social security

[Larry]

I agree Larry. Raise it to something, whatever it takes, 66, 70 or something in between to make the system solvent. Do it now.

Imagine if they moved this from 65 to 68, on a gradual time scale, starting today. Suddenly, no more workers are moving off the pay-into system. Not only that, but suddenly, no more retirees are entering the system with their hand out. And this continues for three years. I'd imagine this would be a very healthy move for the SS system.

The way I'd do it:

No changes to the retirement age for two years. (Under the assumption that people who are, right now, two weeks away from retirement, have made a lot of plans, and it's not fair to them to suddenly tell them that they'll have to wait five years.)

Begining in the third year, then every year, the retirement age goes up by 6 months. If you're currently 62, then when you're 65, the "target" will move to 65 1/2. When you're 65 1/2, then you've "made it". So, if you're 62, and you thought you were 3 years away, then now it's 3 1/2. If you're 60, then you'll reach the moving goalpost in 6 years instead of 5.

If you're 54 or younger, then your target is now 70.

That way, people who are close to retirement, then your current plans won't have to change much. If you were 15 (or 30, or 50) years away, then you need to re-plan with a target age of 70.

[Predicto]

The way I'd do it:

No changes to the retirement age for two years. (Under the assumption that people who are, right now, two weeks away from retirement, have made a lot of plans, and it's not fair to them to suddenly tell them that they'll have to wait five years.)

Begining in the third year, then every year, the retirement age goes up by 6 months. If you're currently 62, then when you're 65, the "target" will move to 65 1/2. When you're 65 1/2, then you've "made it". So, if you're 62, and you thought you were 3 years away, then now it's 3 1/2. If you're 60, then you'll reach the moving goalpost in 6 years instead of 5.

If you're 54 or younger, then your target is now 70.

That way, people who are close to retirement, then your current plans won't have to change much. If you were 15 (or 30, or 50) years away, then you need to re-plan with a target age of 70.

Works for me. Problem solved.

Can I get you to focus on Medicare now?

[outbaksean]

The way I'd do it:

No changes to the retirement age for two years. (Under the assumption that people who are, right now, two weeks away from retirement, have made a lot of plans, and it's not fair to them to suddenly tell them that they'll have to wait five years.)

Begining in the third year, then every year, the retirement age goes up by 6 months. If you're currently 62, then when you're 65, the "target" will move to 65 1/2. When you're 65 1/2, then you've "made it". So, if you're 62, and you thought you were 3 years away, then now it's 3 1/2. If you're 60, then you'll reach the moving goalpost in 6 years instead of 5.

If you're 54 or younger, then your target is now 70.

That way, people who are close to retirement, then your current plans won't have to change much. If you were 15 (or 30, or 50) years away, then you need to re-plan with a target age of 70.

ok here's my idea. we don't change social security at all one bit for 25 years. then we cut it all together. that way people who won't get it have at least 25 years to plan for retirement. this way, i don't get anything from social security after putting in for almost 30 years, but thats a sacrifice im willing to make.

[Larry]

Works for me. Problem solved.

Can I get you to focus on Medicare now?

"Left as an exercise for the student"

[cphil006]

Just put it in the traditional. Get the tax savings now. That's a sure thing.

Do thie Roth if you plan on being in a higher tax bracket when you retire... no tax...

[Thiebear]

Social Security + Medicaid + Medicare + adding Prescription Drugs = 2017 DOOOOM!

But were doing better than China/Europe/Canada is going to do in that same timeframe.

I think its one of the cases of: If we can suck less than they do, we'll be fine.

[Larry]

ok here's my idea. we don't change social security at all one bit for 25 years. then we cut it all together. that way people who won't get it have at least 25 years to plan for retirement. this way, i don't get anything from social security after putting in for almost 30 years, but thats a sacrifice im willing to make.

So, if you're 40, then we're going to tax you for 25 years, then snatch the football away right as you're about to kick it?

(And, if you're 50, then we're going to tax you until 65, then pay you SS for 10 years, and then, when you're 75, we stop the payments?)

[outbaksean]

So, if you're 40, then we're going to tax you for 25 years, then snatch the football away right as you're about to kick it?

(And, if you're 50, then we're going to tax you until 65, then pay you SS for 10 years, and then, when you're 75, we stop the payments?)

yes. thats out punishment for ever thinking this could work.

you've got 25 years to save, you should be ok.

