Seems our friendly and fiscally responsible political leaders over the last 40 years or so have been using the social security fund as a pork barrel fund to be used for anything and everything. Now us boomers are retiring and the piper is come to collect his due.
So here's your chance to play hero and fix social security. Have fun!
Social Security
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10135
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
I have a new plan. Since the politicians are the ones who stole the money. And the democrats wont fix it so they can keep scaring old people into voting for them to 'protect' the system from privatization...and some republicans capitulate to the demo's scare tactics...
When you get old and can't support yourself just go kill a politician or two...or three...
That way they will lock you up in a federal prison with paid medical, paid rent, paid everything.
When you get old and can't support yourself just go kill a politician or two...or three...
That way they will lock you up in a federal prison with paid medical, paid rent, paid everything.
How about we adjust the tax system in such a mannar that it encourages people to save their own money in a retirement account of some kind instead of having them be dependent on such an unsustainable system?
Programs like social security should only be used when there is a great economic need, such as a massive depression. Otherwise people get dependent on it somehow and they forget to keep a little tucked away for retirement.
Programs like social security should only be used when there is a great economic need, such as a massive depression. Otherwise people get dependent on it somehow and they forget to keep a little tucked away for retirement.
-
Testiculese
- DBB Material Defender
- Posts: 4689
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 3:01 am
I dont think privitization should be the goal. The goal should be elimination. See, if its privataized, its still in there as a mandate. The objective should be to eliminate the governments interest in your wallet as much as possible and shift the responsibility back to the individual. By removing Social Security altogether, we enable the individual to make conscious decisions about his or her own money and thus enable them to save however they want, and how much they want, even if that means they dont save and will thus end up working until the day they die or become completely unable to.
The Government should not be expected or allowed to plan for your retirement. Privatization is just another way of keeping the governments interests in your wallet. I want the government as far out of my wallet as possible.
The Government should not be expected or allowed to plan for your retirement. Privatization is just another way of keeping the governments interests in your wallet. I want the government as far out of my wallet as possible.
-
Testiculese
- DBB Material Defender
- Posts: 4689
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 3:01 am
Privatization? Why? I've been wondering why Bush is pushing to privatize things, and if one follows the dollar, it seems like since it's getting hader for corporate criminals to steal from public coffers outright, let's put all that money in corporations so the criminals already have it all! Who wants to lay odds that a major private SS company...mind you, built soley for the purpose of handling SS, fails after a predetermined grace period, and all that money is 
gone!
SS is empty. EMPTY. The only money going into it is what you put into it this pay period. And that goes to the geezers now, who have paid into it for 40 years, and look what they get. four, five hundred a month.
One big problem about 'gettign rid of it' is that you flush all the old fogeys with it, since you'd essentially be killing them. Not that I have a problem with that, I'm surprised the attempt to kill them all before they could collect via cigarettes hasn't succeeded. Seems that's taken care for this generation of dopes by adding benzene and formaldehyde.
gone!SS is empty. EMPTY. The only money going into it is what you put into it this pay period. And that goes to the geezers now, who have paid into it for 40 years, and look what they get. four, five hundred a month.
One big problem about 'gettign rid of it' is that you flush all the old fogeys with it, since you'd essentially be killing them. Not that I have a problem with that, I'm surprised the attempt to kill them all before they could collect via cigarettes hasn't succeeded. Seems that's taken care for this generation of dopes by adding benzene and formaldehyde.
-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10135
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
This year they will take in aproximately 7 billion for SS, they will pay out aproximately 5 billion.
The 2 billion surplus will disappear into the general fund and next year it starts over at 0.
It's been that way forever and if they had been investing it in a managed fund at a mere 5% interest rate we wouldn't be in this mess.
Although there have been private corporate rip offs the stock market's record over all is a thousand times safer than the return on investment when allowing the congress to manage your money.
The 2 billion surplus will disappear into the general fund and next year it starts over at 0.
It's been that way forever and if they had been investing it in a managed fund at a mere 5% interest rate we wouldn't be in this mess.
Although there have been private corporate rip offs the stock market's record over all is a thousand times safer than the return on investment when allowing the congress to manage your money.
