(08-11-2015, 12:34 AM)username Wrote: Truth is, fuck social security. It's only for idiots that can't save/invest their money anyway. I'm pretty sure we could do a lot better than the government with the dollars we're contributing to SS. It's all a rip off to help the stupid.

A lot of people work hard their whole lives and never attain wealth or have much extra to put away.

They just want to care adequately for their families and have counted on using the Social Security they paid into as income when they're old and retired. That doesn't make them all stupid, you rich elitist! And, not all disabled people who rely on Social Security are stupid either.

I think Bernie Sanders' idea, or something like it, is worth considering. He says lift the SS taxable earnings ceiling from $118.5k to $250k; don't change the tax percentage; don't raise the eligibility age; don't disqualify anyone who paid into it from collecting benefits upon retirement. I can see how that would result in a huge increase in the SS fund (though I imagine those making over the current ceiling would bitch about being penalized for being successful, and I get why).

Alternatively, I would like to see an analysis of how Social Security solvency would fare if there was no earnings ceiling, no age eligibility change, but the percentage tax for earnings over say $125k was cut from 6.2% to like 1.5% (just thinking out loud). I bet that would solve the problem, though I'm sure the rich would bitch.

I also understand Christie's point and Tiki's too. Social Security is a tax which was initiated to prevent the elderly and disabled from poverty. If you've got over $200k in retirement income annually and over $4 million in liquid assets, you are already "socially secure" by reasonable standards. Should you really qualify for benefits in that case? It's a reasonable question, IMO.

Privatizing Social Security is something that's been kicked around for many years. It's an interesting prospect, to me.

Here are some of the most commonly argued points for and against privatization.

PROS OF PRIVATIZATION:
YES, Social Security should be privatized (changing the system to one of private investment retirement accounts).

1. When Social Security began in 1935, the contributions of 17 workers paid for the benefits of one retiree. In 2035 the estimated ratio will be 2.1 workers per retiree. Allowing individuals to contribute to their own private accounts may reduce future loss of money from fewer worker contributions.

2. Using the existing system to avert the pending collapse of Social Security will require deep cuts in benefits, heavy borrowing, or substantial tax hikes. A better solution is to switch to private investment accounts that will be funded with the existing Social Security tax thereby avoiding any benefit cuts or tax hikes.

3. Putting Social Security into private accounts does not expose retirement money to risk. These federally regulated personal accounts would allow individuals to invest only in approved mutual funds and not in single stocks or highly volatile [unstable] stocks. [Note: When you invest in a mutual fund, you are paying an investor to invest in a group of stocks that he/she thinks will perform well. This can be less risky than putting all of your money into one stock.]

4. In the past, budget surpluses in Social Security were used by the federal government to fund other government spending. Keeping retirement money in private accounts will prevent it from being diverted for non-Social Security purposes—thereby reducing the likelihood of the U.S. govt. spending more than it takes in.

5. Privatizing Social Security into individual investment accounts would boost economic growth by injecting money back into America's failing financial system.

6. The maximum Social Security tax in 1935 was $60; as of 2009 it is $11,000. Privatizing Social Security will alleviate [lessen] this excessive taxation since private accounts will be taxed through the normal process of income taxation.

7. Given the pending crisis, many young workers assume they will never see the money they are putting into the current Social Security program. Private accounts will be a transparent system that is more accurate an account of the relationship between today's earnings and future benefits.

8. Privatizing Social Security would empower individuals to have control over their own retirement investment decisions, taking the US government out of citizens' financial retirement decisions.

9. Social Security was established at a time when people had a shorter life expectancy. The only viable option for a population that is living longer is to put Social Security into personal investment accounts.

CONS OF PRIVATIZED SOCIAL SECURITY
NO, Social Security should remain under govt. control (keeping the system as it is, with taxes going into a trust fund, not the stock market).

1. Private accounts would reduce special insurance protections, such as disability and survivor's insurance, that are also provided by Social Security. Cuts will have to be made to these programs in order to fund private retirement accounts.

