15 Mar 10
Originally posted by no1marauderIt does in a way. If you were earning some kind of interest on that money, you could get a better return when you retired.
It isn't harming the worker at all if the government replenishes the fund as needed. You still are talking gibberish.
Say, they had put my dollars into gold 38 years ago? Nice dream hey?
15 Mar 10
Originally posted by zeeblebotActually 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
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.
15 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by zeeblebotThe main purpose of social security is to greatly reduce the amount of poverty suffered by people in their old age (or who become disabled).
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]
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.
15 Mar 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesThere'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.
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.
15 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI agree. Keeping the current system "solvent" wouldn't be all that difficult.
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.
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?
15 Mar 10
Originally posted by no1marauder5.5 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.
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
5.4 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.
15 Mar 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesWe 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.
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?
15 Mar 10
Originally posted by Melanerpesthanks 😛
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?
16 Mar 10
Originally posted by no1marauderhttp://www.snopes.com/politics/socialsecurity/pensions.asp
Congressmen have paid into the Social Security system since 1984.
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