A question for all of you wise adults

[vatz22au 117]

From what I am hearing from other people my age (probably dont have a clue, thats why im asking y'all for correct information)...it looks like (thanks to bush) I wont have social security when I am that age (about 40 years from now) because of the budget being in so much debt and the declining trail its on.....

Any info for a 20 year old wondering about this?

[vatz22au 117]

Um...any at all?? Cmon guys, this board is full of so many republicans it makes my head spin....im sure one of you can elaborate and help me on this.

[Auburn85 415]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146219,00.html

ADVANTAGES:

Over the long haul, individuals can expect to earn higher returns by investing in stocks, or a mix of stocks and bonds, than from what is generated now by the low-yielding Treasury bonds held by the Social Security trust fund. Also, the accounts would be individually owned, and could be passed along to heirs — with certain exceptions.

RISKS:

Treasury bonds are virtually risk free; stocks and corporate bonds are not. Prolonged periods of market decline or lack of growth could eat into one's retirement assets.

LIMITATIONS:

Nothing could be withdrawn from the personal accounts before retirement, nor could money be borrowed from them.

ADVANTAGES:

Over the long haul, individuals can expect to earn higher returns by investing in stocks, or a mix of stocks and bonds, than from what is generated now by the low-yielding Treasury bonds held by the Social Security trust fund. Also, the accounts would be individually owned, and could be passed along to heirs — with certain exceptions.

RISKS:

Treasury bonds are virtually risk free; stocks and corporate bonds are not. Prolonged periods of market decline or lack of growth could eat into one's retirement assets.

LIMITATIONS:

Nothing could be withdrawn from the personal accounts before retirement, nor could money be borrowed from them.

If the flow of total benefits coming from both traditional Social Security payments and withdrawals from personal accounts dropped the retiree below the national poverty level, money from the personal accounts would have to be placed in annuities, which are investments yielding fixed payments during the holder's lifetime. However, such an annuity would not qualify to be part of an inheritance — and any funds that remained available under these annuities after death would revert to the government or annuity issuer.

I don't know, will you live to be 62? If you worked from age 18-61 and kept paying into SS and you suddenly die...... sorry, you don't get didily squat. Govrnment makes all the profit.

It is true within the next 15 years that more money will be going out than coming in.

Only a portion of SS would be privitized IF YOU CHOOSE TO SIGN UP

Right now, previous administrations, including this one have taken money out of the SS fund to use for general purposes. This has been done for roughly 40 years.

They shouldn't be allowed to do this.

I don't know why they can't touch the fund and just let everyone claim their benefits,when they are eligible. Right now, it takes 3.3 people to pay for 1 person's benefits.

When SS was created, life expectancy was only around 68. So you were supposed to have benefits for a couple of years and die.

Now some people are on benefits for over 20 years.

Either we try to take this drastic step, or we let the government raise the retirement age, increase payroll paxes, cut benefits

At the current rate SS benefits would have to be cut in 2042

[vatz22au 117]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146219,00.html

ADVANTAGES:

Over the long haul, individuals can expect to earn higher returns by investing in stocks, or a mix of stocks and bonds, than from what is generated now by the low-yielding Treasury bonds held by the Social Security trust fund. Also, the accounts would be individually owned, and could be passed along to heirs — with certain exceptions.

RISKS:

Treasury bonds are virtually risk free; stocks and corporate bonds are not. Prolonged periods of market decline or lack of growth could eat into one's retirement assets.

LIMITATIONS:

Nothing could be withdrawn from the personal accounts before retirement, nor could money be borrowed from them.

ADVANTAGES:

Over the long haul, individuals can expect to earn higher returns by investing in stocks, or a mix of stocks and bonds, than from what is generated now by the low-yielding Treasury bonds held by the Social Security trust fund. Also, the accounts would be individually owned, and could be passed along to heirs — with certain exceptions.

RISKS:

Treasury bonds are virtually risk free; stocks and corporate bonds are not. Prolonged periods of market decline or lack of growth could eat into one's retirement assets.

