Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Well here is your chance to prove it, just click to play below:
OT: So you THINK you know how to FIX Social Security?
- Thread starter Thomas Rogers
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
And I was able to fix it with just a few tweaks (don't read this if you plan on playing):
[Broken External Image]:
[Broken External Image]:
I hit 100% by just reducing the COLA and increasing the wages subject to SS tax.
Did it the first time. Unfortunatly, we have to protect the assets of those that have money and exploit those that don't have the money.
Tom
Did it the first time. Unfortunatly, we have to protect the assets of those that have money and exploit those that don't have the money.
Tom
Johnny O
Well-Known Member
Mine jumped from 42% to 100% when I selected "Make All Earnings Subject To Tax".
Rick Kent
Well-Known Member
I got it in 2 moves also, gradually raise full retimrement age, cut future benefits by 5%.
The most important one was missing. Private accounts, let me invest my own money and be responsible for myself when the time comes.
The most important one was missing. Private accounts, let me invest my own money and be responsible for myself when the time comes.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Fkent, I'm not sure it is missing. Seems like it is an option as it is described as #10 in the "results" I posted above.
I, like others, tried to fix the problem by simply reducing benefits and increasing contributions.....kind of a "Well DUH!" approach to solving the problem.
I, like others, tried to fix the problem by simply reducing benefits and increasing contributions.....kind of a "Well DUH!" approach to solving the problem.
Jake Levin
Well-Known Member
I did it by increasing the contributions and not cutting benefits. After watching my grandfather struggle to keep his house while on SS, I don't believe we should cut benefits. 1/2% increase in the payroll tax makes up 51% of the problem. Making new government workers pay into it handles another 11%. Anyone who will be drawing off of SS should have to contribute to it as well.
Rick Kent
Well-Known Member
What I am talking about is keeping anyone currently in the system suckling at the mother pig and grandfathering in anyone without enough time to properly plan for retirement anymore.
Let the rest of us young whippersnappers invest our money into private accounts.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Fkent, I got that, but I was responding to your "it's missing" statement. I didn't drill down that far, but I assumed private accounts was an option in the simulation since it is described in the results. That's all I was saying.
I think private accounts will never be part of the fix. Too controversial. I like the idea...I just think too many people are scared of taking care of themselves.
TJR
I think private accounts will never be part of the fix. Too controversial. I like the idea...I just think too many people are scared of taking care of themselves.
TJR
Rick Kent
Well-Known Member
TJR,
I think I missed it in the simulation because I did what you and many others did and reached 100% well before private accounts was presented as an option.
I do not expect to see private accounts in my working career. When I get my SS statement it makes me sick to see how much money has been taken out of my paychecks over the course of the last 20 years and how little return the government earns on that money...
I think I missed it in the simulation because I did what you and many others did and reached 100% well before private accounts was presented as an option.
I do not expect to see private accounts in my working career. When I get my SS statement it makes me sick to see how much money has been taken out of my paychecks over the course of the last 20 years and how little return the government earns on that money...
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Fkent,
I hear you. I've already calculated based on projections that I will have to draw SSI for 20 years to be able to "break even" considering what I will have put in, and that's at 0% growth.
It's the worst investment imaginable, if you think of SSI as an investment.
TJR
I hear you. I've already calculated based on projections that I will have to draw SSI for 20 years to be able to "break even" considering what I will have put in, and that's at 0% growth.
It's the worst investment imaginable, if you think of SSI as an investment.
TJR
Mark Grumpy
Well-Known Member
#1 should be tax the billions that supposedly leave the country in the form of illegals working. 
Personally, I do not prefess to know what the fix is but I do not think it should be personal accounts only. I know, don't say what it should not be if you can't say what it should be. :lol:
Anyway, here's why: The welfare folks, the handicapped, the disabled vets, etc. etc. still need to be taken care of (whether we agree with the welfare recipient is another issue) and we know they do not have the will, education, means or a combination of these to properly invest for themselves. So we need some form of SS to ensure that happens.
The next argument is "Let me opt out, I should have a choice." Maybe! What if your investment fails for whatever reason? Did you sign a waiver saying we can shoot you so you will not be a burden on those that did not opt out? A little drastic. End result is we end up right where we are with mandatory contributions.
