re: udtiger's plan to save Social Security

quote:

---

I might be wrong but I think it was the other way around. This talk was happening in the early 2000's during the .com craze. All these new technology stocks were making big money and providing big returns. My memory is that the Democrats (led by Barney Frank) wanted to let people "cash out" of SS and invest those funds into the market. Bush and republicans slow walked talks of this and then all talk of this stopped when the markets crashed in '07.

---

As I recall these were two separate instances. You describe the one that was a Bush reaction but he also had an initiative which was a tiny option and the Dems railed at that. Also, the Dems during Bush started pushing the idea of means testing which they proposed again every five years or so. If Kamala had won they would have pushed means testing through. IE, if you make 'X' amount of money by age 65 then all of your SS money is donated to the fund so it won't go broke.

quote:

---

Everyone needs to stay in it and government needs to pay back every penny they have stolen from the SS trust fund

---

Exactly. An every member of congress's retirement system switched over to SS.

quote:

---

gooooooooooooooooooberment

---

Is your o key really sticky or do you think this is a witty joke you need to make repeatedly?

quote:

---

2) 45-54 - can stay in system like 55+, or can do hybrid 50% SS and 50% self directed mandatory account. They have to forego 50% of what they have contributed to SS. All of employer's share goes to SS as well as 3.75% (half of employees share). Can put 3.75% in their own account, that they own. Account had to be at least 50% US Treasury instruments. Pre-tax (so reduces taxable income). SS benefits not subject to tax. Self directed account subject to 10% flat tax from dollar one once withdrawals start.

---

Say what? Is the thinking here that we can voluntarily give up 50% or just lose 100% when it all fails?

quote:

---

Nope. I never consented to any of this crap. Won’t start now.

---

Nor will you have to. Staying in the system is an option.

Also, this is a framework. Age ranges/cutoffs could be adjusted. The reduced tax rate for withdrawals is somewhat of a payback.

quote:

---

or can opt out completely

---

That WILL NEVER happen.

Not that it wouldn't be a great idea.
It would.
But because the premise presumes SS is a retirement benefit.

SS is NOT A RETIREMENT BENEFIT.
It never was.

SS is a FEDERAL BORROWING PROGRAM.
It was structured that was by FDR & Co from the outset.

As a borrowing program, SS is unique. The Feds both borrow from, and set terms for the lender, the American workforce.

It's akin to applying for a home loan, telling the lender "6% is too high a rate, I'll pay 2.5% for a 30yr FRM," with the lender having no right to refuse.

Under those terms, and as long as we are in debt, SS is not a program the US will cede. It cannot and will not shed its lenders, aka you & me.

I think it should be ended for those under the age of 21. I think that anyone who has paid into it involuntarily should be entitled to receive a lump sum on retirement, equivalent to their pay in, invested in whatever means the retiree chooses. Individuals above a certain net worth, should get a tax credit on either estate or income taxes.

I’m fine with eliminating social security, but the whole theory behind it is that the worker paid in. I think there are serious due process complications about the government just not paying back what it promised it would pay back.

The government raided that shite. It can get the money needed to make the people it defrauded during the entirety of their working lives, from the fricking MIC.

I truly believe that the bigger problem is Medicare. Social Security is easier to solve.

quote:

---

Nor will you have to. Staying in the system is an option.

---

Sure. Just give me back the money that was involuntarily “contributed” by me towards the system that I won’t be participating in.

(no message)