- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Why do politicians want to manipulate the retirement age for SS???
Posted on 10/18/14 at 10:23 am
Posted on 10/18/14 at 10:23 am
You will recall at different times some democrats and republicans have all called for raising the retirement age of social security in order to "save" social security.
It disgusts me that this is position of Bill Cassidy. He wants to raise the SS retirement age to age 70.
Why anyone opposes privatizing social security and planning for it's eventual end is beyond me. Who wants these politicians to have more say in your retirement? Who wants to pay more as these slugs pander to an aging population to get votes? Who wants to wait to retire because politicians yank your benefits away?
Clearly---more clearly than ever before--the old republican stand back when the party was really conservative of privatizing social security is needed.
The IB Freeman Plan is viable alternative and is a much better stand than is Cassidy's.
For those that don't know it here it is---
First we implement a national sales tax that will fund social security benefits and will be adjusted every year to equal the amount required to provide current and future benefits.
Second we mandate the savings in private accounts--even savings accounts--of current SS payroll deductions and employer match contributions. That will require workers to save 15% of their pay that they are now giving to the government.
At retirement age of 65 workers can start withdrawing these savings at the same rate as they would be paid social security. Any time these savings exceed the amount of money they would need to draw up to age 85 they can withdraw the excess. Anytime the savings are inadequate to draw the amount they would receive under SS they can then draw SS.
This would not end SS immediately. It would not impact current SS participants.
It would give workers more control of their money. It would build estates. It would dramatically improve America's savings rate thus reducing the need of the Fed's money supply manipulation. We could also end the "social security trust fund" and erase that massive debt from the books.
Mr. Cassidy is wrong to support raising the social security age. He should embrace social security savings accounts and abandon this wish washy crap of increasing the age limit.
It disgusts me that this is position of Bill Cassidy. He wants to raise the SS retirement age to age 70.
Why anyone opposes privatizing social security and planning for it's eventual end is beyond me. Who wants these politicians to have more say in your retirement? Who wants to pay more as these slugs pander to an aging population to get votes? Who wants to wait to retire because politicians yank your benefits away?
Clearly---more clearly than ever before--the old republican stand back when the party was really conservative of privatizing social security is needed.
The IB Freeman Plan is viable alternative and is a much better stand than is Cassidy's.
For those that don't know it here it is---
First we implement a national sales tax that will fund social security benefits and will be adjusted every year to equal the amount required to provide current and future benefits.
Second we mandate the savings in private accounts--even savings accounts--of current SS payroll deductions and employer match contributions. That will require workers to save 15% of their pay that they are now giving to the government.
At retirement age of 65 workers can start withdrawing these savings at the same rate as they would be paid social security. Any time these savings exceed the amount of money they would need to draw up to age 85 they can withdraw the excess. Anytime the savings are inadequate to draw the amount they would receive under SS they can then draw SS.
This would not end SS immediately. It would not impact current SS participants.
It would give workers more control of their money. It would build estates. It would dramatically improve America's savings rate thus reducing the need of the Fed's money supply manipulation. We could also end the "social security trust fund" and erase that massive debt from the books.
Mr. Cassidy is wrong to support raising the social security age. He should embrace social security savings accounts and abandon this wish washy crap of increasing the age limit.
This post was edited on 10/18/14 at 10:26 am
12
Posted on 10/18/14 at 10:35 am to I B Freeman
So prepare for retirement responsibly during life and you won't have to worry about SS @ 70. You can retire at 62 and after 8 years get a little extra kick back from Uncle Sam.
Its up to the american populace to decide which is more important, an $700 car note vs $300 and throwing that extra cash in a roth, 401k or other retirement vehicle. Do you want a 200k house when you can reasonably live in a 100k house?
Do you have to keep up with the jones at the expense of your retirement? If so its your own fault that you are having to wait till 70 to get money out of the government.
