posted on August 20, 2001 04:49:38 PM newIn fact, it is extraordinarily difficult, likely impossible to manipulate "the market" (as compared to the market for some particular listed security, which is also very hard, but not impossible).
It is? If you ask me, that's what's happening right now. GW is trying to pump Billions of Dollars into wall street. If that isn't manipulation, what is? If there aren't people (his buddies) posturing themselves right now to take advantage of it, I'd be real surprized.
Oh, and what about the disability insurance part of SS? How does that work in a "privitized" system? What happens to a 24 year old that gets paralized? Does he have to try to live the rest of his life on what little he has managed to save in his account? Are we going to do away with the Insurance portion of SS?
posted on August 20, 2001 11:41:16 PM new
Microbes - You've asked the question a couple of times about the disability part of SS, in the event of privatization.
First of all, you are aware aren't you, that the commission http://www.csss.gov will be meeting until approx. Sept. of this year, to offer President Bush solutions/suggestions to the make SS more solvent. I believe they've only met once or twice.
So far, from what I've read, this change isn't going to be totally privatized. From what I understand they're only thinking about a small percentage, maybe 2% (?) out of the 15.3 %. In the current SS system the %s are divided this way: 70% is for retirement benefits; 14% is for disability; and 16% is for survivor benefits. So, if the say 2% came out of the retirement section, it wouldn't have to change the disability benefits at all. Of course, no one knows what suggestions the commission will to the President, nor what decisions he'll make.
A president decides that Social Security is in need of radical reform. He assembles a team of experts to examine the issue and they conclude that allowing workers to privately invest a portion of their Social Security taxes in individual accounts is a viable way to solve the program's financial problems, increase the rate of return to young workers, and allow low income workers to accumulate real wealth. They conclude that most criticism of individual accounts -- they would be too risky, too costly to administer -- is unfounded. The president leans toward quick implementation.
George Bush? No. Bill Clinton. So much for the myth that Social Security privatization is a "partisan" or "conservative" issue.
I'd like to ask you how you felt when clinton was proposing we use part of the SS monies to put in the stock market? Where you as strongly opposed to it then?
Edited to correct url and add the %s and other things.
[ edited by Linda_K on Aug 21, 2001 12:14 AM ]
posted on August 21, 2001 12:06:25 AM new
krs - Your correction of my post is incorrect. That the people under the old system in Chile, did have a choice of staying with their original SS system or getting into the new system. If you'd read the Cato link you would have read where Jose Pinera (Chile's Pension Reformer) had so stated, and he should know.
Borillar - I have found a link just for you. Made me think of you when I read it. I'll have to post it in the morning. Saved it but I'm too tired to hunt for it now. But it's a group that is asking for the department heads in the IRS and SS departments to meet with him and a group of news reporters to prove to him what law states he must have a SS # or must give it as a condition of employment. He's backed by some lawyers, tax accountants, etc. in that there is no law requiring same.
While he seems to have many issues with our government, he feels the 16th amendment was never legally ratified and he's not (by law) required to pay federal income taxes or SS taxes.
posted on August 21, 2001 12:20:17 AM new
Foolish republicans.
Bush is trying to gain control of the funds in SS, and that's all.
The original purpose of the program was never to provide for building a net worth or for providing any person's sole source of retirement income.
The average monthly check from Social Security is only $845. To supplement that,
people of every age - especially those just starting to work - would be wise to put
much of their savings into private investments. But Social Security should not be diverted from its prime purpose. As Franklin D. Roosevelt said when he signed the
Social Security Act in 1935, ''We have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age.''
Roosevelt's guarantee of ''protection'' is far different from ''building a net worth.''
But it explains why Social Security was expanded to include benefits for disabled
people and families in which a breadwinner has died.
You can't seem to get that, can you? Clinton adressed financial problems within the social security administration and did not make efforts to gain the facility to misuse those funds in haphazard ways.
