# Social Security Poll



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

Suppose someone in Washington would actually listen, which soultion would you favor?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Social security is supposed to be old-age insurance. People who originally got it did not expect to live to 65. Everyone expects to live to that age today.

Raise the age limit to 80.


----------



## SuitUP (Feb 8, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Social security is supposed to be old-age insurance. People who originally got it did not expect to live to 65. Everyone expects to live to that age today.
> 
> Raise the age limit to 80.


Not sure about 80, but I agree with you that they should raise the age limit. I think 75 would be more reasonable. I did see a study that said the newest generation is actually expected to live a shorter lifespan than the other generations because of poor health (heart disease, obesity and such). So if the younger generations die out before they can collect...


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

75 is lower than the average life expectancy. 

SS should begin at the 75th percentile or so (as in, 75% of people are dead at this age). I don't know what age that is, but I imagine it's a little higher than 80...


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*I got these numbers from the government*

so they could be incorrect. According to the CDC, the life expectancy for the overall population in 1950 was 68.2. In 2004, the life expectancy was 77.8. So, I suppose raising the retirement age to 74.6 years would return Social Insecurity to the relative position it held in 1950.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Just give me the same pay scale, benefits and perks our Congress and Senate pass for themselves. Then you can keep ALL my past and present deductions.Oh, and I want entered into the congressional record a formal apology like those given to past victims of social injustice. I'm tired of hearing what lazy people my Baby Boomer generation is.I got news for you sunshine, We are one of the most productive generations this nation has ever seen. We want our rightfull share of that productivity back from all the Keatings, Hurwitz and other greedheads whoe raped the economy and walked away with huge bonus packages for doing so. Lets call the next big company End Run and drop the facad. I'm buying another handgun with my $300 bailout and dressing like Johny Dillinger in the old Warren Oats film. I can't afford to see the new Depp version.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

1;2;4;&5


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

ksinc said:


> 1;2;4;&5


Same here. 3 would anger me greatly, not to mention it is regressive and bad policy.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

agnash said:


> Suppose someone in Washington would actually listen, which soultion would you favor?


In an ideal world, I would love to have my contributions in an index mutual fund tied to my projected retirement date. But that is just crazy talk, crazy talk...


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

2 definitely -- for the reasons suggested.
1 & 5 acceptable if necessary.
3 & 4 terrible idea.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Mike Petrik said:


> 4 terrible idea.


If he said "removing" the cap I would agree.

"Raising" is something I can't really argue against in all cases. For example, I would accept raising it to $100K immediately and indexing it to CPI. If only for the reason that this would create an incentive for the gov't to quit lying to us about the CPI number! LOL


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Pick your inflation rate:


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

I guess there are no members of Congress voting, because no one has opted for #6.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

This may help those that can't pick the right line amongst all those competing colors.

https://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.aspx?ETF=true&Symbol=GLD&CP=0&PT=9


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

2,4 and 5


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

ksinc said:


> If he said "removing" the cap I would agree.
> 
> "Raising" is something I can't really argue against in all cases. For example, I would accept raising it to $100K immediately and indexing it to CPI. If only for the reason that this would create an incentive for the gov't to quit lying to us about the CPI number! LOL


The cap is already over $100K and indexed to average earnings. I'd have no problem shifting the index to CPI..


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

I'd say to raise the age for benefits for people older than 65.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Mike Petrik said:


> The cap is already over $100K and indexed to average earnings. I'd have no problem shifting the index to CPI..


DOH! Sorry, I was still thinking $97,500. But, you figured out what I meant - the real wage index is not keeping up with inflation. So, I think we agree - not "removed", but "raised" much quicker.

ADD: I know lots of people that didn't get CoL raises and I know some that got 10-20%. I think the real wage avg. is a worthless number. I myself, never give myself a raise.


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

Progressive privatization. Anyone just earning the workforce gets a private account, others can voluntarily convert from SS to SS-private.

