I didn't earn it, I don't need it, but if they miss one payment I'll raise hell!
Posted on 05/25/2005 8:42:08 AM PDT by qam1
The debate over whether to reform Social Security is full of idiosyncrasies.
Here's a big one: No matter what fix we're talking about - partial privatization, raising the retirement age, means testing so millionaires forfeit benefits, tying benefits to inflation rather than wages, etc. - the most ferocious opposition comes from the demographic that won't be affected either way by any proposal being discussed at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue: Americans already 55 and over.
If you can imagine that, you're already two steps ahead of the Bush administration. White House officials seem baffled that their biggest fight has turned out to be with a group with whom the administration went out of the way to avoid picking a fight. The polls on this issue back that up. Most show the same trend: The older the polling sample, the less support you find for tinkering with Social Security. The younger the sample, the greater the support.
The more the administration tries to reassure seniors that they'll squeak by before any rule change takes effect, and so this debate doesn't concern them, the more concerned seniors get. Here's what the White House missed: This isn't just about self-interest. It's also about sentimentality. No other generation is as passionate - and therefore as protective - about Social Security as the World War II generation, those Americans now in their 70s and 80s. For that demographic, this debate is about preserving a program that served their generation well and which they hope will be around several decades from now to serve their grandchildren.
That's interesting. If they really wanted to protect their grandchildren, they'd do everything they could to ensure some generational fair play. Unless something is done, the current system will - 10 or 20 years from now - soak taxpayers with tax rates that experts say could easily top 50 percent when you combine income taxes with the payroll taxes necessary to fund Social Security and Medicare.
But there's no reasoning with the elderly on this issue. I know. I tried.
Recently, I agreed to sit on a panel here in Coronado and discuss Social Security reform. Home to a lot of retired naval officers, the well-to-do community has a reputation for being conservative. But you wouldn't know it from the way the audience - made up almost exclusively of senior citizens - seized every opportunity to tear into President Bush and his proposal to allow young people to invest part of the money they contribute to the current system into private accounts.
The way these seniors see it, this isn't about demographics and the undeniable fact that, with every year that goes by, we have fewer workers supporting more retirees. This isn't about the fact that Americans are living longer, and so it only makes sense to push back the retirement age.
For this crowd, the whole issue of reforming Social Security comes down to trusting George Bush. For those who don't, it's tempting to buy the argument that the administration is manufacturing a crisis to gin up public support for a scheme that will make a fortune for ''Bush's friends on Wall Street.''
Judging from their questions and comments, that's what many in the Coronado audience believed. And they couldn't get past it. They insisted on making the issue political, when it's really generational.
That disappointed me. So did the fact that these seniors had convinced themselves that there was no ''crisis'' in Social Security because the best estimates are that benefits will continue to be paid out for the foreseeable future. They didn't seem to care a whit about the financial strain that future taxpayers will be put under to make that happen. This is the real crisis.
You know what else was disappointing? That many of the seniors were so openly contemptuous of the idea of letting poor and working people invest their own money in private retirement accounts. To listen to these seniors, the less well-off aren't smart enough to know what to invest where, and so need the government to provide them with a guaranteed benefit.
Putting aside the rank condescension, such comments were horribly naive. Given the demographic changes ahead - beginning with the retirement of 70 million baby boomers - don't expect the Social Security system to give out any guarantees or to honor them if it does.
That's something that older generations need to understand - and which younger generations figured out a long time ago.
Jeez, you have the sensitivity of a liberal. In none of my posts did I refer to you individually, did I? Yet, you took blanket, generalized statements as a personal attack on yourself.
Well being a old guy myself.. an un-rich one..
What we'd be good for "IS"...
Watching the young'uns so they DON'T start the mother of all riots but an actual for real revolution.. Young meaning 50 and below..
This thread has made me think of something interesting, if I dont say so myself.
Why dont we just buy out SS? The government takes actual cash paid in (including pre 83 tax rates of only 6%), adds the 3% credited interest and then gives the tax payer a lump sum.
The tax payer can then go to vanguard and thier own annuity.
If these contributions were as large people think, then this should be a good deal for them.
Absolutely. Better yet, abolish the payroll tax altogether and fund the benefits out of general revenues. (Which should be from a national sales tax replacing the income tax, but that's a separate issue).
Calm down. Look, any change is going to be phased in gradually, so those in your position will get most or all of what you were "promised", and everyone else has plenty of time to make adjustments.
Well, you're one of the few. Most of the nation can't.