Its up to the american populace to decide which is more important, an $700 car note vs $300 and throwing that extra cash in a roth, 401k or other retirement vehicle. Do you want a 200k house when you can reasonably live in a 100k house?
Do you have to keep up with the jones at the expense of your retirement? If so its your own fault that you are having to wait till 70 to get money out of the government.
Posted on 10/18/14 at 10:36 am to I B Freeman
quote:
He wants to raise the SS retirement age to age 70.
I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that. I heard him say that he wants no changes for older workers (can't remember cut off...let's say 40). Then new rules for younger workers, including some privatization.
A national sales tax will end up the same as the current pay roll tax..rolled into the general fund for politicians to spend as they please.
Posted on 10/18/14 at 10:41 am to I B Freeman
quote:Because it is an extraordinarily reliable way to service a chunk of the National Debt. Essentially it is a massive forced purchase of lowered-return savings bonds.
Why anyone opposes privatizing social security and planning for it's eventual end is beyond me.
Americans are just told it's about retirement.
This post was edited on 10/18/14 at 10:42 am
Posted on 10/18/14 at 10:41 am to Zach
quote:
I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that. I heard him say that he wants no changes for older workers (can't remember cut off...let's say 40). Then new rules for younger workers, including some privatization.
Nope I am not.
quote:
A national sales tax will end up the same as the current pay roll tax..rolled into the general fund for politicians to spend as they please.
It would be dangerous BUT it would be in my plan only for SS benefits and only in the amount of benefits to be changed yearly. In 20 years or so it would be nearly gone as savings mounted. It would tax a lot more income than is taxed now and everybody would pay it.
It is a MUCH MUCH better solution than anything I have seen proposed. Republicans have from time to time put forth private plans but they didn't fund the benefits promised to present workers. My plan would and it would dramatically reduce the SS payouts. In year two or three the amount the government is paying out would start going down.
Posted on 10/18/14 at 10:43 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
quote:
Why anyone opposes privatizing social security and planning for it's eventual end is beyond me.
Because it is an extraordinarily reliable way to service a chunk of the National Debt. Essentially it is a massive forced purchase of discounted savings bonds.
Americans are just told it's about retirement.
That is true AND another good reason to adopt the IB plan. We could essentially nationalize the debt presently held in the SS trust fund and we would have mandated the sales tax collection be spent only for SS benefits. The mechanism to use SS taxes in the general fund would end.
Posted on 10/18/14 at 10:46 am to I B Freeman
Because life expectancy... Ponzi scheme... Etc.
Posted on 10/18/14 at 10:46 am to I B Freeman
Bush proposed a meager 4% private option. The Dems convinced the public that millions of old people will die in the streets. SS will never be changed as long as Dems exist.
Posted on 10/18/14 at 10:48 am to Zach
quote:
Bush proposed a meager 4% private option. The Dems convinced the public that millions of old people will die in the streets. SS will never be changed as long as Dems exist.
and as long as republicans want to raise the age instead enacting a truly fiscally responsible, superior plan like the IB plan.
It is stupid for conservatives to support Cassidy on this issue.
Posted on 10/18/14 at 10:49 am to I B Freeman
quote:Only way your plan would work in the same way would be if Americans were forced to buy a Savings Bond/ Treasury type instrument that returned less than comparable open market Treasuries/Bonds. Obviously the problem is folks would immediately realize they were getting ripped off.
adopt the IB plan
Posted on 10/18/14 at 10:50 am to I B Freeman
quote:Mandating that the pay go into private savings accounts doesn't change anything for the employee / employer. It only puts the money at greater risk and will likely negatively affect the governments ability to pay off debt.
First we implement a national sales tax that will fund social security benefits and will be adjusted every year to equal the amount required to provide current and future benefits.
Second we mandate the savings in private accounts--even savings accounts--of current SS payroll deductions and employer match contributions. That will require workers to save 15% of their pay that they are now giving to the government.