Good point. But in this day with simple economics classes being taught in most high schools, it should be less of an issue.woodchip wrote:Vader, most people need an unseen hand taking a portion of their check and depositing it in a retirement account. One only has to look at how the elderly "retired" prior to S.S. Not a pretty picture. Also don't forget your employer "contributes" a equal amount also.
I'm sick of being legally bound into paying for this 419 scam.
Don't know what high school you went to, but at mine, economics classes were electives. I stayed far clear of them.Avder wrote:Good point. But in this day with simple economics classes being taught in most high schools, it should be less of an issue.
Even with absolutely no knowledge of economics, I'd like to think that I'd be able to figure out how to save for retirement on my own, or how to pay someone who does.
How has economics 101 been advantageous to your situation, Avder? You're 23K in the hole!
To be blunt, the very lecturers you have teaching econ 101 probably know less about the flow of wealth than you do. The education system is still back in the industrial age and it's about time it is upgraded!
This thread is directly related to Testicules debt thread in the cafe. You only need to skim down the list to realize that most DBBer's can't even manage simple finance, let alone their own retirement funds! :S
To be blunt, the very lecturers you have teaching econ 101 probably know less about the flow of wealth than you do. The education system is still back in the industrial age and it's about time it is upgraded!
This thread is directly related to Testicules debt thread in the cafe. You only need to skim down the list to realize that most DBBer's can't even manage simple finance, let alone their own retirement funds! :S
-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10135
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
You seem to think having no debt is a sign of superiority.XeonJr wrote:This thread is directly related to Testicules debt thread in the cafe. You only need to skim down the list to realize that most DBBer's can't even manage simple finance, let alone their own retirement funds! :S
You need to look at a little more of the picture.
What is the debt to income ratio?
How is the quality of your life improved by the purchases made on credit?
How is your capacity to earn improved by the funds you recieve on credit?
Net worth and projected earnings is king!
Properly managed debt is a fast track to wealth.
(no kiddies, this doesn't mean your credit card balance is actually good for you!)
My mortgage is worth it to me, sure I could just buy a mobile home for cash and live in a hellhole nieghborhood debt free...but why would I?.
My two new service trucks are worth it to me - $ 36,000 on credit for 2 trucks - each truck brings in over $100,000 gross sales.
If you get rid of SS, what are the boomers going to recieve and how is it to be paid? Additionally if you privatise that still does not answer where the money will come from to pay the boomers. Remember the boomers are going to live longer and consequently pay out may be over a 25-30 year span of time.Hostile wrote:I hate SS in its current form. It is only going to get worse because there are a lot more baby boomers than echo boomers out there. We are headed for the biggest screw job in the history of government if they don't either privatize it or get rid of it. Something has to be done.
-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10135
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
As I understand it there will be a heavy cost to transition, the investment accounts will lighten the burden a bit, and long term it will save the day but initially we will have to cover the costs out of the same general fund the money disappeared into. They will have to cut spending and hold off on more tax cuts just to have a chance at covering the cost but if we can fund a war while coming out of a recession we can do this too...the war will end soon.woodchip wrote:If you get rid of SS, what are the boomers going to recieve and how is it to be paid? Additionally if you privatise that still does not answer where the money will come from to pay the boomers. Remember the boomers are going to live longer and consequently pay out may be over a 25-30 year span of time.
It has to be done however because just promising the seniors "we will never touch social security" a la John Kerry's promise doesn't keep it from going broke! So you didn't touch it...big deal, you let go broke!
Bush truly deserves credit for attacking the problem. Will he get the support he needs to succeed is up in the air.
I thought I specified in that cafe thread that it was all student loans, thus implying that it was to pay for college.XeonJr wrote:How has economics 101 been advantageous to your situation, Avder? You're 23K in the hole!
Consider that when I find a good job within my field I should be taking in a good $50/K a year. If I get some more schooling I could potentially be hauling down $75-90K right out of college. And also, I know how to live on less than $500 a month. Given that, I think this education that I'm getting on credit will pay off quite well on the long run. I'll pay it off because I'm gonna work my @$$ off unlike a lot of people.
You wanna judge me based on the amount of debt I have? Fine. Be a gigantic @$$. I dont know more than a few people in person who arent going in debt because of the cost of education, and those that arent are all well enough off because of their parents that they dont have to take out loans.
