Posted on 08/06/2010 8:03:04 PM PDT by Libloather
The Strengthen Social Security Campaign
by Dave Johnson
Social Security is once again under attack.
Time after time Social Security has come under attack.
Do you remember the Bush "privatization" campaign a few years ago? Each time the attack uses a different myth, repeated over and over. Then, in between attacks, the myths continue circulating. This time they're trying to make people think that Social Security contributes to the budget deficit. It doesn't. They say this because so many people are worried about budget deficits. If polling showed that people were worried that their arms are going to turn into green cheese, they would be repeating and repeating that Social Security is the reason your arms are turning into green cheese. Sheesh!
In response to the latest attack a coalition of groups has formed to fight back and protect Social Security, demanding that Congress not make any benefit cuts. The coalition represents 30 million members, who are asked to remind elected officials that Social Security remains the "third rail" of American politics and that any sort of benefit cuts are opposed by wide majorities, from liberals to Tea Partiers.
(Excerpt) Read more at seeingtheforest.com ...
This crap is about to hit the fan.
“Just give me my money back.”
Yes sir, do you want that in present USA dollars, or inflation adjusted paid USA dollars? Perhaps an inflation adjusted traded commodity, such as gold or silver would interest you?
It’s a ponzi scheme. Period.
Not any more.
A $455 billion reduction in Medicare spending without benefit cuts? A look at the CBO numbers
by George Bennett | March 22nd, 2010
How do you find $455 billion in Medicare savings without cutting benefits to seniors?
The health care legislation approved by the U.S. House of Representatives Sunday assumes Medicare spending will increase by $455 billion less than current projections over the next decade, but the bill’s supporters insist seniors won’t see a reduction in benefits.
The issue has especially big political consequences in senior-heavy South Florida.
http://www.postonpolitics.com/2010/03/a-455-billion-reduction-in-medicare-spending-without-benefit-cuts-a-look-at-the-cbo-numbers/
I paid in. They give me an annual report. I'll take whatever I've given them - with or without inflation adjustments.
I want my loot - and now.
I hear what you are saying I've paid into SS for over 40 years first you could retire at 60 then 62 and now it is 65. I am 57 and if the system is completely broke in 8 years my only recourse is to go to Washington bearing many arms.
Ok, I get the picture!
I have no hope of getting mine back.
Yes and it won’t be pretty when people realize that the gubbmint has been taking their SS money for decades and using it to buy other people free stuff. The fact is, there is no money oin SS now and soon there won’t be any more free stuff. I wonder how many will react to that reality by burning down their neighborhood?
Yet you still pay in?
I'll take exactly what I paid in, as if I invested it in long-term US government bonds each year, at the average interest rate they were auctioned.
I've run the numbers for my contributions and dug up long-term bond rates for the entire period. If I were to get back everything I paid, plus interest, RIGHT NOW -- it would be over $700,000.
” ... it would be over $700,000. ..
Ok at $25K/yr, you will get it back after a mere 28 years. So if you retire at 66 you break even at 94.
Pretty good, Huh?
What more can you ask for?
Assume room temperature?
“Assume room temperature?”
So true, but I don’t care for the side effects! LOL
That presumes that interest stops accumulating on the balance once you start benefits. That is, of course, incorrect.
I originally did these calculations to determine what my life expectancy had to be to "break even". I'd have to live until 152 to break even if I started benefits at 62. If I wait until age 70 to start benefits, I only have to live to 111 to break even. I should note that this assumes a historically low rate of return on long-term government bonds from now until the end of projections. If average long-term bond rates were to increase, my break-even ages would be even higher.
Unfortunately, the most optimistic assumption of all is that I'm actually going to receive the benefit that has been promised. The reality is that by the time I start receiving Social Security benefits, the "trust fund" will be gone and the current FICA payroll tax will only provide about 76% of the promised benefit. That pushes the "break-even" point for benefits started at age 70 out past age 134 (another 23 years).
For what it's worth, comparing the total value of benefits started at 62, my "full" retirement age, and at 70 add up to the same value at age 81. That means that if I expect to live past age 81, it's best to wait until age 70 to start receiving benefits. If I don't expect to live to age 81, it's better to start benefits at age 62.
But, current law says I don't have to make that choice. I can start receiving benefits at 62 and put them in the bank (or some low-risk investment that preserves capital). At any point up to age 70, I can pay back all the benefits I received, keep the earned interest, and reset my monthly benefit to the amount I would receive if I had started at the older age.
Thanks for the informative reply. My full retirement age was 66, so I took it. I expect that WW III will skew any long term projections, including the assumption that SS will be operational.
There is nothing wrong with the SS system! SS will ne solvent for the next 75 years.
It is all hype.. There will be money there as long as BHO/congress does not get their hands on it!
Watch www.c-spanvideo/program/294950-1
The only problem is that your loot was looted! It’s gone. Any money you will be paid is going to come directly out of the paychecks of your kids and grandchildren.
Government turns us all into either slaves or parasites.
Allowing people to take since LBJ that never contributed and keeping an age requirement set back when the the average lifespan was 20 years younger is a ticket for disaster.
Welcome to America, it was nice, for a long time.
Are you people really that dense? There is NO SUCH THING as a “Social Security system” — it’s all an accounting fiction.
By law (and confirmed by Supreme Court rulings) Social Security is nothing more than a tax — like an additional, smaller version of the income tax with a different name — and an entitlement — like welfare — but with rules about the benefit computation involving previous taxable earnings. That, plus a fancy annual “statement” to give you the impression that you have some sort of retirement account with your name on it. This is a total charade, since the amount of the tax and the amount of the benefit can be (and have been) changed at the whim of Congress. You have NO RIGHT to anything more than what the current payout is at the current time, regardless of how much you’ve “payed in” previously.
The input side and the output side have nothing to do with each other, except as a way for Congress to spend more money than they raise in taxes. The so-called “surplus” that was supposed to have been put into a “trust fund” has, in reality, already been spent as part of the general fund (just like all the other taxes — duh), and replaced with “special bonds” — which is a fancy way of saying government “IOU’s”. Since the only way the bonds can be redeemed (i.e., “payed back”) is with more government revenue, the ugly truth is that the tax money that was already spent will have to be payed back in the future with — wait for it — more tax money! Once you understand that simple fact, you will finally realize that all the talk of a “system” and how many years of “solvency” it has, or how to “fix” it or “save” it or ANYTHING ELSE is just complete and utter B.S., dished out to the voting public to distract them from the awful truth.
So if any of you rubes imagine that a “surplus” in any government “trust fund” (think Highways, Aviation, etc.) is a good thing, you’re just proof that you really are dumber than the crooks you elected to Congress.
the reason the dems don’t want private accounts is because then it’s YOUR money and they can steal it when you die.....
They steal it all your life and when you die they keep what’s left over, that’s what no one talks about....when they started this stealing, life expectancy was 65, just when you were supposed to cash in....they always figured they keep most of it...it was just another way to rob us.
private accounts are the best way to go.
the reason the dems don’t want private accounts is because then it’s YOUR money and they can’t steal it when you die.....
They steal it all your life and when you die they keep what’s left over, that’s what no one talks about....when they started this stealing, life expectancy was 65, just when you were supposed to cash in....they always figured they keep most of it...it was just another way to rob us.
private accounts are the best way to go.
I'm not so sure. Happened just the other day -
Social Security: More going out than coming in
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2565138/posts
All I’m going to say is that YOU are wrong.
I AM right, so that ends my comments to YOU.
Correct, but there is a 2+ trillion dollar surplus in US Bonds. The intrest paid on that surplus will more then make up for it.
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.