[Predicto]

Do thie Roth if you plan on being in a higher tax bracket when you retire... no tax...

Yes. My point was that it is almost impossible to predict your tax bracket 40 years in the future. Not paying taxes today is a sure thing.

[Predicto]

ok here's my idea. we don't change social security at all one bit for 25 years. then we cut it all together. that way people who won't get it have at least 25 years to plan for retirement. this way, i don't get anything from social security after putting in for almost 30 years, but thats a sacrifice im willing to make.

I like Larry's idea a lot better.

[Mark The Homer]

I like Larry's idea a lot better.

Me too.

[Cdowwe]

Democrats refuse to accept their baby is over. Its broken and will not be fixed. Atleast Republicans put ideas out there like privatization.

[Larry]

Democrats refuse to accept their baby is over. Its broken and will not be fixed. Atleast Republicans put ideas out there like privatization.

Uh, maybe you know something I don't, but I haven't seen a single proposal for fixing SS, or even for privatization in any meaningful way.

You're not one of those sucker who actually believe that Bush actually made a proposal a few years back, are you?

[The 12th Commandment]

Democrats refuse to accept their baby is over. Its broken and will not be fixed. Atleast Republicans put ideas out there like privatization.

Kind of like the situation with the right and illegal immigration, huh?

No party or ideology could get away with just accepting it's broken and be done with it - that's just as capricious as denying there's a problem. It'll get tweaked I'm sure, probably by the time I'll be needing mine. And let me tell you something better be there or millions of people, like me, will be on the warpath.

[Mark The Homer]

It occurs to me that one other thing that could help the situation is opening our gates to new documented workers from overseas, Mexico, etc. Of course, there will be unfavorable ramifications from this, so I'm not sure if it's feasible. But it might be something to consider.

[Larry]

It occurs to me that one other thing that could help the situation is opening our gates to new documented workers from overseas, Mexico, etc. Of course, there will be unfavorable ramifications from this, so I'm not sure if it's feasible. But it might be something to consider.

Don't quite know where you're getting that conclusion.

IMO, the vast majority of illegals are paying into Social Security right now, and aren't allowed to collect a dime from it.

[SkinsHokieFan]

The way I'd do it:

No changes to the retirement age for two years. (Under the assumption that people who are, right now, two weeks away from retirement, have made a lot of plans, and it's not fair to them to suddenly tell them that they'll have to wait five years.)

Begining in the third year, then every year, the retirement age goes up by 6 months. If you're currently 62, then when you're 65, the "target" will move to 65 1/2. When you're 65 1/2, then you've "made it". So, if you're 62, and you thought you were 3 years away, then now it's 3 1/2. If you're 60, then you'll reach the moving goalpost in 6 years instead of 5.

If you're 54 or younger, then your target is now 70.

That way, people who are close to retirement, then your current plans won't have to change much. If you were 15 (or 30, or 50) years away, then you need to re-plan with a target age of 70.

So if you are 26, that'll mean I pay into and I get my social security when I am 86

BRILLIANT!!! :laugh:

So at age 85, even though nobody will bother to hire me, I will still be paying into social security and getting 0 dollars. Yes Larry, this may quite be the most ridiculous proposal I have seen in my life to fix social security

What the "tweakers" don't seem to understand is you can certainly "tweak" to keep social security financially solvent, but essentially eliminate its effectiveness by constantly tweaking it. In your and Predicto's world, we can simply raise the age limit and cut benefits whenever needed, so that 86 year olds like me in 2067 will finally start to get my 129 dollars a month in benefits from SSI

[Larry]

So if you are 26, that'll mean I pay into and I get my social security when I am 86

BRILLIANT!!! :laugh:

You must have missed the posts I was responding to. I'm proposing raising the retirement age to 70.

(Which is why I said "If you're 54 or younger, then your target is now 70.")

[SkinsHokieFan]

You must have missed the posts I was responding to. I'm proposing raising the retirement age to 70.

(Which is why I said "If you're 54 or younger, then your target is now 70.")

I saw that clearly. The point being in my hyperbole was to highlight that you can tweak and temporarily make the thing financially solvent, and then you'll need to tweak further down the line again.

Eventually we'll have to revisit your proposal as the costs continue to rise and COLA's hit the budget harder and harder

[Larry]

I saw that clearly. The point being in my hyperbole was to highlight that you can tweak and temporarily make the thing financially solvent, and then you'll need to tweak further down the line again.