I would gladly pay extra taxes to ensure that the current recipients get their payments, just as long as the madness ends. My greatest fear is that the government decides to invest social security monies and starts manipulating the stock market, bullying boards, etc (think Calpers on steroids).


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

*I vote Other*

Ooops. No "other" listed in the poll.

I'd like also to investigate the possibility of us refraining from pissing away vast amount of treasure (and blood) in overseas adventures. I'm betting some of that money could be used constructively to help people at home, even if we also adopt some of the other measures noted in the poll.

And I don't even have a Ron Paul sticker for my tinfoil hat.


----------



## PennGlock (Mar 14, 2006)

Link the Benefit growth to CPI instead of wage level. It's as simple as that. This was the recomendation of the President's Commission on SS in 2002, a bi-partison panel of some of the top insurance experts in the USA. If Congress could have resolved to do this, SS would be completely fixed today. Instead politicians found they could by more votes by fear-mongering alongside the AARP and mainsteam media.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

BertieW said:


> Ooops. No "other" listed in the poll.
> 
> I'd like also to investigate the possibility of us refraining from pissing away vast amount of treasure (and blood) in overseas adventures. I'm betting some of that money could be used constructively to help people at home, even if we also adopt some of the other measures noted in the poll.
> 
> And I don't even have a Ron Paul sticker for my tinfoil hat.


Nope. We could abolish the military entirely and it wouldn't be anywhere near enough money to pay for SS. Horray, socialism!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PennGlock said:


> Link the Benefit growth to CPI instead of wage level. It's as simple as that. This was the recomendation of the President's Commission on SS in 2002, a bi-partison panel of some of the top insurance experts in the USA. If Congress could have resolved to do this, SS would be completely fixed today. Instead politicians found they could by more votes by fear-mongering alongside the AARP and mainsteam media.


I disagree with that because IMHO you just continue to create an incentive for the CPI to be reported low. If you index the cap to CPI you create an incentive for CPI to actually be related to real inflation.

The reported wage number is growing faster than reported CPI, but real wages are not growing faster than real inflation.

It seems to me we have this huge disconnect between what we say is happening when we tax people and what we say is happening when we dole out benefits.

I just don't like the wage level for anything. If both were CPI than maybe we could balance it out, but I still the government would have an incentive to continue misreporting the CPI.

Can't we just privatize BEA?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

I think social security should be reserved for those who really need it, regardless of the age at which payments are scheduled to start...and I do not include myself in that group! While many of us have been abundantly blessed, others have not been so fortunate.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

On the other hand, I believe that social security should be reserved for those who actually paid into it...


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

How about instead of taxing people to let a giant bureaucracy get the money and the hand out as they see fit, let people keep their own money and do what they want and save it how they want.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Need an additional option:

You can keep the thousands you took from me already, just let me opt out now.

Let us face it, it will be means tested. Those that pay in the most will get $0.00.

The cap will be removed.

The age limit will be raised.

Benefits might be lowered (which I could care less, as I will be in the group receiving $0.00).


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Need an additional option:
> 
> You can keep the thousands you took from me already, just let me opt out now.
> 
> ...


You sound like ATWP!

_a typical working person_


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

There's nothin' like a good ol' fashioned perverse incentive. Earn less, save less, give less, get more.

Earn more, save more, give more, get nothing. Yay socialism!


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

PedanticTurkey said:


> On the other hand, I believe that social security should be reserved for those who actually paid into it...


And not for people who cheat their way into getting Social Security.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

When I got out of high school over 30 years ago none of the choices above were good ones. Everybody should have been forced to pay into an investment account instead of this looserville method that the Democrats still have a lock on. Even when in middle school SS was questionable. In high school (early 70's) it was already talked about as a failed system. The liberals will not allow anybody to touch it.

Here is an interesting read. The third paragraph from the bottom shows what may happen. https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2008&month=01


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

So, I'm hoping it would be pointless to suggest legalizing another 20 million people and giving them full SS benefits?


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

ksinc said:


> So, I'm hoping it would be pointless to suggest legalizing another 20 million people and giving them full SS benefits?