2. Privatizing Social Security, which essentially is putting peoples' retirement money at the whim of the stock market, will weaken the federal retirement system through potentially risky investments.

3. Putting their Social Security funds into private investing accounts exposes US workers to be victims of unscrupulous [unethical] stock brokers and of their own investment choices.

4. Many people either do not know, or do not want to know, how to make the sound decisions about their own long-term investments that private accounts require.

5. Social Security is a program that provides benefits through one, centralized process dictated by the US government. Moving benefits into individual private accounts creates a decentralized system that will have to take into account the millions of diverse opinions, preferences, and expectations of individual investors, making the program too unwieldy [uncontrollable].

6. Privatization of federal retirement benefits has proved disappointing in other countries. Private retirement accounts in the UK that started in 1988 have had management fees and marketing costs eat up an average of 43% of the return on their investments.

7. Putting money from Social Security into private accounts means moving retirement savings from a simple, easy to comprehend system into a complex structure of investment portfolios and stock market shares that is more difficult to understand.

8. Invested private Social Security accounts will not benefit the US economy but will put billions of dollars in management fees into the pockets of Wall Street financial services corporations.

9. Instead of upsetting the system through a new plan like privatization, future budget shortfalls can be fixed within the system. The current system will work by reducing benefits, increasing taxes, and/or raising the retirement age.

Ida Fuller was the first SS recipient. She paid into the system for three years before she retired, a total of $24.75.

She then went on to collect $22,888.92 from the system, living until the ripe old age of 100.

In 1956, they piggy-backed disability insurance onto the program... began collecting and handing out more cash.

It was a house of cards from the very beginning.

4. Many people either do not know, or do not want to know, how to make the sound decisions about their own long-term investments that private accounts require.

Often the brain sponge will absorb all it can, it cannot possibly retain more. Some sponges are larger and can retain more but that may only be 1% of total sponge material.

I view Social Security as a huge success story.

It's accomplished its goal of keeping millions of elderly and disabled people above the poverty line for more than 70 years.

Now, people are living longer and there will be more payouts due at the same time due to birth booms and other factors, so some adjustments need to be made to the program in order to keep it successful for the next generations.

I'm not rich nor poor. I want to see as few people living in poverty in this country as possible, especially the elderly and the disabled. So, I won't mind if I end up paying SS tax on a higher portion of my income to help others (though preferably at a lower tax rate past a certain salary). That would keep the program in place for all of society, and minimize the chances that I and my family will end up living in poverty when we're old or should we become disabled.

Without having considered all of the options in detail, I think that would be the most efficient way to go about keeping Social Security solvent as compared to privatizing or denying wealthy SS contributors returns on what they paid in. It's not a perfect solution and would put more responsibility on high earners, but I can live with that.

(08-11-2015, 11:12 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(08-11-2015, 12:34 AM)username Wrote: Truth is, fuck social security. It's only for idiots that can't save/invest their money anyway. I'm pretty sure we could do a lot better than the government with the dollars we're contributing to SS. It's all a rip off to help the stupid.

A lot of people work hard their whole lives and never attain wealth or have much extra to put away.

They just want to care adequately for their families and have counted on using the Social Security they paid into as income when they're old and retired. That doesn't make them all stupid, you rich elitist! And, not all disabled people who rely on Social Security are stupid either.

I think Bernie Sanders' idea, or something like it, is worth considering. He says lift the SS taxable earnings ceiling from $118.5k to $250k; don't change the tax percentage; don't raise the eligibility age; don't disqualify anyone who paid into it from collecting benefits upon retirement. I can see how that would result in a huge increase in the SS fund (though I imagine those making over the current ceiling would bitch about being penalized for being successful, and I get why).

Alternatively, I would like to see an analysis of how Social Security solvency would fair if there was no earnings ceiling, no age eligibility change, but the percentage tax for earnings over say $125k was cut from 6.2% to like 1.5% (just thinking out loud). I bet that would solve the problem, though I'm sure the rich would bitch.

