Social Security to start cashing Uncle Sam's IOUs

the people on the leading edge of the baby boom probably got a pretty good deal.

also, best to find a way to pay your life insurance premium even when you're too old to remember to pay it.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It isn't harming the worker at all if the government replenishes the fund as needed. You still are talking gibberish.

It does in a way. If you were earning some kind of interest on that money, you could get a better return when you retired.
Say, they had put my dollars into gold 38 years ago? Nice dream hey?

Originally posted by Hugh Glass
It does in a way. If you were earning some kind of interest on that money, you could get a better return when you retired.
Say, they had put my dollars into gold 38 years ago? Nice dream hey?

Say you had put your money in AIG or Enron stock.

If you really want to start sobbing about S.S. look up the figures for Robert Byrd, who retired from Congress. They do not pay S.S., they have another plan. It's a mind boggling thing indeed.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
that's bcoz you think the government

if what you're saying is true, the govt is not paying interest (or equitable interest, what the "investors" would have paid) to the SS fund.

that is stealing from the poor to pay for the rich.

Actually the Treasury is paying 6% interest on the surplus which currently adds $90 billion a year to the Social Security Trust Fund annually. http://assets.aarp.org/www.aarp.org_/articles/money/Social_Security/socialsecuritybackgroundbriefing_v5.pdf p. 7

Originally posted by zeeblebot
it makes perfect sense.

workers pay monies into a fund intended to benefit them upon retirement.

if the government is holding on to this money instead of paying it back out, it is harming the worker who put the money in there. especially when it splurges on nonproductive things, or counterproductive things like tobacco farm research.

if it were j in 2045 is estimated to lose over $200,000 by participating in the Social Security system.[68]

The main purpose of social security is to greatly reduce the amount of poverty suffered by people in their old age (or who become disabled).

I agree that the current way we do it involves a lot more government than is truly necessary. We could set it up (gradually) so that it would eventually become just a simple welfare program where only those retirees that really needed the income to escape poverty would get benefits. We could then stop thinking of it as a federally run pension plan and move away from all this "trust fund" nonsense.

The main argument against doing this is if the program was to only benefit the very poor, it might be easier politically to eliminate it entirely. If conservatives did a better job reassuring the public that it would never seek to do this, they might be able to develop widespread support for a strongly means-tested approach.

Originally posted by Hugh Glass
If you really want to start sobbing about S.S. look up the figures for Robert Byrd, who retired from Congress. They do not pay S.S., they have another plan. It's a mind boggling thing indeed.

Congressmen have paid into the Social Security system since 1984.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
The main purpose of social security is to greatly reduce the amount of poverty suffered by people in their old age (or who become disabled).

I agree that the current way we do it involves a lot more government than is truly necessary. We could set it up (gradually) so that it would eventually become just a simple welfare program where only those retire ...[text shortened]... o this, they might be able to develop widespread support for a strongly means-tested approach.

There's no reason to change the basic nature of Social Security. The program has accomplished its purpose and can be funded properly making a few changes like raising the income cap on contributions and gradually increasing the age where full benefits are paid to reflect increases in age expectancy. The present right wing hysteria is just that.

Originally posted by no1marauder
There's no reason to change the basic nature of Social Security. The program has accomplished its purpose and can be funded properly making a few changes like raising the income cap on contributions and gradually increasing the age where full benefits are paid to reflect increases in age expectancy. The present right wing hysteria is just that.

I agree. Keeping the current system "solvent" wouldn't be all that difficult.

But I don't think that's what zeeblebot's aim is. I'm sure he wants to greatly reduce the size of the program - but I believe that it would be possible to do this in a way that could actually increase the benefits paid to those who really need them. Do we really need to be sending social security checks to relatively affluent people (perhaps including zeeblebot) who already have private pensions and savings accounts to draw from?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Actually the Treasury is paying 6% interest on the surplus which currently adds $90 billion a year to the Social Security Trust Fund annually. http://assets.aarp.org/www.aarp.org_/articles/money/Social_Security/socialsecuritybackgroundbriefing_v5.pdf p. 7

5.5 or 5.4 pct in 2005, compounded semiannually not monthly, and even as low as 4.125 pct for the June 30, 2005 purchase of bonds for OASI.

5.4 must be the compound rate. the simple rate is 4.3.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR06/tr06.pdf

For 2005, the average annual nominal interest rate for securities newly issu-
able to the trust funds was 4.3 percent, unchanged from 2004.

and, the amount of payout is reduced by the amount of debt the govt loans to itself from the fund.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
I agree. Keeping the current system "solvent" wouldn't be all that difficult.

But I don't think that's what zeeblebot's aim is. I'm sure he wants to greatly reduce the size of the program - but I believe that it would be possible to do this in a way that could actually increase the benefits paid to those who really need them. Do we really need to be se ...[text shortened]... including zeeblebot) who already have private pensions and savings accounts to draw from?

We don't "need to" but there's no reason not to since they are being paid for contributing to the program. Changing it into a pure welfare program is just a way to destroy public support for the program.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
and, the amount of payout is reduced by the amount of debt the govt loans to itself from the fund.

well, the payout was $500B in 2004. i guess a four year window is not too bad (assuming there is $2.2T in the fund).

Originally posted by Melanerpes
I agree. Keeping the current system "solvent" wouldn't be all that difficult.

But I don't think that's what zeeblebot's aim is. I'm sure he wants to greatly reduce the size of the program - but I believe that it would be possible to do this in a way that could actually increase the benefits paid to those who really need them. Do we really need to be se ...[text shortened]... including zeeblebot) who already have private pensions and savings accounts to draw from?

thanks 😛

Originally posted by no1marauder
Congressmen have paid into the Social Security system since 1984.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/socialsecurity/pensions.asp
You are right, and I was wrong,, sorry.
I fell for a passed around e-mail, and will validate them carefully before posting further incorrect information