Social Security is not going broke .. because it can't

Mott the Hoople said:
SF is a good writer too. The main difference between him and you is that, well...he's ugly.
Click to expand...

Well, that's not all. TO be honest, he reminds me of a card I once bought for my mom from me and my brother. It said "Happy birthday from the cute one and the charming one" and then inside it said "shhh, they're both me".
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I'm sorry but all the evidence points to that fact that you are simply wrong. SS is eminently sustainable and any projected short comings are easily fixed. The real drivers of our current deficits are health care costs and defense spending. SS is not. Those are facts.
Click to expand...

lol...

it is precisely as Lorax stated. While we can go for the easy fix (raise ss taxes on higher income), in the end privatization is a better long term solution. It rids us of the ponzi scheme once and for all.

I don't recall anyone stating that SS was a driver of our current deficits... can you point to where they did?
 
Superfreak said:
1) it is not a 'scheme'
2) Yes, as I already posted on here... you allow people two investment choices... Treasury bonds and an ETF based on the S&P 500. You limit the exposure a person can choose to 50% max in the S&P ETF. As they get closer to retirement you reduce that percentage.

If the market were to correct 50% and never regain a dime... then the most they could lose is 25%... which is precisely what they stand to lose under the current system if nothing is done. Given that it is highly unrealistic to think the markets would stay down indefinitely, risk is fairly well mitigated.

Dung likes to point to the 2008 downturn... well, we are already back well above the peak in 2008 and right at the all time highs of 2007. Under my scenario, those looking to retire in 2008 would not have had much exposure to the market.
Click to expand...
Well that's certainly an interesting proposal and I won't discount what your saying on a knee jerk but I do question your risk assesment as being over simplified.
 
Superfreak said:
lol...

it is precisely as Lorax stated. While we can go for the easy fix (raise ss taxes on higher income), in the end privatization is a better long term solution. It rids us of the ponzi scheme once and for all.

I don't recall anyone stating that SS was a driver of our current deficits... can you point to where they did?
Click to expand...

Really it is precisely as Lorax stated huh? Wow and to think it was only yesterday he was a moron!
 
Superfreak said:
explain that to us again Dung... how is it that their benefits, if cut 25%, are greater?
Click to expand...

It's quite simple, actually, becuase benefits grow based the average wage index. Let's say that scheduled initial benefits for someone born in the 1960s in 2012 dollars is on average is $18,000 and that the full benefit can be paid. That person gets $18,000 in 2012 dollars. And then let's say that the scheduled initial benefits for someone born in the 2000s is $30,000 in 2012 dollars based upon wage index projections. Well, unfortuately that person isn't going to get their scheduled benefits, they'll only get 75% of them because that's all that SS can pay. 75% of $30,000 is $22,500 and more than out 1960s birth cohort friend.

Again, see Exhibit 9:

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43648-SocialSecurity.pdf
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Well that's certainly an interesting proposal and I won't discount what your saying on a knee jerk but I do question your risk assesment as being over simplified.
Click to expand...

Well obviously I didn't go into a ton of detail, but work the numbers yourself.

If you say max exposure to equity market over age 60 is 10%
age 50 30%
below 50 50%

Note for all the brain dead lemmings... the above percentages are just examples of how it could work. They are arbitrary numbers. Feel free to tweak them.

Also Mott... how would you rank the 'riskiness' of the following types of risk on a scale of 1-10... 10 being the most risky (not relative to each other, so you can put 10 on all of them if you wish)

1) Equity Market risk
2) Treasury bond interest rate/market risk
3) inflation risk
4) Political risk
5) default risk
 
Anyone is kidding themselves if they think that a 25% cut in benefits, at any time, won't be completely devastating to a large, large group of seniors.
 
Superfreak said:
lol...

it is precisely as Lorax stated. While we can go for the easy fix (raise ss taxes on higher income), in the end privatization is a better long term solution. It rids us of the ponzi scheme once and for all.

I don't recall anyone stating that SS was a driver of our current deficits... can you point to where they did?
Click to expand...
Not in our discussion per se but I have heard numerous Republican politicians include SS as part of entitlement spending that is driving up deficits and use that as a scare tactic to undermine support for the current SS system.
 