Bush, on the other hand wants to have that money to back him up as his programs fail due to the faltering economy much as the racketeers stole away with union member funds in another of the biggest scandals that this country has seen.
posted on August 21, 2001 12:24:08 AM new"krs - Your correction of my post is incorrect. That the people under the old system in Chile, did have a choice of staying with their original SS system"
Thank you for demonstrating what I already knew--that you had not read the link which you posted.
posted on August 21, 2001 12:24:26 AM new
Good Morning Baduizm - Yes, we received one last year. They're supposed to be mailed out 3 months before your birthday, so we haven't received this years yet.
Before my husband retired, his company gave us basically the same notice yearly, on his anniversary with the company. The report told us if his income continued (at the current rate) then upon retirement at age 62 he'd get this much monthly for his pension, and this much monthly for his SS security benefits. Then they also listed what both amounts would be should he not retire until age 65.
Why do you find it laughable? We appreciated seeing how his benefits were accumulating.
posted on August 21, 2001 12:31:20 AM new
For anyone wishing a clarification of the distorted claims made here, and the links to the entirety of the Cato institute, along with the continually updated projects of the Rush Limbaurgher "freeper" radicalism, you may find it here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/
posted on August 21, 2001 12:43:30 AM new
krs - Well see, I've heard differently. It was clinton that wanted to keep part of the SS surplus in individual accounts (privatized), under the governments control. Sound to me like President Bush wants us to have a part of the funds we pay be under our own control.
As as far as FDR and his original plan. That was a long long long time ago. Things have changed. Keep up. The majority of workers now have a pension funds. Wasn't true in FDRs day. Since you seem to feel it's necessary to protect those who can't take care of their own finances, they maybe they should be the only ones paying into the system and allow those who feel they can take responsibility for their future do so.
I personaly don't believe we should have any money going to SS. We should each be able to take that 15.3% and save or invest it. We don't need the government to be the babysitter of our funds. And as you say, it's not much money in the whole scheme of things anyway.
And here's a copy and paste from #2 on that page "Every worker already contributing to the pay-as-you-go system was given the choice of staying in that system or moving to the new PSA system.
I believe you're giving a url that Helen posted????
posted on August 21, 2001 12:57:45 AM new
No, Clinton's idea was only to invest a small portion of the fund in order to assist it over the hump until interest accruals make it a self supporting entity. It would not have affecred individual accounts at all.
The commission says that that ''Social Security cash deficits are projected to begin
in 2016,'', but that date is important only because it is when the cost of providing
Social Security benefits will exceed payroll tax revenue. After 2016, the trust will
simply begin to rely on the interest income and assets accumulated from years of
surplus - in addition to continuing payroll tax revenues - to finance benefits.
The large surpluses being built up now will keep the program healthy at least
through 2038, after which the payroll tax alone will still be able to pay 72 percent
of benefits even if we make no adjustments in the system now.
The interim report makes a number of other mistakes as well. Its claim that the
current system provides a poor rate of return misinterprets the program as an
investment scheme rather than social insurance. The commission barely mentions
the disability insurance and survivor benefits that flow to millions of Americans
under the age of 65. For a young worker with average earnings, a spouse, and two
children, Social Security provides disability and life insurance protections equivalent
to about $500,000 in private coverage.
Supporters of privatization claim that they would not change the disability part of
the Social Security program, but this is virtually impossible because of the way
Social Security is structured.
The commission findings also rely on the assumption that individuals are employed
without interruption between the ages of 22 and 65. That is not a realistic
assumption. Two-thirds of all workers retire before the age of 65. Many women
take time out from work to care for children and older relatives. On average,
women spend 11 years out of the work force.
What the report fails to mention is that the creation of individual retirement accounts
would exacerbate the financial pressures on the program. Diverting just 2
percentage points of payroll tax from the trust fund would more than double the
shortfall the program is expected to face over the next 75 years. According to a
letter written by the Social Security Administration's chief actuary, Stephen C.
