OK, everyone knows that the program is going down the tubes. Please don't spend this thread complaining and proving that point. This is about FIXING SOCIAL SECURITY.

 

I have very limited knowledge of SS, but here is what I see.

 

The only way it seems to fix the lack of funds that we will have in 2010/2011/whenever is to raise taxes. But EVERYONE'S immediate concern is to lower taxes.

 

Why is it that people constantly complain about how bad the government is, but never want to be any part of a solution at all?

 

Better yet, what else can be done to fix it? And would the Average Joe American be willing to sacrifice to find a solution?

OK, everyone knows that the program is going down the tubes. Please don't spend this thread complaining and proving that point. This is about FIXING SOCIAL SECURITY.

 

I have very limited knowledge of SS, but here is what I see.

 

The only way it seems to fix the lack of funds that we will have in 2010/2011/whenever is to raise taxes. But EVERYONE'S immediate concern is to lower taxes.

 

Why is it that people constantly complain about how bad the government is, but never want to be any part of a solution at all?

 

Better yet, what else can be done to fix it? And would the Average Joe American be willing to sacrifice to find a solution?

 

There are five options: 1) raise taxes that are collected and earmarked solely for Social Security; 2) borrow additional funds; 3) cut other government spending so that there is money in the budget to pay the special issue bonds being redeemed;4) a combination of these items; 5) privatization. They are all worthy of discussion.

 

It actually will not be (projected) until 2041 when the total meltdown occurs; 2011 is the year projected when SS begins running a budget deficit, which, of course, we already have anyway.

There are five options: 1) raise taxes that are collected and earmarked solely for Social Security; 2) borrow additional funds; 3) cut other government spending so that there is money in the budget to pay the special issue bonds being redeemed;4) a combination of these items; 5) privatization. They are all worthy of discussion.

 

It actually will not be (projected) until 2041 when the total meltdown occurs; 2011 is the year projected when SS begins running a budget deficit, which, of course, we already have anyway.

 

Your fifth option, privitation, is an interesting one to me. Would it work? Without competition, would a private company keep lowering the returns for the average person?

It seems the average Joe American is willing to sacrifice nothing to fix the system. Most people want the solution that doesn't require a hit to their own circumstances. The top of the list are the politicians who are too afraid of losing power to even start the process.

It seems the average Joe American is willing to sacrifice nothing to fix the system. Most people want the solution that doesn't require a hit to their own circumstances. The top of the list are the politicians who are too afraid of losing power to even start the process.

 

One problem is that many folks under 50 do not plan on SS being around when retire. Thus, its not a big priority for them which leads to the lack of a willingness to "sacrifice."

There are five options: 1) raise taxes that are collected and earmarked solely for Social Security; 2) borrow additional funds; 3) cut other government spending so that there is money in the budget to pay the special issue bonds being redeemed;4) a combination of these items; 5) privatization. They are all worthy of discussion.

 

It actually will not be (projected) until 2041 when the total meltdown occurs; 2011 is the year projected when SS begins running a budget deficit, which, of course, we already have anyway.

Six, set a cut off age, end the program as a retirement system, keep it in tact only as a disability measure. As it exist, they might as well give me the address of a person collecting social security, have me write them a check every month, and eliminate the middle man. Every dime currently paid in is going out. Eliminating the system seems to be the answer to me. Why can't individuals be responsible for planning for their own retirement?

Six, set a cut off age, end the program as a retirement system, keep it in tact only as a disability measure. As it exist, they might as well give me the address of a person collecting social security, have me write them a check every month, and eliminate the middle man. Every dime currently paid in is going out. Eliminating the system seems to be the answer to me. Why can't individuals be responsible for planning for their own retirement?

That is all well and good but where will you get the money to pay the people that are already on SS? Because if it were to be eliminated, which I think it maybe should be, then I will not be too happy about still having to pay into it.

 

I personally think privitation is the way to go. It's my money so let me invest it the way I want too.

That is all well and good but where will you get the money to pay the people that are already on SS? Because if it were to be eliminated, which I think it maybe should be, then I will not be too happy about still having to pay into it.

 

I personally think privitation is the way to go. It's my money so let me invest it the way I want too.

The question would be at what age is the cut off? Where do you draw the line. At some point in time, there is going to be a generation that takes it in the shorts concerning social security. Surprisingly, I would rather that it not be my generation.:thumb: However, I would be willing to lose the money that I have already paid in. Of course, I have already made other plans for my retirement as well.

The question would be at what age is the cut off? Where do you draw the line. At some point in time, there is going to be a generation that takes it in the shorts concerning social security. Surprisingly, I would rather that it not be my generation.:thumb: However, I would be willing to lose the money that I have already paid in. Of course, I have already made other plans for my retirement as well.

We are on the same page. I have no issue with them doing away with SS and setting an age cut off but at the same time if I have no realistic expectation of a return on my money then the government should stop stealing from me. I am like you and would be willing to forget about the money they have already stolen but enough is enough.

Remove the cap, reduce or eliminate benefits for people with more than a certain level of wealth.

Implement the "doughnut hole" system. Keep the cap about where it is, say $100,000; make the next $300,000 or so exempt, then re-institute FICA/Medicare tax at a lower rate on all income above $400,000.

Remove the cap, reduce or eliminate benefits for people with more than a certain level of wealth.

 

Do you also propose to eliminate payments into S.S. for "people at a certain level of wealth?"

Do you also propose to eliminate payments into S.S. for "people at a certain level of wealth?"

Nope.

 

It's time we stopped pretending that SS is an insurance fund that you pay into yourself and you take that same money out. That's not how we've treated it in reality, so why keep up the deception?

Another welfare program is just what we don't need. The pain of the program fixes should be felt in some way by everyone involved.

Remove the cap, reduce or eliminate benefits for people with more than a certain level of wealth.

And I suppose that you would still want these people to "contribute" to the system? And would you want their employers to continue their matching "contributions" to the system?

 

Once again a solution that would penalize someone for being successful. Sounds like just another Welfare program to me.