I also understand Christie's point and Tiki's too. Social Security is a tax which was initiated to prevent the elderly and disabled from poverty. If you've got over $200k in retirement income annually and over $4 million in liquid assets, you are already "socially secure" by reasonable standards. Should you really qualify for benefits in that case? It's a reasonable question, IMO.

Yeah, I'm bitching. I've had enough since California increased income taxes.


New figures from the Franchise Tax Board show that the wealthiest 1% of Californians paid 50.6% of the state income tax in 2012 — up from 41.1% in 2011. It means that of nearly 15 million tax returns, about 150,000 generated more than half the revenue.

Brown's Proposition 30 tax hike took effect in 2012. Voters approved it in November, but the huge bumps in income tax rates for the rich were retroactive to January.

Under Prop. 30, the top rate was jacked from 10.3% to 13.3%, by far the highest of any state. The hikes began phasing in for single filers when their earnings exceeded $250,000.

I don't think that we're "rich". Not in the land where everything costs a fortune. As I said before, I don't mind lending a hand but it's become a hand an arm and both legs.

Over the years my husband has brought 3 Jr. partners in to his business. See? We even provide JOBS.

I've said in other threads that given our basically two-party system, I think it's necessary for the administrations to change between the two periodically to provide some balance. I'm pretty sure I'm voting Republican this cycle. In the last California election, I can't say I studied the candidates very much but I checked just about every damn Republican box I could.

^ I understand, user. I do. The two-party, big money-controlled system makes a lot of people feel like they're always forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, I think.

Checking those Republican boxes stings a little, doesn't it? That's a serious question, though I suspect I know you well enough after years of hanging out here together to bet that there's a real bitter aftertaste when it comes to begrudgingly sanctioning some of the domestic social policies, gun control resistance, religion-inspired repressiveness, pro-war and international superiority complex, etc....that plagues the GOP.

On the plus side, I see progress with this election. There are three candidates who are not Democrats nor Republicans in the running: Donald Trump (swings both ways, and back and forth), Bernie Sanders (Independent who dislikes the Democratic party and dislikes the Republican party more), and Rand Paul (Libertarian).

It would be great if they didn't have to squeeze under one of the two existing umbrellas just to compete, but at least they're running and they aren't completely conforming to the traditional Republican and Democratic conventional wisdom and platforms to do it.

I think if real campaign finance reform gets passed (via caps, equal governmental allotments, or something of that sort), there will quickly be at least a 4-party political system in play; five if the Tea Party breaks from the GOP. I'm crossing my fingers that happens before 2020 or 2024.

I'm beginning to think that it's more likely than not that Donald Trump is seriously pursuing the Presidency. It's hard for me to believe that someone so business savvy could really be so childish, but maybe he's just that business savvy AND just that childish too?

Snip:
Donald Trump says he’ll do whatever it takes to become president to “make America great again” — even if it means “whining” his way to the White House.



“I do whine because I want to win and I’m not happy about not winning,” Trump said on CNN’s “New Day” on Tuesday. “And I am a whiner and I keep whining and whining until I win.”

“I’m running as a Republican, I’m leading in every poll … I’m leading all over the place and I want to run as a Republican,” he said. “If I am treated fairly that’s the way it’s going to be, but I want to keep that door open. I have to keep that door open because if something happens where I’m not treated fairly, I may very well use that door.”

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/donald-tr...42416.html

HotD gets me!! Yes, the social issues are...intimidating and the hard right stance a HUGE turn off. I'm not wild about the idea of a Republican POTUS making a couple nominations for the Supreme Court either. I think it's fairly well balanced as it is (although the idiots over turned McCain Feingold so they're not THAT great).

*sigh*

I need to read the rest of your post more closely (at the ortho office right now). Quick skim...sounds like you might see some light at the end of this tunnel.

Social Security was "Slush Fund" for the govt ?

Link below, Interesting read when ya'll have some time.


http://www.sott.net/article/232087-Socia...Surplus-Go

I wouldn't vote for trump but in this world of PC politicians I understand his straight non PC talk. It's kind of refreshing. If an amateur senator that hardly voted for anything can become president its not out of the realm of possibilities.