Thing1 said:
Anyone is kidding themselves if they think that a 25% cut in benefits, at any time, won't be completely devastating to a large, large group of seniors.
Click to expand...

Well, before we talk about the subjective impact on a large, large, group of seniors, let's first establish the objective facts about what a 25% cut in scheduled benefits actually means in real dollar terms.


Edit: and also whether it is a "best case scenario."
 
Dungheap said:
Well, before we talk about the subjective impact on a large, large, group of seniors, let's first establish the objective facts about what a 25% cut in scheduled benefits actually means in real dollar terms.


Edit: and also whether it is a "best case scenario."
Click to expand...

How are you prepared to talk about what "real dollar terms" mean in 2031?

What would happen if we cut benefits 25% today? What will happen in the next 18 years to make that any different in 2031?
 
Thing1 said:
Anyone is kidding themselves if they think that a 25% cut in benefits, at any time, won't be completely devastating to a large, large group of seniors.
Click to expand...

The 25% shortfall is the worst case, not the best case, scenario. And there isn't going to be a 25% cut in benefits. I mean, those are my benefits that would be cut, so I'm not being dismissive. I just know it's not going to happen. Now, if you guys get your hands on my SS in one of these schemes being discussed, then I would not be so calm about things. Sorry, that is how I feel.
 
Thing1 said:
How are you prepared to talk about what "real dollar terms" mean in 2031?

What would happen if we cut benefits 25% today? What will happen in the next 18 years to make that any different in 2031?
Click to expand...

Is there anything specifc about post #248 that you don't understand, because from all appearances you haven't read it.
 
Darla said:
Well, that's not all. TO be honest, he reminds me of a card I once bought for my mom from me and my brother. It said "Happy birthday from the cute one and the charming one" and then inside it said "shhh, they're both me".
Click to expand...
That reminds me of what my mother used to say to my brother when he had one of his famous blonde moments. She'd sigh and say "It's a good thing you're pretty!"
 
Dungheap said:
Is there anything specifc about post #248 that you don't understand, because from all appearances you haven't read it.
Click to expand...

I read it, and it's fantasy to make yourself feel better about ignoring the reality. 18 years ago, what about that wouldn't have applied? And would you have said the same then about a 25% cut today?
 
Darla said:
The 25% shortfall is the worst case, not the best case, scenario. And there isn't going to be a 25% cut in benefits. I mean, those are my benefits that would be cut, so I'm not being dismissive. I just know it's not going to happen. Now, if you guys get your hands on my SS in one of these schemes being discussed, then I would not be so calm about things. Sorry, that is how I feel.
Click to expand...

Most people in our generation - and we're relatively close in age - don't even think benefits will be there when we retire, much less 75% of them.

I'm open to all kinds of options on this, but one thing I find unacceptable is a head-buried-in-sand, "it'll all be okay" approach. SS is not paying for itself anymore. It's not sustainable.
 
Thing1 said:
Most people in our generation - and we're relatively close in age - don't even think benefits will be there when we retire, much less 75% of them.

I'm open to all kinds of options on this, but one thing I find unacceptable is a head-buried-in-sand, "it'll all be okay" approach. SS is not paying for itself anymore. It's not sustainable.
Click to expand...

I don't know if most Gen X'ers believe SS will be there for them or not. I have not seen any polling specifically asking us. But I am not sure how relevant that is. It really doesn't matter what most people believe. Facts matter.

SS is not in any serious trouble. I know you just believe otherwise, but it's not, and since I do read about it, and do pay attention to it, I am not going to all of a sudden believe otherwise. I am not concerned about SS, unless, this propaganda works to the extent of fooling most Americans. I don't think it's happened yet, and so as long as it's not fucked with too badly, it'll be there for me.
 
Thing1 said:
I read it, and it's fantasy to make yourself feel better about ignoring the reality. 18 years ago, what about that wouldn't have applied? And would you have said the same then about a 25% cut today?
Click to expand...

LOL. They guy citing polls about what people believe is lecturing me about ignoring reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top