Fiddling with Social Security
Is it true that SS will be out of money once again by the time I retire?
I seem to recall several times in the last 30 years this same discussion and debate took place. Each time, Congress found some way to manipulate the source of SS funds and size and length of payouts to prevent the system from going insolvent. When I was in High School, Tip O'Neil told America how we needed to re-work the system so the Baby Boomers would could have something to retire with. At that time, a combination of fixes too place.
First, the retirement age gradually increased over several years in the next two decades delaying the start time when new recipients could receive payouts. Was this fair? Well, those that were close to retirement age had to wait anywhere from 6 months longer to 2 years longer until they could receive payouts and either continue to work or rely on any other cash or equivalent assets they had managed to accumulate during the years leading up to their retirement age. You may not remember the significance of this period but it was when the MSM portrayed the elderly having to resort to eating dogfood due to their reduced income (there were other reasons for this not described by the MSM that included mental illness, no family support). The MSM only looked at the elderly they found that were eating dogfood and that contributed to their theme. This is a typical tactic of the MSM, only pick those individuals that contribute to their theme and ignore that vast majority of retiree's that managed to prepare for their retirement. I remember many of my HS and College peers believing this was a prevalent condition of the elderly and not questioning or attempting to find the truth out for themselves.
Second, Congress increased the percentage contributed by the existing workers in America. Was this fair to the younger Americans forced to pay proportionately larger amount of their income to support existing recipients well aware that the SS system as they know it may not be solvent until their own retirement age? Younger workers generally have never questioned the withholdings on their paystubs. They've never known anything different in their lifetime. They've never know a time when taxes were not withheld from their check. This generation also lives to emulate the lifestyles seen on television. They believe they can have it all by using credit and not worrying about saving or preparing for the future. That's what every commercial, banking institution, Jone's across the street, etc. want this generation to believe.
Congress also limited the payount percentage increases, holding back any increases over the next few years or limiting it to only a percentage point or two annually.
As long as a retiree is prepared for that time when they can no longer work and rely on that consistent income through, stocks, savings, assets or land, etc. Any of the above scenarios's would not significantly affect your welfare. My folks were that way. They prepared for their retirement early. Dad had a retirement program that included medical benefits with his blue collar job. They did not invest significantly in stocks but were able to have their home paid off, no debt from credit accounts or vehicles, a modest sum in their savings accounts which they could only get into with difficulty, and managed to separate themselves from their children financially and not have to support any beyond what is customary for their generation. All the kids in our household were generally out of the home within a year or two following graduation from HS. Was that preparation by my folks or preparation of the kids for running and taking responsibility for their own lives?
So, that begs to answer the question of how we should fiddle with SS today to make sure exiting retirees continue to receive "reasonable" benefits, while new retirees around the corner or several decades away can expect to receive their fair share of what they have been contributing toward all those working years.
First, I propose a financial test for all new SS recipients. The stories of millionaires in Florida continuing to receive SS allotments should be checked out. If true, the loopholes in the system that allow payouts to those that have no need should be closed. With welfare, foodstamps, unemployment, there are limits built into the system by the federal government that prevent welfare moms from continuing to receive benefits. There are now job programs and limits on how long you can receive welfare during your lifetime. With unemployment, there are limits based upon what you made in your last job and limits on the length of time you can collect.
I propose similar tests that prevent someone from collecting more than their fair share or collecting at all if they are indeed wealthy. Why should the wealthy be allowed to collect unemployment or SS if they have no "needs"? I am baffled that our SS system is blind to this issue. Unfortunately, the retirement lobbies are indeed powerful.
I also propose limiting the expansion of new benefits and tying any increase in benefits to the economy. If the nation is profitable and growing, the recipients should have the opportunity to reap some of that windfall. I'm not sure how to do that, but in my job, when the company does well, they pass on modest annual increases to employees. The government should do the same.
I also propose creating alternatives to the existing SS system that allows middle age folks such as myself to choose my retirement mechanism. More or less risk should be based upon my desire and not the governments control. I've been doing okay with my 401K now, but sticking to SS may never allow me any income. I'd like to have that decision left up to me and not Senator Kennedy (D-MA).
I don't believe privatization of SS is good. I believe I should be allowed to make my own retirement choices after I have demonstrated a certain dollar figure of payments into existing programs. For example, if I have $250k or $350k in a 401K or other assets accumulated, then I should be allowed to choose my retirement options. If I have no accumulated assets which I can depend upon, then perhaps I would be required to pay into the existing SS system. Sort of the like the workers compensation insurance program setup by California for employers. They have the option to use their own programs, but at a minimum must use the California equivalent program.
Congress would never allow any of these changes. The retiree lobbyist's are too powerful. The contributions by those lobbyist's are too large. This generation is too silent to challenge the previous generations power in Washington. People like me are too few and far between. No one wants to fiddle with the system because it gives promises to give them something in the future even though it may not be what they paid in or expected.
I don't have a better solution. The status quo will only hurt me. Almost any changes would help me. What more can I do?