Goss, to Senator Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat who is chairman of the
Senate Finance Committee, the diversion of 2 percentage points of payroll tax from
the Social Security trust fund into private accounts would push the trust fund into
deficit in 2007 - nine years earlier than forecast.
Even if Social Security were in a near-term crisis, privatization would be absolutely
the wrong thing to do. Social Security needs to be fine-tuned to continue to meet
the needs of our grandchildren and subsequent generations. There are a number of
incremental changes that can extend Social Security solvency for decades without
undermining the fundamental nature of the program.
For example, the government could invest a small portion of the trust fund in the
equity markets, which could increase the trust fund's annual return without
individual beneficiaries having to shoulder the risk inherent in private accounts.
This kind of approach would also preserve the role of Social Security as a financial
safety net and insurance program for working Americans.
posted on August 21, 2001 05:46:38 AM new
Considering that I once saw a post on these boards where someone was upset because eBay had raised it's fvf's from 5% of the first $25 to $1.25 for the first $25, I'm frightened that the average American might have to deal with their own SS.
It should be noted so I don't sound like a complete s***head that many people caught the poster's illogic.
posted on August 21, 2001 07:29:52 AM new
Good Morning everybody amid the fuss!
Linda - I am aware that Clinton made that suggestion. He looked like an electric cattle prod had been jambed ... er, ... you know where, when he mentioned it. I have no idea what the story was then, but both Democrats and Republicans alike cried out against the suggestion at the time. That I recall too!
I have a suggestion of my own for those who really would like to Opt-Out of Social Security and use the money to gamble with on the stock market instead. Those who want to do it will sign a contract that has already been successfully tested in the federal Supreme Court that would state, that if you end up broke at retiement age, your only "hand-out" from the government will be either the workhouse or prison! It won't matter how ill you are, nor how infirm or incapable oyu are to work or be left in a dank prison cell to live out the rest of your life -- that's your ONLY government option!
Now, if you're willing to sign away both the security and health benefits of the future to go gamble on the stock market instead -- fine! Just stop trying to make the same !@#$ happen to the rest of us who are conservative enough in the right way about our future.
posted on August 21, 2001 07:31:12 AM new
"Clinton addressed financial problems within the SS administration and did not make efforts to gain the facility to misuse those funds in haphazard ways" and It would not have affected individual accounts at all" Uh huh.
Yeah right.
According to three former top administration officials, President Clinton was strongly considering the partial privatization of Social Security prior to his impeachment in 1999.
The revelation was contained in a paper delivered by David Wilcox, an assistant treasury secretary, Douglas Elmendorf, a deputy assistant treasury secretary, and Jeffrey Liebman, an aide with the National Economic Council, at a Harvard University conference last month.
According to these officials, the Clinton administration spent nearly 18 months secretly studying issues surrounding individual accounts and concluded that:
Individual accounts were administratively feasible and would likely cost $20-30 per year per account to administer. However, to hold down costs, individual investment choices would have to be limited until accounts accumulated some level of minimum balance, perhaps $5,000.
Market risks were not a sufficient reason to oppose individual accounts. Administration analysts found that long-term investment was, in reality, relatively safe. The administration also noted that the current Social Security system contains political risks that may well be worse than market risks.
posted on August 21, 2001 07:59:29 AM new
Oh sure, but he did not make any assessments that took into account the possibility that a dumbya might have come and destroyed the thriving economy that he worked so hard to establish. Such a thing was beyond the scope of any consideration. It seemed impossible, yet here we are.
And today they'll try another reduction of rate because, surprise! The tax cut has not fixed the economy.
posted on August 21, 2001 08:01:26 AM new
I wouldn't put too much credibility in rantings of income tax protesters.
I've listened to them for 30 years, always the same chants about income taxes being voluntary and you don't have to pay them or sign your forms.
Well.... all who followed this "advice" have ended up in Federal prison or their assets seized to pay the taxes. Somehow, the legal scholars that REALLY matter - Federal judges, all find the reasoning of the tax protesters severly flawed and without merit.
When you find a Federal judge that sides with the tax protesters position that income taxes need not be paid, please let us know.