(08-11-2015, 02:52 PM)Carsman Wrote: Social Security was "Slush Fund" for the govt ?

Link below, Interesting read when ya'll have some time.


http://www.sott.net/article/232087-Socia...Surplus-Go

Yes the pie has many fingers in it.

Bernie's on Fire!



He packed over 27,000 into a Los Angeles arena, with many more crowded outside of the filled venue.

They were chanting, "Feel the Bern!", "Feel the Bern!".

After being hijacked by Black Lives Matter activists at two recent rallies, Bernie stated that he understands their frustration.

Today, he invited Black Lives Matter activists to open his rally in Los Angeles. Smart.

"There is no president that will fight harder to end institutional racism," he told the crowd.

I believe him. He marched with MLK and has been extremely active in the civil rights movement since the 1970s.

The cantankerous, old, Jewish, hippy socialist is really hitting a nerve with a lot of people who feel unrepresented by the current establishment and silenced by organized big money.

Personally, I like some of his policy proposals and respect the fact that he often lays them out in detail, unlike some of the other candidates. He doesn't stand a chance in hell of getting the Democratic nod, IMO, but I'm glad he's having his say and so many are listening now. I think he's very good for the political process.

Story: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-sand...tml#page=1

The Dems have Bernie and the Pubs have Trump..........lets get it on bitches!

(08-11-2015, 03:02 PM)Maggot Wrote: The Dems have Bernie and the Pubs have Trump..........lets get it on bitches!

Bernie's focused on his agenda and policies. Donald, well, he's on a Bush troll.

Jeb Bush is struggling to get his family's Iraq albatross off his shoulders and preparing a speech that lays much of the blame for ISIS at former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's feet (for authorizing the withdrawal of troops).

So, what does Trump do? He releases this video.



In reality, Jeb Bush said that he's not gonna say it's (Iraq) his dad's fault or his brother's fault. But, Donald conveniently snipped the first part of his statement. Asshole.

Trump is also proclaiming that Jeb Bush is the one who owes women an apology.

I was hoping Hillary would drag her ass more on the e-mail activity and the mess she created. Americans have a short memory and there is still over a year to go.

Lately it seems like the only one running is the Donald. It's all Donald, all the time.

(08-12-2015, 12:40 PM)Duchess Wrote:

Lately it seems like the only one running is the Donald. It's all Donald, all the time.

Rather similar to when an eccentric millionaire from Texas ran against your boy Bill.

Bernie Sanders Surpasses Clinton in New Hampshire

It's too early for this poll to be indicative that Sanders has a chance of getting the Democratic nomination, but New Hampshire is an important state as first in the primaries. Bernie's surge in NH over the past 5 months is remarkable.

Snip:
Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders has rocketed past longtime front-runner Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, a stunning turn in a race once considered a lock for the former secretary of state, a new Franklin Pierce University/Boston Herald poll shows.


Sanders (right) leads Clinton (left) 44-37 percent among likely Democratic primary voters, the first time the heavily favored Clinton has trailed in the 2016 primary campaign, according to the poll of 442 Granite-Staters.

The other announced Democrats in the race, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee and former Virginia Gov. Jim Webb, barely register at 1 percent or below.

The live interview phone poll was conducted Aug. 7-10 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.7 percentage points.

Clinton is still viewed overwhelmingly by voters as the likely Democratic nominee, but the results suggest she faces an unexpectedly difficult fight to prevent an embarrassing opening loss in the first-in-the-nation primary.

Sanders’ rise has been meteoric. The socialist senator trailed Clinton by a 44-8 margin in a Franklin Pierce/Herald poll in March. More than half of New Hampshire’s likely Democratic primary voters say they view Sanders “very” favorably, an indication of the excitement the Vermont senator has generated among his mostly liberal supporters.

The poll also shows there is some appetite among New Hampshire Democrats for VP Joe Biden (center) to jump into the field. Forty-six percent of likely primary voters say Biden should launch a White House campaign, while 42 percent say he should stay out. Biden’s favorability numbers have also increased by 14 points since March.

Full story: http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion...n_nh_44_37