outbaksean Posted February 25, 2008 Author Share Posted February 25, 2008 Not at all. The problem with Social Security comes from the fact that we are living longer and longer. When Social Security was created, 65 was really, really old. Now it isn't that old at all. Most people can remain employed just fine at that age.So now, people are still paying in the same number of working years as they always did, but they are collecting SS for 30 years instead of 10 or 15. If you move up the retirement age a few years, you fix that imbalance. And if science advances and we start living to 120 and staying reasonably healthy until we are 90, you might have to move up the retirement age again. But there is nothing wrong with that. Just because people are living longer doesn't mean they are staying healthy longer. You're also assuming that medical reaserch stays on the pace it is going, and that life expectancy won't cap. Even if those assumptions are right (i hope they are) I still don't see this as anything but a short term patch. It was an analogy. The point he was making is that young Muslims in the US don't riot because they have jobs and prospects, unlike their European counterparts. Just like the old and poor in the US don't support Communism or Fascism because they have a social safety net, and don't have to fear starvation when they get old. I still don't see how you can get Communism or Fascism or anything revolutionary from cutting social security. It is basically taking money from the old, and giving it back to the rest of society. I don't want to sound insulting to the elderly, but I just don't see a bunch of them forming a revolucion, especially when I just made the other 85% of society that much happier. Give me a historical example of a group of people who rioted after they were given a large sum of money, because that is what we would be doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegionOfDoom Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Well i already started my Roth IRA and plan on adding alot each year that i dont spend at all and use my 401K to the max when i get employed You are smart kid. Keep it up With my TSP and 403B I'm not worried. Good luck gang. But don't worry SS is not going anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Predicto, we have been over your "tweaks" several times Eventually the population of elderly will keep rising, and you can't keep "tweaking the system" i.e lowering benifits, and raising the retirement age. You'll end up in a situation like Japan is in now, or us in 50 years where the retirement age is 82, and you get 110 dollars a month We could keep tweaking it forever, but much like the salary cap mgmt of the Washington Redskins, the thing is fundamentally flawed The 30 and younger crowd will keep paying for it, so the 40 and up crowd can get theirs then poof, the kids of the boomers will have no more, unless we keep allowing a massive influx of illegals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Does putting in money in Roth IRA reduce the amount of tax you must pay in a year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Just because people are living longer doesn't mean they are staying healthy longer. You're also assuming that medical reaserch stays on the pace it is going, and that life expectancy won't cap. Even if those assumptions are right (i hope they are) I still don't see this as anything but a short term patch. I am not assuming anything of the sort. It is a matter of broad demographic statistics, not individual cases. If life expectancy ceases to go up, then Social Security will reach an equilibrium and no further changes will be needed. Get roughly the right number of people paying in and the right number of people collecting out, and the problem is solved permanently. I still don't see how you can get Communism or Fascism or anything revolutionary from cutting social security. It is basically taking money from the old, and giving it back to the rest of society. I don't want to sound insulting to the elderly, but I just don't see a bunch of them forming a revolucion, especially when I just made the other 85% of society that much happier. Give me a historical example of a group of people who rioted after they were given a large sum of money, because that is what we would be doing. Maybe not in the short term, but absolutely yes in the long term. Social instability would increase as people's fear of utter poverty increased. Not only that, but poor people would start having more and more kids, the way they do in places like India, not becuase they want more kids, but because the parents want to make sure that some survive to take care of them when they get old. So we get a population boom among the poor. That's not a good thing either. By the way, your 85% figure is way overstated. I would not be happier if I stopped paying social security taxes and the program died, because I understand the program's overall value and I expect to collect on it someday. Many others agree. QUOTE] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Does putting in money in Roth IRA reduce the amount of tax you must pay in a year? No, that is a traditional IRA. A Roth IRA is tax free when you take the money out after retirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Predicto, we have been over your "tweaks" several timesEventually the population of elderly will keep rising, and you can't keep "tweaking the system" i.e lowering benifits, and raising the retirement age. You'll end up in a situation like Japan is in now, or us in 50 years where the retirement age is 82, and you get 110 dollars a month We could keep tweaking it forever, but much like the salary cap mgmt of the Washington Redskins, the thing is fundamentally flawed The 30 and younger crowd will keep paying for it, so the 40 and up crowd can get theirs then poof, the kids of the boomers will have no more, unless we keep allowing a massive influx of illegals I don't agree. Japan is in the state that it is in precisely because they refuse to tweak their system in light of their demographics. The