LIMITATIONS:

Nothing could be withdrawn from the personal accounts before retirement, nor could money be borrowed from them.

If the flow of total benefits coming from both traditional Social Security payments and withdrawals from personal accounts dropped the retiree below the national poverty level, money from the personal accounts would have to be placed in annuities, which are investments yielding fixed payments during the holder's lifetime. However, such an annuity would not qualify to be part of an inheritance — and any funds that remained available under these annuities after death would revert to the government or annuity issuer.

I don't know, will you live to be 62? If you worked from age 18-61 and kept paying into SS and you suddenly die...... sorry, you don't get didily squat. Govrnment makes all the profit.

It is true within the next 15 years that more money will be going out than coming in.

Only a portion of SS would be privitized IF YOU CHOOSE TO SIGN UP

Right now, previous administrations, including this one have taken money out of the SS fund to use for general purposes. This has been done for roughly 40 years.

They shouldn't be allowed to do this.

I don't know why they can't touch the fund and just let everyone claim their benefits,when they are eligible. Right now, it takes 3.3 people to pay for 1 person's benefits.

When SS was created, life expectancy was only around 68. So you were supposed to have benefits for a couple of years and die.

Now some people are on benefits for over 20 years.

Either we try to take this drastic step, or we let the government raise the retirement age, increase payroll paxes, cut benefits

At the current rate SS benefits would have to be cut in 2042

146685[/snapback]

Thanks for your very helpful information...I appreciate it!

[WarTim 3,293]

I have NEVER been accused of being "Wise", but, I will give it a shot.

Anyone that thinks they can "retire" on SS is kidding themselves. It is not now nor has it EVER been designed to be a retirement account. It is a stop-gap measure.

Something to assist those that are in dire straights. If you are a young healthy person with a job, Get a 401k and contribute early and often. I would even suggest a visit to a financial planner to help you reach your goals.

p.s. This applies to libs and Conservatives alike.

[DKW 86 6,939]

Listen to those that study this stuff. I listen to Dave Ramsey myself and teach his stuff too. I think the general consensus is that you will have some form of SS. it will be greatly reduced , needs tested, and CUT. I tell people to plan on SS being for gas money. Dave Ramsey say often that SS is for those that have a taste for dog food.

Be safe, all but ignore it. If I am right, you are safe. If I am wrong, you are on easy street.

Good Luck!

[AUloggerhead 1,855]

From what I am hearing from other people my age (probably dont have a clue, thats why im asking y'all for correct information)...it looks like (thanks to bush) I wont have social security when I am that age (about 40 years from now) because of the budget being in so much debt and the declining trail its on.....

Any info for a 20 year old wondering about this?

146663[/snapback]

Just saw this thread, so that's why I'm responding late.

Like the others who have responded, I will advise you to create enough of your own wealth during your peak earning years so that you don't need SS when you get around to retiring. Living within your means and setting up a disciplined savings/investment strategy will allow you to do just that. Any competent financial planner can assist you there.

Now, for my rant on SS: the largest Ponzi scheme ever created since Ponzi was alive (Ponzi Scheme.) The rate of return on the money invested in SS is miniscule -- something like less than or equal to 2%. That fact alone should cause people to react in horror at their money going down this rathole. Despite what most people think, there is no account with your money (your's & your employer's contribution) deposited in it for your later use when you retire. The money collected today goes right back out to pay current benefits to SS recipients, and also for the huge bureaucracy created to administer the SS program. That bureacracy is one of the reasons the rate of return is so low. It's kind of like those TV evangelists (remember Jim & Tammy Faye?) who plead & beg for contributions on-air and promise to deliver the funds to appalling inmages of needy poor people -- 95% of contributions go towards producing the TV program, the hosts skim off their take for their personal lifestyle and then a very small % ends up in the hands of the destitute. As long as more people pay into the system than draw out of it, the scheme remains solvent, the SS Administration will grow ever more larger, and politicians will continue to demagogue the issue. If you want to bash a president over the SS crises, then forget about Bush. I suggest you start with FDR for dreaming up this fiasco. The combination of Baby Boom demographics, medical science prolonging life spans and a declining birth rate make it a mathematical certainty that soon there will be more people drawing benefits than workers/employers paying into the system. When that time comes, no amount of demagoguery will disguise the truth about this scam. Change needs to happen -- preferably now. Given the history of Congress & pro-active leglislation, I am not optimistic at all. They'll respond as always: by acting well beyond the time to avert a crisis.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Listen to those that study this stuff. I listen to Dave Ramsey myself and teach his stuff too. I think the general consensus is that you will have some form of SS. it will be greatly reduced , needs tested, and CUT. I tell people to plan on SS being for gas money. Dave Ramsey say often that SS is for those that have a taste for dog food.