Personally, I do not prefess to know what the fix is but I do not think it should be personal accounts only. I know, don't say what it should not be if you can't say what it should be. :lol:
Anyway, here's why: The welfare folks, the handicapped, the disabled vets, etc. etc. still need to be taken care of (whether we agree with the welfare recipient is another issue) and we know they do not have the will, education, means or a combination of these to properly invest for themselves. So we need some form of SS to ensure that happens.
The next argument is "Let me opt out, I should have a choice." Maybe! What if your investment fails for whatever reason? Did you sign a waiver saying we can shoot you so you will not be a burden on those that did not opt out? A little drastic. End result is we end up right where we are with mandatory contributions.
Les
Well-Known Member
Eliminating the cap improves the system %93. Slowly increasing retirement age will resolve the rest. Letting people fend for themselves is part of the problem, not the solution.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Grumpy,
Right, you are correct. SSI should be viewed as a disabled, widows and orphans fund for those not able to buy disability and life insurance. It should be viewed as a social program for those that can't provide such protection for themselves.
It shouldn't be a retirement vehicle. For that we can and do have other programs (most already have such programs available to them...401(k), IRA, Roth IRA, etc).
TJR
Right, you are correct. SSI should be viewed as a disabled, widows and orphans fund for those not able to buy disability and life insurance. It should be viewed as a social program for those that can't provide such protection for themselves.
It shouldn't be a retirement vehicle. For that we can and do have other programs (most already have such programs available to them...401(k), IRA, Roth IRA, etc).
TJR
TomT
Well-Known Member
If our stupid president passes his amnesty bill then there's not going to be ANY money left in the system for all of us hard working Americans that have paid into it.
Gavin Allan
Well-Known Member
What about those folks who are too stupid or inmature to take care of themselves? What do we do about them? Kill 'em?
Seriously, what do we do about these people?
Mark Grumpy
Well-Known Member
TJR,
that's interesting and I never looked at it that way. One of those things I just accepted and took for granted. I guess like much of the country, which is kinda why we're in the pickle we're in huh? :wacko: But the problem still remains that there will always be those that cannot or will not take care of themselves enen though they are able. What do we do with them?
The "cannot" being those that make bad choices and the "will nots" being the bums we already support. Possibly two different reactions/proposals based on effort, work history etc. not necessarily how much cash was contributed to the system.
:lol: Just thinking with my fingers now...
that's interesting and I never looked at it that way. One of those things I just accepted and took for granted. I guess like much of the country, which is kinda why we're in the pickle we're in huh? :wacko: But the problem still remains that there will always be those that cannot or will not take care of themselves enen though they are able. What do we do with them?
The "cannot" being those that make bad choices and the "will nots" being the bums we already support. Possibly two different reactions/proposals based on effort, work history etc. not necessarily how much cash was contributed to the system.
:lol: Just thinking with my fingers now...
TomT
Well-Known Member
I believe in nature it's called "thinning the herd".
Les
Well-Known Member
TJR, 401(k), IRA etc. are all volunteer programs. Most people do not save or invest wisely regarding their future (not only for their retirement, but this includes educating their own children). Part of the problem today is that a large part of SS recipients (widows) have never worked a day in their lives and the portion paid in by their husbands was exceeded many years ago. Since you can only plan for the future, removing the cap and slowly increasing the retirement age will resolve the problem for the future.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Gavin,
There will always be those people that are either unable or unwilling to do what it takes to take care of themselves.
The social program reform of the past two or three decades has focused on differentiating between those that are "unable" vs those that are "unwilling", and haven't really done much to reduce the cost of the programs. The cost of differentiation between the two has shown to be very costly and bureaucratic.
So, I ask you:
Would you just simply let those unwilling to take care of themselves starve, die, etc, in some "tough love" approach?
TJR
There will always be those people that are either unable or unwilling to do what it takes to take care of themselves.
The social program reform of the past two or three decades has focused on differentiating between those that are "unable" vs those that are "unwilling", and haven't really done much to reduce the cost of the programs. The cost of differentiation between the two has shown to be very costly and bureaucratic.
So, I ask you:
Would you just simply let those unwilling to take care of themselves starve, die, etc, in some "tough love" approach?
TJR