Will, I think you personally misread my posts just so that you can argue a point
My comments are aimed at avder because he has 23K Debt in student loans! The loan is not generating him any postive income and hence is bad debt. That schooling would have to garauntee a high paying job for it to be worth his while acquiring. Can you garauntee that he is going to have a high paying job after he finishes his schooling?
Here is a simple eg.
I acquire a 100% borrowed loan of $600 000. I use the money to purchase a 600m squared block of land and build 6 units on it. Those units are all rented out @ $250 each per week.
Interest only loan at 7% = $42 000 I MUST pay back per year! Total income generated = $72 000
$72 000 - $42 000 & Other expenses not stated here would yeild a $10 000 - $20 000 positive cashflow.
This is free money since I used none of my own money!
The point? I am all for aquiring debt but it must be GOOD DEBT and you would have realized that if you'd read Testicules DEBT thread
My comments are aimed at avder because he has 23K Debt in student loans! The loan is not generating him any postive income and hence is bad debt. That schooling would have to garauntee a high paying job for it to be worth his while acquiring. Can you garauntee that he is going to have a high paying job after he finishes his schooling?
Here is a simple eg.
I acquire a 100% borrowed loan of $600 000. I use the money to purchase a 600m squared block of land and build 6 units on it. Those units are all rented out @ $250 each per week.
Interest only loan at 7% = $42 000 I MUST pay back per year! Total income generated = $72 000
$72 000 - $42 000 & Other expenses not stated here would yeild a $10 000 - $20 000 positive cashflow.
This is free money since I used none of my own money!
The point? I am all for aquiring debt but it must be GOOD DEBT and you would have realized that if you'd read Testicules DEBT thread
College planning is used in a lot of econ books as an early example of opportunity cost.
For many people college expenses take decades to work off. For others, the benefits are very quick.
Simple Cost of college (ignoring living expenses) = tuition + opportunity cost (job you didn't work while going to school).
College was worth it when you add up the extra income made out of school (not just the money made after--you have to subtract wage2 from wage1) and it is greater than tuition + opportunity cost
Most of the time though it's a great investment. College is good debt. One thing people don't think of is public vs. private. Unless you are going to a big name private school, public is probably the best bang for the buck, even if the eductation isn't as good because of class size ;p
For many people college expenses take decades to work off. For others, the benefits are very quick.
Simple Cost of college (ignoring living expenses) = tuition + opportunity cost (job you didn't work while going to school).
College was worth it when you add up the extra income made out of school (not just the money made after--you have to subtract wage2 from wage1) and it is greater than tuition + opportunity cost
Most of the time though it's a great investment. College is good debt. One thing people don't think of is public vs. private. Unless you are going to a big name private school, public is probably the best bang for the buck, even if the eductation isn't as good because of class size ;p
No matter how you slice and dice it, the system is screwed up.woodchip wrote:If you get rid of SS, what are the boomers going to recieve and how is it to be paid? Additionally if you privatise that still does not answer where the money will come from to pay the boomers. Remember the boomers are going to live longer and consequently pay out may be over a 25-30 year span of time.
"The implicit rate of return on Social Security payroll taxes is well below what could be earned on private investments. According to a recent study by Laurence J. Kotlikoff comparing likely benefits to payroll taxes paid, baby boomers can expect a real rate of return of less than 2 percent and Generation Xers less than 1 percent. Today's newborns will earn a rate of return close to zero."
also: "Social Security payroll taxes are paid throughout one's working life, but the system pays full retirement benefits only after retirement, normally at age 65. For young workers, the normal retirement age is being increased to 67. Thus the rate of return is inherently linked to length of life. African Americans, however, have a shorter average life expectancy than whites across all income levels. The average life expectancy at birth for a black male is 67.8 years, while a white male can expect to live to age 73.9. Average life expectancy for a black woman is 74.7, compared to 79.4 for whites. Based on these numbers, a black male can expect to pay Social Security taxes for his entire working life but receive less than a year of benefits."
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba404/
The system is completely unfair to different segments of the population, not to mention the fact that you can get a god da*n savings account that will turn 2%. I have heard a lot of people say, "well you know that if we let people do what they want to with their money they will be unprepared for retirement, etc. etc. blah blah blah..." I have 2 words for that....Natural Selection.