Be safe, all but ignore it. If I am right, you are safe. If I am wrong, you are on easy street.

Good Luck!

146982[/snapback]

Very good advice.

[WarTim 3,293]

Yet another example of how liberals can and will ruin anything they touch.

SS should be abolished...Today!

[Auburn85 415]

Some government employees in Texas in 1981, I believe was able to divert thei SS from the Fed Gov to do theire own thing.

How they can do that... I don't know.

[CCTAU 2,346]

Some government employees in Texas in 1981, I believe was able to divert thei SS from the Fed Gov to do theire own thing.

How they can do that... I don't know.

147224[/snapback]

I believe I heard about this (Galveston?). I think it is also that way in Chile. And don't government employees have some sort of options different than the regular guy. And don't get me started on the retirement of Senators and House members.

And its working. Oh my goodness, Bush wants to try something new that's already successful. Quick, lets call it stupid and impossible. No that's not it...It's now UNNECESSARY!

[DKW 86 6,939]

FGEU, Fed Govt Employees Union, largest donor to the Democratic Party, has had as a part of their contract an "SS Opt Out Option." They can simply opt out of SS and approx. 95%+ do. SS is a loser and is just one of a thousand exaples of the Fed Govt running a program into the ground.

2% return is LOSING money as an investment. Inflation is about 4%. Therefore you lose! If you have real money in a pension, and a retirement program too, then you will NEEDS TESTED for your SS. Likely have it CUT or be denied altogether. Under Clintoon, you would have it taxed as well!

IS there a limit to the Left hipocracy? Defenders of SS? What a joke!

[Auburn85 415]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6996098/

Poorest face most risk on Social Security

Bush plan's success may hinge on perceived safety of benefitsBy Jim VandeHei

Updated: 11:59 p.m. ET Feb. 18, 2005No group of Americans would be affected more by President Bush's Social Security plan than those earning the least. Just ask 46-year-old Brent Allen.

Allen, who recently lost his job at a Massachusetts paper mill, faces a retirement financed exclusively by the money he has been paying into the Social Security system for the better part of 30 years. Like nearly half the U.S. population, he has no pension or savings to speak of. And his brief flirtations with the stock market have largely flopped.

So Allen, who lives on less than $15,000 a year in disability payments from Social Security and income from his live-in girlfriend, is distrustful of Bush's plan to allow workers to divert a portion of their payroll taxes into personal investment accounts.

"I have had stocks, and have had them for six years, and I have lost money continually," Allen said this week. "What's going to happen to people when they retire when the market is down? There no guarantee [bush] can make. There is a guarantee now," under the current system.

 

• Special report: Social Security

More than 60 million Americans 25 to 64 years old reported incomes of less than $25,000 in 2002, the latest year for which government figures are available. Like Allen, most of these workers have small or no pensions, scant savings, and serious concerns about their retirement years, according to government statistics and polling results.

Debate hinges on investment security

Bush sees personal accounts as the gateway to their financial security — giving them a chance to join tens of millions of Americans with significant investments in stocks and bonds for their retirement. But unless he can convince Democrats and skeptical Republicans that the personal accounts would be a wise and relatively safe investment option for low-income workers, his proposal is likely to fail, many lawmakers agree.