boomers are a bubble, but there is no reason to assume that the percentage of elderly will keep going up forever. Eventually, you reach an equilibrium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 The other point is, yes we are living longer, but are we living "better" longer? If that makes sense I.E just because the life expectancy of Americans is now higher then it was in 1933, does that mean those people who are seniors are in better health and better able to work then those in 1933? In some cases I am sure (see John McCain) but in other cases I am not so sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 No, that is a traditional IRA.A Roth IRA is tax free when you take the money out after retirement. i decided to go roth because i rather pay tax now correct instead of higher values in the future. So should i go ahead and put in extra money into my roths Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 i decided to go roth because i rather pay tax now correct instead of higher values in the future. So should i go ahead and put in extra money into my roths Time value of money my friend You will pay less in taxes if you deffer the tax payments on it until the future There are all sorts of graphs on the internet that talk about it. Its a decent amount of tax payments you will avoid over the lifetime of your IRA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Time value of money my friendYou will pay less in taxes if you deffer the tax payments on it until the future There are all sorts of graphs on the internet that talk about it. Its a decent amount of tax payments you will avoid over the lifetime of your IRA Absolutely. The only reason to do a Roth is if you think you are going to be absolutely loaded when you retire, and in a very high tax bracket. Otherwise, load up the traditional IRA and avoid those taxes now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 The other point is, yes we are living longer, but are we living "better" longer? If that makes senseI.E just because the life expectancy of Americans is now higher then it was in 1933, does that mean those people who are seniors are in better health and better able to work then those in 1933? In some cases I am sure (see John McCain) but in other cases I am not so sure Well, it is definitely better than it was in 1933. We are just way, way healthier due to advances in medicine, safer workplaces, less pollution, fewer smokers, etc. Just look at the white collar 65 year olds you know, then look at the broken down farmers and factory workers in pictures from the 1930s. I don't know if it is better now than it was in 1990 or so, however. We may have topped out on that, at least for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Ted Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 dont rely on the gov't for anything. the best thing you can do right now is start and IRA ASAP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outbaksean Posted February 25, 2008 Author Share Posted February 25, 2008 Damned if you do Damned if you don't I am not assuming anything of the sort. It is a matter of broad demographic statistics, not individual cases. If life expectancy ceases to go up, then Social Security will reach an equilibrium and no further changes will be needed. Get roughly the right number of people paying in and the right number of people collecting out, and the problem is solved permanently. I don't believe this will ever happen. We'll get to the point where we would be spending too much and not enough at the same time. By this I mean, the government is taking to much from our paycheck AND not enough for those on social security. You think you can control it and tweak it, but it has a mind of it's own, if we don't destroy it now it will continue to grow and grow untill it is too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 I don't believe this will ever happen. We'll get to the point where we would be spending too much and not enough at the same time. By this I mean, the government is taking to much from our paycheck AND not enough for those on social security. You think you can control it and tweak it, but it has a mind of it's own, if we don't destroy it now it will continue to grow and grow untill it is too late. I don't see why you think that. Unless you think that there is no long term way for a government to provide a social safety net at all. :whoknows: Some pure libertarians do believe that, but I don't agree with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Does putting in money in Roth IRA reduce the amount of tax you must pay in a year? No. Roth: The money you put in is money you've paid taxes on. But when you take the money out, there's no taxes, not even on the interest you earned while it was in there. Traditional IRA: The money you put in is pretty much considered money that you haven't earned, yet. If you have $50K, and put $5K into a traditional, then as far as the IRS is concerned, you made $45K that year. (One way of looking at that is: If you're in a 20% marginal tax rate, then for every dollar you put in, the IRS pays you 20 cents.) Like a Roth, the interest you earn is tax-free, too. But, when you take the money out, then you have to declare the withdrawal as income, and pay taxes on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 There are all sorts of graphs on the internet that talk about it. Its a decent amount of tax payments you will avoid over the lifetime of your IRA Another way the Traditional pays off is if you're in a lower tax bracket when you take the money out. If you're in a 30% bracket when you put the money in, then in effect, 30% of the money in your IRA is Uncle Sam's money. And 30% of the interest you earn is interest on Uncle Sam's money. And when you take the money out, you may only be in a 10% bracket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outbaksean Posted February 26, 2008 Author Share Posted February 26, 2008 I don't see why you think that. Unless you think that there is no long term way for a government to provide a social safety net at all. :whoknows: Some