At retirement age of 65 workers can start withdrawing these savings at the same rate as they would be paid social security. Any time these savings exceed the amount of money they would need to draw up to age 85 they can withdraw the excess. Anytime the savings are inadequate to draw the amount they would receive under SS they can then draw SS.
All you wind up with is a less secure system plus a huge national sales tax. Don't see how that is better.
Posted on 10/18/14 at 10:52 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Only way your plan would work in the same way would be if Americans were forced to buy a Savings Bond/ Treasury type instrument that returned less than comparable open market Treasuries/Bonds
Why? savings accounts would be fine. We could even allow banks to issue equity like CDs with 20 year terms.
If the savings returned zero it would be preferable to what we have. Nobody would be getting ripped off to the extent they now. Certainly not to the extent Cassidy wants to rip us off.
Posted on 10/18/14 at 10:54 am to mmcgrath
Why not force congress to pay back the money they " borrowed " from social security.
Posted on 10/18/14 at 10:55 am to 56lsu
quote:They already are.
Why not force congress to pay back the money they " borrowed " from social security
Posted on 10/18/14 at 10:57 am to mmcgrath
quote:
Mandating that the pay go into private savings accounts doesn't change anything for the employee / employer. It only puts the money at greater risk and will likely negatively affect the governments ability to pay off debt.
BS. Why do you think that?? Think of the HUGE risk you are taking today. You may not get any of the money back if you die before 65. You are giving away the money.
BS BS BS. Why do you think like that??
quote:
All you wind up with is a less secure system plus a huge national sales tax. Don't see how that is better
I didn't do away with SS in my plan. It becomes a fail safe. How could it possibly be less secure???
Would you rather have the 15% of your wages now going to the government in a no touch savings account you own or at the disposal of Pelosi, Cassidy, Bohner and Reid?
Posted on 10/18/14 at 10:58 am to I B Freeman
quote:The Feds have to finance the debt. Treasuries are an instrument used to that end. Treasuries come at a cost to the government. SS is the equivalent of mandating the purchase of lower returning instruments, i.e., reducing cost of debt service to the government. Savings accounts do nothing of the sort.
savings accounts would be fine
Posted on 10/18/14 at 10:58 am to 56lsu
quote:
Why not force congress to pay back the money they " borrowed " from social security.
That is only a sideline.
The moral issue at stake here is the control of your wages by politicians.
Posted on 10/18/14 at 10:59 am to I B Freeman
Maybe Cassidy believes thst since Reagan and Tip O'Neal combined to raise the age once already, the two sides could come together and do it again.
Your plan might seem great on paper, but politically it has no shot of passing.
I don't see SS as a huge issue in this election, but I prefer Cassidy's approach to doing nothing at all.
Your plan might seem great on paper, but politically it has no shot of passing.
I don't see SS as a huge issue in this election, but I prefer Cassidy's approach to doing nothing at all.
Posted on 10/18/14 at 10:59 am to I B Freeman
quote:W tried to move in that direction and it failed miserably. It also cost him some political capital. It's the Third Rail of politics.
Why anyone opposes privatizing social security and planning for it's eventual end is beyond me.
Posted on 10/18/14 at 11:04 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
The Feds have to finance the debt.
The feds can continue to deficit spend. What does this have to do with that?
If the SS trust fund is no longer a bond buyer that means the fed may have to spend more for the debt BUT it also means the second largest pile of debt will disappear. The treasury could simply absorb the debt the trust fund now owns. The US would suddenly have a lot less debt and we would be paying as we go for retirement entitlements.
The entire point of the plan is the government will not have these savings to manipulate anymore.
I am not in the taxpaying business to ease the government's ability to finance deficit spending.
Saving accounts would be great for the banking system. In fact they will present a dilemma is such quantity as the banks would be fact with huge liabilities as they take on these deposits. THUS the creation of equity like 20 year CDs.
Page 1 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News