Bush is lobbying Congress to allow Americans younger than 55 to eventually put 4 percent of their income subject to Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts, in exchange for a reduction in guaranteed benefits, if they choose. Those who opt to divert a part of their payroll tax would invest the money in a small menu of stock and bond funds that they could not touch until they retire. Unlike in the current retirement system, they could pass on the money accumulated in the personal account to family or friends when they die.

The president says Americans would end up with a stronger Social Security system and bigger nest eggs under his proposal, although the White House has yet to release full details of the plan.

"We can build a better system for low-income workers based on the power of investment and the magic of compound interest," said White House spokesman Trent Duffy.

Critics, including most Democrats, say individual investment accounts are too risky, they would impose restrictions on the way lower-income retirees could spend the proceeds from their accounts, and they would require unwise and costly reductions in the guaranteed benefits offered by the current system.

Because Social Security is often the biggest or the only source of retirement money for the poorest Americans, low-income workers would be hit particularly hard if the markets plunged and they were left with smaller benefits than they would have received under the current system.

Under the Bush plan, low-income workers would be required to purchase an annuity, which pays a fixed stream of money until the person dies, or set up an alternative way that keeps them above the poverty level until death using their personal account funds. The administration said such mandates are needed to keep seniors from falling into poverty by emptying out their accounts upon retirement.

Fay Lomax Cook, director of the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern University, called the accounts "much too risky."

"The whole purpose of Social Security has always been to ensure basic income to those no longer able to work. That basic income can no longer be guaranteed" under the Bush plan, she said.

I say to this guy.................... When privatizing accounts come about, don't sign up for it!

[Auburn85 415]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6995006/

Politics

Talk of tax increase angers conservatives

Social Security overhaul could fall to core GOP beliefThe Associated Press

Updated: 6:09 p.m. ET Feb. 18, 2005WASHINGTON - Two words could cast a pall over any gathering of conservatives celebrating President Bush’s second term and Republican gains in the House and the Senate: tax increase.

President Bush this week acknowledged the possibility of making high-income workers pay more Social Security taxes as part of his plan for private Social Security accounts, and that notion has conservatives alarmed.

The last Republican who broke a “no new taxes” pledge was booted out after one term, they reminded. His name: George H.W. Bush.

“People are quite angry about Bush opening a Pandora’s box of tax increases,” said Stephen Moore, an anti-tax activist with the Free Enterprise Fund. “It’s almost like ‘read my lips’ all over again.”

“My antennae go up as soon as I hear the ‘t’ word,” he said.

 

Big Bush backers bristle

At the annual meeting of the Conservative Political Action Conference, conservatives cheered by their election gains in November rejected any talk of a tax increase, even for Bush’s far-reaching proposal to allow younger workers to establish private Social Security accounts.

Their concerns reflected a similar sentiment on Capitol Hill.

“When Dad did it, it was bad politics and bad policy,” said Grover Norquist, an anti-tax activist. “To do it again would be bad politics, bad policy and a lousy memory.”

The first President Bush made the campaign pledge, “Read my lips, no new taxes,” but he later agreed to a compromise tax increase to deal with budget problems. That move undercut his conservative base and helped pave the way for a challenge by conservative Pat Buchanan in the 1992 Republican primaries. Bush was later defeated in the general election by Democrat Bill Clinton.

“I don’t fault him, because at this stage the president is in the process of trying to bring everybody together,” David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, said of the current president. “I don’t have any reason to believe this would happen.”

Willing to lose private accounts

Tax opponents generally agreed that any attempt to push a tax increase would kill efforts to create private accounts in Social Security.

“If there’s any tax increase included, it’s dead,” Republican activist Morton Blackwell said of the Social Security plan.

Scott Hodge, president of the Tax Foundation, said some conservatives saw Bush’s gesture on taxes as a “signal that the White House may be too quick to compromise.”