I have also heard the rantings about SS 20 years ago. The solution was to raise taxes. The Republicans said the sky was going to fall, and it didn't. The higher rate have been paid for 2 decades without any harm.
The Republicans say the same thing every time minimum wages are raised - it will wreck the economy. I read a piece from the late 1800's about minimum wage and an 8 hour work day wrecking the economy. The Republicans were wrong every time. The Republicans wish to protect and over value unearned wealth, plain and simple. Republicians love the working person, they love to see them work for as little as possible.
posted on August 21, 2001 08:04:05 AM new
Oh and here's another good one. Clinton's proposed cure for SS. "Up immigration and baby production." (Barrons - 2-8-99 page 24)
Anyone who is interested in the many many sites where clinton is reported to have been in favor of partial privatization can simply do a Google search. Just type in Bill Clinton on Social Security. Here's only one site that could keep you reading for days. Point being....it was reported *very* well. http://www.mindspring.com/~prfe/ss/listarchive.html
Some examples of the above are:
1-15-99 Reuters - "Dozens of democratic lawmakers told Clinton they strongly opposed creating individual SS retirement accounts that would allow workers to invest in the stock market. Clinton said he favors allowing some investment in stocks."
In his 1999 State of the Union address clinton proposed besides have SS he would create Universal Savings Accounts (USA) into which workers could put some of their hard-earned money. The government would match the deposits of those falling into the lowest income bracket. Oh great.....don't fix SS but add on a new government program. Several of mindsprings site show where clinton wanted to set up the USA investment account.
http://www.mindspring.com/~prfe/ss/mar99/b2-99b.html "Clintons plan to invest $700Billion in stocks will make the fed gov. a controlling factor in the operations of American Corporations - a major step toward fascium."
http://www.mindspring.com/~prfe/ss/nov99/mr10-26.html "Earlier this year, the president proposed to allow a small portion of SS funds to be invested in the stock & bonds - but only *if* the gov. did the investing.
How anyone sees this as much different as the ideas being discussed under President Bush....is beyond my understanding. Sure looks very close to me.
[ edited by Linda_K on Aug 21, 2001 09:01 AM ]
I plan to call my local SS office this week and ask them personally. But I'll bet they'll say the same thing that's in one of these URLs, and that is that the IRS has jurisdiction. I don't think I'll call the IRS and ask.
posted on August 21, 2001 01:32:46 PM new
One might wonder why, LindaK, since Bill Clinton supported or proposed the very same things that you tout as dumbya achievements you did not vote for him.
posted on August 21, 2001 02:46:19 PM new
One might.
Oh, so now you agree that clinton supported or proposed many of the same things that President Bush may? Why do I have the feeling that something unknown is about to happen?
And I don't 'tout' this as an achievement....it hasn't happened yet. It's just being discussed/debated. Always good to have both sides of an issue.
posted on August 21, 2001 05:20:59 PM newFor a young worker with average earnings, a spouse, and two children, Social Security provides disability and life insurance protections equivalent to about $500,000 in private coverage
This is the part so many are missing. Is this protection importaint? I have a sister who was widowed when her oldest kid was 4 years old. Her husband was 24 at the time he died. Her kids don't have a daddy, but even while she went back to school to get her teachers degree, there was food on the table and a roof over the kids heads.
I personaly don't believe we should have any money going to SS. We should each be able to take that 15.3% and save or invest it. We don't need the government to be the babysitter of our funds. And as you say, it's not much money in the whole scheme of things anyway
If that was how things where, what would have happened in my sister's case? No insurance, just what her husband had managed to put in his account by the time he was 24....
Made me think of you when I read it. I'll have to post it in the morning. Saved it but I'm too tired to hunt for it now. But it's a group that is asking for the department heads in the IRS and SS departments to meet with him and a group of news reporters to prove to him what law states he must have a SS # or must give it as a condition of employment. He's backed by some lawyers, tax accountants, etc. in that there is no law requiring same.