Eventually we'll have to revisit your proposal as the costs continue to rise and COLA's hit the budget harder and harder

True, (as pointed out earlier), my proposal will only make the system work for another 80 years or so.

I hereby present a humorous proposal that was made, earlier, when someone pointed out that a previous proposal (eliminating the cap on SS taxes) would "only" fix SS for 80 years:

I propose that you should hereby oppose all government programs that aren't guaranteed to solve whatever problem they address permanently.

To start with, I think the Defense Department should discontinue all expenditures that do not guarantee the permanent end to all war. I'm tired of buying aircraft carriers that only last for 30 years.

[outbaksean]

True, (as pointed out earlier), my proposal will only make the system work for another 80 years or so.

Isn't that a little selfish of you, you get social security i probably get some but definately less than you after paying more, and my kids get nothing.

80 years doesn't really sound like much to me. We need to start thinking of an alternative to social security now, I vote we just cut it.

[Cdowwe]

Uh, maybe you know something I don't, but I haven't seen a single proposal for fixing SS, or even for privatization in any meaningful way.

You're not one of those sucker who actually believe that Bush actually made a proposal a few years back, are you?

I thought I remembered a story about him doing it...and looks like he did

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/07/AR2006020701865.html

I believe it was for FY 2007 where he stuck it in for his budget he sent to Congress.

McCain has said he would be for personal saving accounts, which in my opinion would privatizing them.

Eh, call me a sucker

From what Ive seen, Obama wants to solve it by raising taxes.

I dont even think Hillary has a plan. She just says she will create a commission to study the problem. :doh:

[Larry]

Isn't that a little selfish of you, you get social security i probably get some but definately less than you after paying more, and my kids get nothing.

80 years doesn't really sound like much to me. We need to start thinking of an alternative to social security now, I vote we just cut it.

1) Which part of "80 ears" don't you understand? That's 80 years with no other changes.

Not "80 years of gradual decreases before completely collapsing". "80 years". (Yes, it's a projection, but it's a projection using the exact same assumptions that all the other projections are using.)

2) I'll believe that your argument has any logical basis whatsoever just as soon as you either

a) Identify for me whichever current government programs are guaranteed to solve their respective problem for (whatever time frame you do think is "long enough"). (What's your definition of "close enough for government work"? Does it have to be guaranteed to be good, with no adjustments down the road, for 100 years? Or is that too short for you, too?)

or

Announce that you've decided to disband the entire Federal Government, since it just doesn't seem to be capable of anticipating things that are going to happen 100 years from now.

Did you oppose the interstate highway system? After all, it's been constantly tweeked and modified over the years. And the roads need maintenance all the time. And they're constantly having to expand it. Obviously we should immediately eliminate all government expenditures on roads, since the government just seems incapable of building a road that's guaranteed to meet all of society's needs for 100 years, without any further modification.

And why is the government constantly adding new states? Do you mean to tell me that the government isn't capable of even predicting where our borders will be, 100 years from now?

[Larry]

I thought I remembered a story about him doing it...and looks like he did

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/07/AR2006020701865.html

I believe it was for FY 2007 where he stuck it in for his budget he sent to Congress.

Well, you're right, I hadn't heard of that one.

OTOH, from the article:

It's not clear how big a reduction in the basic benefit Social Security recipients would have to take in return for being able to set up these accounts, or precisely how the accounts would work.

Which means it was still a partial proposal. (Which was what he did the previous year, too. A lot of his proposal, he fought tooth and nail to keep anybody from seeing. Things like the fact that the government wouldn't have been giving you money to put into your account, they'd be loaning it to you. (At a profit to the government.))

But there are some things in that article that I hadn't heard. In fact, that "progressive indexing" thing that's mentioned on page 2 doesn't sound like a Republican proposal at all. More like something thrown in to try to get Democrats to vote for it, which I'd never have expected from Bush.)

[SkinsHokieFan]

Isn't that a little selfish of you, you get social security i probably get some but definately less than you after paying more, and my kids get nothing.

80 years doesn't really sound like much to me. We need to start thinking of an alternative to social security now, I vote we just cut it.

Its the only way people Larry's age can get anything to work

Just push it off for us to pay for

Larry seems to fail to take into account projected population growths, economic uncertainty with collecting payroll taxes, and the fact that the SSI fund is constantly robbed to fund the general fund

But tweaking our retirement is just fine