While conservatives have been willing to give the president flexibility on some issues, raising taxes is not one of them. “This would be seen as heresy. This goes to the core beliefs of conservatives,” Hodge said.

© 2005

But if Bush wants to ROLLBACK the tax cut to the top 1% he would be dogged by the dems even though Kerry and Kennedy will not call this a tax increase, they call it ROLLING BACK the tax break.

[SLAG-91 1,375]

I can only speak for my school district in Texas, but I don't pay into SS and haven't since 1997...I pay into TRS. I'm hoping between that, my 403-B and my Roth IRA (the last two have minimal amounts in them now...I plan on increasing those contributions once my student loans are paid off), I'll be in good shape when it's time for me to hang it up.

[tiger88 934]

I personally would feel much better putting my money into my own account as opposed to giving it to the gov't to raid whenever they feel like it to support some other crap they have already overspent on.

[Ranger12 42]

Bottom line is to not plan on relying on SS for your retirement. Invest into a 401k or some other retirement plan and rely on that for 100% of your retirement needs. Any SS you may get would just be a bonus. With a decent 401k fund with at least 6% of your pay being contributed (going by the average middle class salary), if you started at age 30, you should have almost between $400,000-$500,000 in your fund if you retired at 65. Let me stress the fact of a decent 401k plan and a fund with a consistent return. You have to decide if you want to put it in funds that are conservative, moderately conservative, or risky. The lower the risk, the more likey you are to have a return, but the return may not be as big as a riskier fund. However, a "risky" fund is what it is, you may get bigger returns, but you run the risk of losing more money also.

FYI...if somebody told you will not have SS thanks to Bush, then they are ignorant and probably will not have any money to retire on period. SS has been in trouble for over decade and like one poster said, it was not a great idea from conception to begin with. SS should have been mainly for people that became medically disabled or for families who lost a parent/spouse who was the bread winner. It should never have been used as a retirement plan!

BTW...before I ever invested into a 401k, I had already purchased stock in Coca-Cola, Wal-Mart, and Home Depot, and that was one of the best investments I have ever made. Wal-Mart has taken a hit in the past year, but I expect them to recovery. Coca-Cola has always been a good investment and just reported record profits. I always reinvest my dividends by purchasing more stock in the same company.

[Auburn85 415]

Updated: 2-25-05 5:22pm ET

 

 

Would Bush's Social Security Plan Hurt Blacks?

Tuesday, February 22, 2005

ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: During a weekend news conference, the NAACP attempted to reach out to the White House, asking to meet with the president to talk about his plans for Social Security. The NAACP says they fear the new plan would disproportionately hurt black Americans.

Joining us now from Atlanta is the former deputy director of the Atlanta chapter of NAACP (search), Julian Bond's son, political activist Michael Bond.

Michael, good to have you with us.

MICHAEL BOND, POLITICAL ACTIVIST: Good to be here.

COLMES: What response has the White House given about getting together to talk about this?

BOND: Well, I don't think the White House has responded to their request as yet. But I do believe that it would be in the national interest of the president and of this country to have the oldest civil rights organization in this country sit down with its president to talk about the issues that affect the population.

COLMES: Let's get into this issue. What I find most remarkable is when the president says because blacks die earlier than whites they will not have to wait until retirement to receive benefits, capitalizing on the health problems African-Americans have in our society, lack of insurance, for example, to sell the Social Security plan. How cynical?

BOND: It's very cynical. And that's like saying that if you pray hard enough and get to heaven before me, then you're going to be with our Heavenly Father, so your reward is going to be greater.

I mean, it's very cynical and it's upset not just the leadership of the African-American community but everyone that I've spoken to on the street, in the community and at church, they're all upset about it. It's very — it's a very insensitive statement.

COLMES: They also say that once you start receiving, you know, you can pass it on to your heirs but not once you start receiving benefits. So African-Americans, who may often start receiving those benefits and then die earlier than whites, will not have a chance to pass it on to their heirs?