I am calm. I know I won't be affected by the President's plan. I support the President in his plan. I wish it had been available to me. It just irritates me to hear the younger generations be so disrespectful of the older generations, as if we did not do anything valuable or save for our futures. There are some older people who were less fortunate, who did not have good educations, nor the job opportunities that many of us did. Therefore, they need more help than many of us do.
savings plan, no welfare, no savings plan.
Lets just do the buyout.
No, I have the sensitivity of a woman. I am most definitely not a liberal. Well, didn't you take what I said as if I were saying it to you?
Anyway, let's not fight. There has to be a solution to this mess the government has gotten us all into. Hopefully President Bush will help us get to it.
In the minority. But not alone.
Got my first SS check this month. And sure wish I'd had the opportunity that private accounts will offer to the whippersnappers...
Surely, you dont think this is 'economic justice'
As with any Ponzi scheme, those who got into Social Security early have been handsomely rewarded, while latecomers will be lucky to get anything at all. Ida Mae Fuller received the first Social Security check in 1940. In a harbinger of things to come, she received almost $21,000 in benefits by the time of her death in 1975, after contributing only $44 to the system. Few made out as well as Ida Mae, but for decades Social Security was a good deal for American workers. Payoffs were greater than employees’ payroll tax contributions, and by 1980, an average worker got back $145,400 in benefits, according to calculations by economist William T. Harris.
You can keep your social security if you want it I just want the option to say no I don't want a private account, I don't want medi-care, perscription plan this care or that care I just want to keep the money I earn and be left alone. If it means I never retire or live in poverty Im fine with that as long As I keep the money I earn. Just let me opt out and I'll never be heard from again.
You will never go wrong with this point of view. My belief is that once people see what 4% of their income saved and compounded can do, they will ask that all the payroll tax be put in private accounts. It is then that the desire to control the accounts and in fact turn over the maintenance to brokers who do this as part of their job, when it clearly is out of the governments normal job duty will occur. I believe the people will simply demand it, and if republicans are still in power they may turn it over. (Of course the cynic would say they will need some strong incentive from us, but who knows.) In any case the government loses a large part of our dough.
It's the politicians, abetted by the media, who don't want to let go. But ultimately, if there must be some mandatory savings program, the states are quite capable of handling that themselves. It's neither necessary nor appropriate for the federal government to be running it.
Yes, I only inserted a period of government control so that the pledge to maintain social security until a generation of savings has accrued. Believe me, this is easier to sell than a cut it now approach, which would be fine, except for the voting patterns of the AARP crowd.
I have no problem with this approach but it plays into the democrats hands. They plan will not go bust, it will meld into true socialism and the socialists will be very pleased to have this card to play.
I liken it to the public school system which I would like to see completely fail and then build up a system of private schools with local control. The problem is that many people of good will will settle for a crappy school system rather than ever let this terrible system fail completely. (Likewise those who root for another revolution are going to be deceived if they get their wish. Things getting out of control play into the socialists party line too.)
"However, the comment I responded to dealt with the elderly already dependant. I do not, will not, and cannot support any plan that would cut them loose as the post I responded entailed."
The current discussion of potential solutions don't call for cutting anyone off. Instead, they need to solve the situation to prevent future generations from being "cut off." Tough decisions need to be made.
An interesting issue that no one seems to be bringing up is all the corporations that are being forced into bankruptcy. The recent examples are nothing more than miniature SS systems. To see the expected state of SS in the not so long term, take a look at United Airlines.
"They will institute a 'private' investment program that will end up costing us tax payers more than the present corrupt system."
How?
"The reason it can't be left totally to the individual, and the reason the Bush plan doesn't leave it totally up to the individual is because a healthy, compassionate society cannot simply sit idly by an watch those who've made poor choices suffer."
So, you admit that it is a welfare system. The difference is that this welfare system pays out to 100% of a specific age demographic, regardless of their needs. Let's just drop the FICA name and move the tax into the Fed Income Tax category and drop the charade. At least then, people would realize where they stand.
If your house gets robbed, would you support your neighbor's house getting robbed? What is the difference between an armed robber and the government?
"However, a whole heck of a lot of money was taken out of our paychecks. He died one month before his 57th birthday."
And the President's pseudo proposal would have left him with something to pass along to you, besides the other investments you discuss.
Part of the problem is that I am being taxed at a very hefty rate to cover these government welfare programs. That hefty rate is preventing me from being able to invest as much as I would like to invest. The cost of taking care of others will prevent many of us from being able to sufficiently care for ourselves. What do you think that will do to this country?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.