pure libertarians do believe that, but I don't agree with them. You're right, I have know way of knowing wether or not it can work or not. But I do know I don't like it. It's Uncle Sam saying he know's what's best for me. I resent the fact that my government doesn't think I can save my own money. What if I would rather spend now and starve later it should be my choice!:helmet: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 You're right, I have know way of knowing wether or not it can work or not. But I do know I don't like it. It's Uncle Sam saying he know's what's best for me. I resent the fact that my government doesn't think I can save my own money. What if I would rather spend now and starve later it should be my choice!:helmet: Some people don't have the choices you have. They don't make enough to save for retirement. The people working at Walmart or McDonalds. The people who start small businesses that fail. The people that get sick, or make bad investments, or whatever. Statistically, there is no way to avoid the fact that many, many people will be impoverished and unable to work when they get old. You probably won't be one of them, but statistically, those people are still going to be here. Millions of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outbaksean Posted February 26, 2008 Author Share Posted February 26, 2008 Some people don't have the choices you have. They don't make enough to save for retirement. The people working at Walmart or McDonalds. The people who start small businesses that fail. The people that get sick, or make bad investments, or whatever.Statistically, there is no way to avoid the fact that many, many people will be impoverished and unable to work when they get old. You probably won't be one of them, but statistically, those people are still going to be here. Millions of them. social security doesn't go to poor people it goes to old people. you said yourself, you're not poor but you're going to take it. you could try to guilt me if this money was going to the truly unfortunate, but i have a feeling a large portion of it doesn't. maybe that is the solution, to only give it to people that would need it. then the government could give the rest back as rebates, or take less in the first place?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 social security doesn't go to poor people it goes to old people. you said yourself, you're not poor but you're going to take it. you could try to guilt me if this money was going to the truly unfortunate, but i have a feeling a large portion of it doesn't. I'm not trying to guilt you - I am stating simple reality. Old people who can't work have no way to earn more income. They can't move, change jobs, whatever. If they are broke, they are just stuck. The rate of elderts in abject poverty would go through the roof of there were no Social Security. maybe that is the solution, to only give it to people that would need it. then the government could give the rest back as rebates, or take less in the first place?? Like I said in one of my first posts, that is another solution. Adopt "means testing" so that the well-off do not collect Social Security at all. It would balance the books. The thing is, SS was created with the understanding that everyone who paid in would get something out. Maybe not the exact amount they put in or anything, but something. It was a social compact. Millions of people have paid in for 40 plus years with the understanding that they were getting to participate one day. So, in theory you could change it to more of a pure welfare system, but that would disenfranchise millions of people who paid in for decades already. Plus, this creates new problems of bureaucracy and enforcement to make sure that only the truly needy collected. It is a possible solution, but not my choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 social security doesn't go to poor people it goes to old people. you said yourself, you're not poor but you're going to take it. you could try to guilt me if this money was going to the truly unfortunate, but i have a feeling a large portion of it doesn't. maybe that is the solution, to only give it to people that would need it. then the government could give the rest back as rebates, or take less in the first place?? Actually, it mostly goes to poor old people. What you get out really isn't based all that much on how much you put in. The guy who works his entire "career" at minimum wage will get a lot more out than he puts in. The guy who made eight times as much, and paid eight times as much in SSI taxes, will get more, but it won't be eight times more. May only be double, for all I know. (It also goes to people, for example, who got injured at work and can't work, and to the widow of the minimum wage guy, and things like that, too. But even if you focus exclusively on the "pay till you're 65, then collect" aspect of it, it's intentionally skewed towards the lower income workers.) Which is a good thing if you're thinking of it as a social safety net, not as good if you're comparing it against your 401K at work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 SS apocalypse is less than 10 years around the corner and nothing will be done until then. Anyone under the age of 45 that believes that SS will be there for them in its current system when they retire, probably still believes in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 Like I said in one of my first posts, that is another solution. Adopt "means testing" so that the well-off do not collect Social Security at all. It would balance the books. Actually, the decision to consider SSI income taxable income does a bit of that, now. The guy with the big 401K still gets SS income, but more of it gets taxed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 SS apocalypse is less than 10 years around the corner . . . Utter BS. As you would have known if you'd even bothered to read the thread. If absolutely nothing is done, SS remains exactly the same until 2054, and then benefits have to be cut by 17%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.