They should get double!


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Heck, double for everybody-- if only we elect a Democrat in 2008!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> So, I'm hoping it would be pointless to suggest legalizing another 20 million people and giving them full SS benefits?


Actually, why do you think Dubya has done nothing to close our porous border and why do you think McCain is pushing amnesty (no matter what he calls it)? Get in another 25 million workers 30 years of age and under, that will probably have lower life expectancies due to hard physical work and life style, and viola, SS is fixed.

For another 35 years that is.


----------



## NewYorkBuck (May 6, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Need an additional option:
> 
> You can keep the thousands you took from me already, just let me opt out now.
> 
> ...


+1...


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Actually, why do you think Dubya has done nothing to close our porous border and why do you think McCain is pushing amnesty (no matter what he calls it)? Get in another 25 million workers 30 years of age and under, that will probably have lower life expectancies due to hard physical work and life style, and viola, SS is fixed.
> 
> For another 35 years that is.


ATWProtestant


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

How about just forcing the goverment to pay back all the money they "borrowed" from the social security account and then from now on sticking to the supposed rule that those funds can't be used for anything else?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> How about just forcing the goverment to pay back all the money they "borrowed" from the social security account and then from now on sticking to the supposed rule that those funds can't be used for anything else?


imposible'


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

ksinc said:


> So, I'm hoping it would be pointless to suggest legalizing another 20 million people and giving them full SS benefits?


Well,would they have to be over the age of 65?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

marlinspike said:


> How about just forcing the goverment to pay back all the money they "borrowed" from the social security account and then from now on sticking to the supposed rule that those funds can't be used for anything else?


How on Earth can the government pay itself back? The idea is ridiculous; regardless of what the government _called it_, the money was spent as general revenue. It's gone. It was spent on social services for the baby boomers or at their behest; future generations owe them nothing.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

PedanticTurkey said:


> How on Earth can the government pay itself back? The idea is ridiculous; regardless of what the government _called it_, the money was spent as general revenue. It's gone. It was spent on social services for the baby boomers or at their behest; future generations owe them nothing.


Well, I know where they can get $275million/day to pay the account back with.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

marlinspike said:


> Well, I know where they can get $275million/day to pay the account back with.


Oh! If only that was anything but the proverbial drop in the bucket.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Drop by drop the ocean was made. If I were in charge, we'd run the place like a private business - pay cuts all around if we're in the red, there would be massive consolidation and letting people go, &c.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

marlinspike said:


> Drop by drop the ocean was made. If I were in charge, we'd run the place like a private business - pay cuts all around if we're in the red, there would be massive consolidation and letting people go, &c.


Pshaw. You sound like a fascist Republican. Don't you know that the government is supposed to _care_ about people?


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Pshaw. You sound like a fascist Republican. Don't you know that the government is supposed to _care_ about people?


Hahahahaha, I've been accused of many things in the Interchange, but never a Republican. Wayfarer is probably getting a laugh out of this one.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> Hahahahaha, I've been accused of many things in the Interchange, but never a Republican. Wayfarer is probably getting a laugh out of this one.


Indeed. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

To answer his question though, I do think the government should care about the people. To me, that means, for instance, keeping US Passport manufacturing in the US, rather than giving 6-figure, taxpayer funded, salaries to millionaires (they ought to at least refuse the salary as George Washington did).


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

I've got a better solution:
Zero out the benefits now.
Eliminate the Social Security Tax
No limit on pretax contributions to a 401k or the like.

Screw the boomers. :devil:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

yachtie said:


> I've got a better solution:
> Zero out the benefits now.
> Eliminate the Social Security Tax
> No limit on pretax contributions to a 401k or the like.
> ...


As I said earlier, just stop taking the money from me and the government can have all the thousands they have already taken. I like your idea about unlimited pre-tax retirement contributions though. So, allow an opt-out, no limit on pre-tax retirement contributions.

Never fly though. Heaven forbid the general public is allowed control of their finances!


----------