BOND: No, they won't. And I think that's part of the problem with this proposal. The president's position on Social Security, not only is insensitive to minorities, but according to the report released by the CBO [Congressional Budget Office], is grossly inadequate.

They've come out with a different set of findings that says Social Security isn't in the fix, that the Social Security trustees have said that it's in.

COLMES: And here's something else. William Spriggs of the Economic Policy Institute (search) says blacks contribute 8.9 percent of Social Security's finances but get 8.6 percent of its benefits. Another way that it's unfair.

We're not clear exactly how benefits will be lost under the new plan.

BOND: Well, I think what will happen is that you're asking people to take a gamble on what is a guarantee or has been a guarantee in this country for their security during their golden years.

You know, we shouldn't allow the privatization of Social Security, and that's all this is. This is trading the security of those of us who live on Main Street for those who make their living on Wall Street. I think that it is a heinous proposal.

HANNITY: Michael, explain to our audience why the president of the United States should met with your father after your father has repeatedly called him a liar, compared him to the Taliban, the NAACP ad that ran in 2000, that showed the chains in the dragging death of James Byrd (search). And "it's like my father was killed all over again," even though George Bush supported the death penalty for those people who committed that horrific crime.

Why should — why should George Bush meet with your father, considering how horribly he has treated him? Why?

BOND: This isn't about my father. This is about the president of the United States meeting with the oldest civil rights organization in the United States.

HANNITY: But this is your father that's leading this — wait a minute.

BOND: This is about the — this is about...

HANNITY: You can't take the personalities out of it, because your father has said those things about George Bush.

BOND: ... the president of the United States responding to an organization that represents hundreds of thousands of American citizens, citizens who believe in justice, who believe in freedom and who are, and the organization that is, nonpartisan.

HANNITY: Michael...

BOND: There have been other presidents that have met with the NAACP over a period of years. Other presidents that have been more severely criticized by the NAACP, yet they still have the gumption to sit down across the table and discuss those differences.

HANNITY: Michael — Michael, what year father has said about him, frankly, is unconscionable. It's been unfair. And I don't see any reason why the president should sit down with your father until your father apologizes to the president. Don't you think your father owes him an apology?

BOND: No, I think my father was expressing his views as an American citizen, under which this country was actually...

HANNITY: He was speaking as the head of the NAACP.

BOND: ... founded. If you go back to the revolutionary days of the United States, you talk about "don't tread on me." We have the freedom of speech, the freedom to express our opinions.

Also, you need to be reminded that my father was also equally critical of the Democratic Party in all of his speeches...

HANNITY: Never. Give me any comparison — give me any comparison with what he said similar about Bill Clinton. Michael, give me a comparison.

BOND: Of course he did. He made many, many comparisons — Democratic Party in his speeches. His speeches are public.

HANNITY: Michael, give me one example.

BOND: FOX News has copies of his speeches are on videocassette. If you listen to his speeches...

HANNITY: Wrong.

BOND: ... he's meted out criticism equally. And that's what the NAACP is about. We're not about personality.

HANNITY: Let me ask you about — but it is about personality. Yes, you know what? I don't blame the president for not sitting down with your father because of what your father has said about this president and the vicious attacks he's made against him. And I don't think it's productive.

But the life expectancy for white males over African-American males in this country is seven years. For women it's five years. Don't you think that we've got to reform Social Security where everybody has their individual accounts while we're working towards raising the life expectancy of everybody?

BOND: Well, I think raising the life — life expectancy of African- Americans in this country is a — and other minorities — is more important than the Social Security argument.

Now, the president ought to focus on things that are going to help African-Americans and other minorities to live longer.

HANNITY: Yes.

COLMES: Michael...

BOND: Fixing health-care and this budget that he introduced, we're going to tax child — tax childcare and tax all these different social programs that hit the lower class and the middle Americans hard.

COLMES: Michael, we just — we're out of time.

BOND: He's got to change that.