seems kind of interesting to me.

LD: Do you have a quick answer for Social Security?

WB: Personally, I would increase the taxable base above the present $90,000. I pay very little in the way of Social Security taxes because I make a lot more than $90,000. And the people in my office pay the full tax. We’re already edging up the retirement age a bit. And I would means test as well.

LD: That’s a progressive idea. In other words, the rich would pay more.

WB: Yeah. The rich people are doing so well in this country. I mean, we never had it so good. It’s class warfare. My class is winning, but they shouldn’t be.

Mikey,

Great Post! - Warren gets it! - It's funny how so few others seem to!

In case anybody was ever confused why Bush Jr. took on the Social Security Issue - Let me clarify it. - It was all about ideology and never about 'saving it' - Bush wanted to dismantle a 'new deal' legacy for his own legacy. This is why private accounts were so important to him, even though they made the Social Security 'problem' worse.

 

[73ss454]

CT,
Our money should be protected and not put into a General Fund.
If the Government kept away from our money we wouldn't have to raise payments above 90K.
We'd all get what we had coming.
Also the alternative minium tax ceiling should be raised.  We are getting ripped off  from a law that was inacted in 1969. 
Everyone who gets elected in the country says that they are not going to raise our taxes or maybe even lower them. 
Well I've never paid so much taxes in my life.
Regards,
JOE

 

[Cut-Throat]

Joe,

Yeah, Our money should be put in a 'LockBox' as Gore suggested.

However, when the Government is currently running $400 Billion dollar deficeits, there are even bigger fish to fry as Warren Buffet eluded to.

These kind of deficeits are gonna make our money worthless, even if it is in a lockbox.