I seem to recall several times in the last 30 years this same discussion and debate took place. Each time, Congress found some way to manipulate the source of SS funds and size and length of payouts to prevent the system from going insolvent. When I was in High School, Tip O'Neil told America how we needed to re-work the system so the Baby Boomers would could have something to retire with. At that time, a combination of fixes too place.
First, the retirement age gradually increased over several years in the next two decades delaying the start time when new recipients could receive payouts. Was this fair? Well, those that were close to retirement age had to wait anywhere from 6 months longer to 2 years longer until they could receive payouts and either continue to work or rely on any other cash or equivalent assets they had managed to accumulate during the years leading up to their retirement age. You may not remember the significance of this period but it was when the MSM portrayed the elderly having to resort to eating dogfood due to their reduced income (there were other reasons for this not described by the MSM that included mental illness, no family support). The MSM only looked at the elderly they found that were eating dogfood and that contributed to their theme. This is a typical tactic of the MSM, only pick those individuals that contribute to their theme and ignore that vast majority of retiree's that managed to prepare for their retirement. I remember many of my HS and College peers believing this was a prevalent condition of the elderly and not questioning or attempting to find the truth out for themselves.
Second, Congress increased the percentage contributed by the existing workers in America. Was this fair to the younger Americans forced to pay proportionately larger amount of their income to support existing recipients well aware that the SS system as they know it may not be solvent until their own retirement age? Younger workers generally have never questioned the withholdings on their paystubs. They've never known anything different in their lifetime. They've never know a time when taxes were not withheld from their check. This generation also lives to emulate the lifestyles seen on television. They believe they can have it all by using credit and not worrying about saving or preparing for the future. That's what every commercial, banking institution, Jone's across the street, etc. want this generation to believe.
Congress also limited the payount percentage increases, holding back any increases over the next few years or limiting it to only a percentage point or two annually.
As long as a retiree is prepared for that time when they can no longer work and rely on that consistent income through, stocks, savings, assets or land, etc. Any of the above scenarios's would not significantly affect your welfare. My folks were that way. They prepared for their retirement early. Dad had a retirement program that included medical benefits with his blue collar job. They did not invest significantly in stocks but were able to have their home paid off, no debt from credit accounts or vehicles, a modest sum in their savings accounts which they could only get into with difficulty, and managed to separate themselves from their children financially and not have to support any beyond what is customary for their generation. All the kids in our household were generally out of the home within a year or two following graduation from HS. Was that preparation by my folks or preparation of the kids for running and taking responsibility for their own lives?
So, that begs to answer the question of how we should fiddle with SS today to make sure exiting retirees continue to receive "reasonable" benefits, while new retirees around the corner or several decades away can expect to receive their fair share of what they have been contributing toward all those working years.
First, I propose a financial test for all new SS recipients. The stories of millionaires in Florida continuing to receive SS allotments should be checked out. If true, the loopholes in the system that allow payouts to those that have no need should be closed. With welfare, foodstamps, unemployment, there are limits built into the system by the federal government that prevent welfare moms from continuing to receive benefits. There are now job programs and limits on how long you can receive welfare during your lifetime. With unemployment, there are limits based upon what you made in your last job and limits on the length of time you can collect.
I propose similar tests that prevent someone from collecting more than their fair share or collecting at all if they are indeed wealthy. Why should the wealthy be allowed to collect unemployment or SS if they have no "needs"? I am baffled that our SS system is blind to this issue. Unfortunately, the retirement lobbies are indeed powerful.
I also propose limiting the expansion of new benefits and tying any increase in benefits to the economy. If the nation is profitable and growing, the recipients should have the opportunity to reap some of that windfall. I'm not sure how to do that, but in my job, when the company does well, they pass on modest annual increases to employees. The government should do the same.
I also propose creating alternatives to the existing SS system that allows middle age folks such as myself to choose my retirement mechanism. More or less risk should be based upon my desire and not the governments control. I've been doing okay with my 401K now, but sticking to SS may never allow me any income. I'd like to have that decision left up to me and not Senator Kennedy (D-MA).
I don't believe privatization of SS is good. I believe I should be allowed to make my own retirement choices after I have demonstrated a certain dollar figure of payments into existing programs. For example, if I have $250k or $350k in a 401K or other assets accumulated, then I should be allowed to choose my retirement options. If I have no accumulated assets which I can depend upon, then perhaps I would be required to pay into the existing SS system. Sort of the like the workers compensation insurance program setup by California for employers. They have the option to use their own programs, but at a minimum must use the California equivalent program.
Congress would never allow any of these changes. The retiree lobbyist's are too powerful. The contributions by those lobbyist's are too large. This generation is too silent to challenge the previous generations power in Washington. People like me are too few and far between. No one wants to fiddle with the system because it gives promises to give them something in the future even though it may not be what they paid in or expected.
I don't have a better solution. The status quo will only hurt me. Almost any changes would help me. What more can I do?
posted by Utah Chris at 11:52 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home