Posted on 04/10/2010 12:39:01 PM PDT by Libloather
There's nothing wrong with Social Security
That's the claim made by a "progressive" web site. Boy, are they wrong.
By Mark R. Crovelli, Guest blogger / April 7, 2010
I read Counterpunch.com on a regular basis for two reasons. First, I visit the site for its extremely good articles discussing the foreign-policy follies of Western governments. Few sites feature harder-hitting and more consistently anti-interventionist critiques of the policies pursued by Western governments. The second reason I like to visit Counterpunch is to give myself a good laugh. Nothing in the world amuses me more than when self-styled "progressives" attempt to discuss economics.
During my most recent perusal of the Counterpunch archives, I stumbled upon an article by Dave Lindorff entitled "Social Security Scare Tactics." The article made me laugh so hard that whiskey came out of my nose (which is, by the way, excruciatingly painful).
For those of you who don't want the punch line of the article spoiled, stop reading right now. For everyone else, put down whatever it is that you're drinking, because here it is: there's nothing seriously wrong with Social Security! That's right, Lindorff apparently really believes that all of the dire talk about the inevitable and impending bankruptcy of Social Security this year is nothing more than scaremongering designed to manufacture a "fake crisis." Don't get up off the floor just yet, because there's more: Lindorff apparently really believes that the Social Security "trust fund" actually has real money in it, instead of a bunch of worthless IOUs from the Treasury Department!
Now that I've spoiled the punch line, let's have a look at the evidence Lindorff gives for his knee-slapping claim that Social Security is not in dire straits.
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
*Not covered under Commiecare™.
Of course they have to say that... mess with some oldster’s social security, and the really old guys (80 and up) might come after you with a gun. After all, what have they got to lose?
Nothing wrong with Social Security?
Outside of it being broke, irrepairable and poorly run you mean?
Where have we heard that before!
Published: September 11, 2003
‘’These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,’’ said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ‘’The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.’’
“nothing seriously wrong with Social Security!
I just received my Social Security earnings statement. With a little basic math, if I had invested my 6.% SSI tax since I began working in 1974 and earned a modest return of 6 percent, I would have million bucks in the bank. At 4% a year draw down, that’s 40,000 a year or 4000 a month and I would still have a million in the bank.
Instead, I get to withdraw 2200 bucks a month at 65?
A good deal. pfft
Just like there was "nothing wrong" with the housing market shortly before all hell broke loose.
“if I had invested my 6.% SSI tax since I began working in 1974”
The tax is 15% including the amount the employer pays out of the fruits of your labor...
Nothing wrong with soc. sec., eh? Right now, the US is nothing more than a pension plan with an army. In 5 years, we’ll be a pension plan WITHOUT an army, just like Europe.
If Social Security were a private IRA type investment that could be drawn upon if a person was out of work due to a firing or layoff . . . a lot of people would be keeping their homes and feeding their families that are not.
If there were 10 months in a year, that would be accurate.
It’s just fine as long as it doesn’t run out of money before I die, max of 20 years!!!
I just received my Social Security earnings statement. With a little basic math, if I had invested my 6.% SSI tax since I began working in 1974 and earned a modest return of 6 percent, I would have million bucks in the bank. At 4% a year draw down, that’s 40,000 a year . . . and I would still have a million in the bank. Instead, I get to withdraw 2200 bucks a month at 65?“nothing seriously wrong with Social Security!
The tax is 15% including the amount the employer pays out of the fruits of your labor...You had to earn the whole 15%, including the "employer's contribution" in order to pay your way and keep your job.8 posted on April 10, 2010 4:00:33 PM EDT by babygene
The Social Security Trust Fund has dollars in it, in the form of government debt. And that is all a dollar is, is government debt. Its value, that is, depends on the credit-worthiness of the government.
The catch to the fact that there are, effectively, dollars in the SSTF is that any fool can write an IOU for $10 trillion - as long as he keeps it in his own possession. And that is precisely what the government, by law, has done. When the Social Security administration begins to run a negative cash flow, it will however have to use the SSTF - by presenting the bill to the Treasury. At that point, the IOU of the government to itself becomes an IOU to the US Treasury's creditors. And they are the ones who will decide what that IOU is worth. And when/if its value in the market drops, we are talking inflation. Inflation which could curl your hair.
It is only a good deal for those making less than about $40K/yr in current year dollars. Above that cut line the subsidization begins. One thing to remember (if you believe the promises of course which I don’t) is that an inflation adjusted annuity has considerable value (try pricing one for $2200/mo for example). Also you should 12% in your calculations for the later years (yours and your employers). You started work before the withholding increase so those years will be less. For better or worse the state wants to ensure a minimum income for everyone, and Social Security is part of that approach. It is just another funding vehicle.
Someone who only makes $10,000/yr could also complain because his check will be the same as the individual under SSI which may have never contributed a dime to the system. It all depends on perspective. The working couple where one earns about $105K and the other about $52K should be livid because their benefits will be the about the same as the guy with a stay at home wife making $157K (50% share for his wife) but the last $57K is not taxed by Social Security. The payback for a working spouse under Social Security sucks. My wife is a stay at home mom so I don’t have a dog in that fight.
The problem with a legislated government check is that you cannot do any decent retirement planning. I figure by the time I reach retirement they will needs test any income above S.S. so that anyone with more income than at this level will get jack. I would include Roths in that calculation as well. It tempts me to fold my cards at 55 and draw down my IRA/401(k) and have some time and money while I am still healthy. Carpe Diem baby. I could live on the promised benefits for sure, and I damn sure do not intend to work for someone else. If the money promised ain’t there, be ready for someone with nothing left to lose coming to Washington DC.
And if you die before you begin to collect, no $1,000,000 to leave for your heirs.
And you'll probably pay income tax (again) on a part of that withdrawal too!
Uncle Scam at work again.
But it does kill the germs on the way through...and probably cauterizes as well!
nothing wrong until it dies
“If there were 10 months in a year, that would be accurate.”
I knew you would catch that. I was roundng. zeros.. the point is still valid..
There ARE 10 months in a year.
Which month has 28 days?
Ans. - All of them do.
LOL.... 2nd grade arithmetic wasn’t wasted on US!!!
My favorite and I’ve pulled it on all 12 of my g/kids at one time or another:
Hey kids, you only have a half day of school tomorrow morning.
Yippee, Hurray!
You’ll have the other half tomorrow afternoon!
If social security is such a great program, then why is participation mandated by the force of law?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL0LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It’s even worse than that. Your money has already been spent. It’s gone. Any money that the government sends you is money stolen from someone else.
So, the government is having you to rob your fellow citizens as compensation for what it stole from you. Nice, huh?
I still have another 3 years before retiring.
I was however depending on my pension, I am getting concerned on that front now.
All I need is for Obama and those idiots in congress to go messin' around with my STA to hit the trifecta.
make that TSA.
I wonder if there will be anything left for the Boomers when they retire. My brother said that he will cash in all his retirement accounts and buy assets such as land and houses if it looks like Dear Leader is going to raid everything.
If I think they are going to pull that one time tax on TSA or IRA, I will pull the money and take the penalty.
“When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion - when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you - when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - you may know that your society is doomed.
Quote by: Ayn Rand
(1905-1982) Author
Source: Atlas Shrugged, Francisco’s “Money Speech”
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.