As far as what the baby boomers should get, hell I don't know. They are getting less than they should no matter what it is. Maybe what they should do is just say as of January 1st, 2005, Social security will exist for 20 years. If your time is after that you aren't getting any. If you were vested in it prior to that time, great. I am not seeing a da*n penny of my lifelong contributions so they might as well stop it sometime and allow me to spend my money on my own retirement plan instead of some dumb schmuck who likes to drink mad dog 20 20 and smoke cigarettes and thinks social security is a retirement income because the government owes him something.......[exit, stage left even]
LOL, yeah after the government takes about 76.3% (<----random huge number) of it.woodchip wrote:There is another factor to consider Hostile. With a private retirement account, any unused money can be passed on to your heirs. With SS no such thing can happen.
I understand you are a baby boomer and so you want your money. You should get more than you will get and everyone after you will get less in real dollars. We need to find a way to get rid of it completely. Let individuals decide what to do with their money. How is it the governments job to force people to plan for retirement? Educate them as early as possible, but don't force me to pay for other people's lack of personal planning and responsibility.
As a side note, a personal retirement account, a sort of national 401K (where the funds could not be touched by the government) would be better than what we have now if we HAVE to do it..........
-
Sickone
- MIA Host/Admin
- Posts: 4265
- Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 3:01 am
- Location: Antelope Valley, Ca.
- Contact:
as much as I enjoy a good "prison shower love" session...
I frankly could care less about S.S.
I have been working fulltime and paying in since I was 14, that is 32 years of paying 6.2% while employer matched 6.2%... so at 12.4% a year for 32 years.... hmmm should be good money... NOT!!!
Bastages... only the government can force us to pay into a fucken pyramid scheme
I will say this. After 32 years of working, I make a good living. Though since the ★■◆●ing Gov takes 39% of everything I make.... I only care about one thing.
They better not try and take anymore...
I frankly could care less about S.S.
I have been working fulltime and paying in since I was 14, that is 32 years of paying 6.2% while employer matched 6.2%... so at 12.4% a year for 32 years.... hmmm should be good money... NOT!!!
Bastages... only the government can force us to pay into a fucken pyramid scheme
I will say this. After 32 years of working, I make a good living. Though since the ★■◆●ing Gov takes 39% of everything I make.... I only care about one thing.
They better not try and take anymore...
-
Lothar
- DBB Ghost Admin
- Posts: 12133
- Joined: Thu Nov 05, 1998 12:01 pm
- Location: I'm so glad to be home
- Contact:
I disagree.XeonJr wrote:The loan is not generating him any postive income and hence is bad debt.
Debt is good if it generates positive income.
Debt is ALSO good if it empowers you to generate positive income (as in student loans.)
Debt is ALSO good if it's for something you think is worth going into debt for (as in my new car -- the benefits are worth having to pay for the car for the next 5 years, even though the resale value of the car will be very low in the end.)
Social Security, on the other hand... Social Security really needs to be put back into the hands of the people. If the government is taking the surplus and using it for something other than social security (ie, the general fund) that's a problem. Allowing us to privatize is the first step toward repairing it.
-
Lothar
- DBB Ghost Admin
- Posts: 12133
- Joined: Thu Nov 05, 1998 12:01 pm
- Location: I'm so glad to be home
- Contact:
You've identified a particular type of debt as "good debt". And I agree with you -- for the purpose of making money, that type debt is good debt.
But "making money" is not the only purpose in life, and it's not the only reason to accumulate debt.
In my eyes, any debt that's accumulated for a purpose that sufficiently offsets it (such as, for example, getting a nice degree) is "good debt". It may not meet your particular requirements for "good debt" (maybe that's a technical term, I don't know) -- but it's better to have debt and an education than no debt and no education. In my case, it's better to have debt and a new car than no debt and an old car. The monetary return on the car is negative -- but the fact is, now I can visit my family across the country, and that's worth the thousands my car will cost me over the next few years.
Now, don't go thinking this is a sign that I suck with money or that I'm going to end up hopelessly saddled with debt my whole life. I intentionally created some (very manageable) debt because it was worth it for what I'd get out of it. Hence, "good debt". It's not debt that's earning me money -- but it's debt that's allowing me to visit my family, and that's worth more to me than money.
In Avder's case, the loan isn't guaranteeing him a positive financial return (though it is making it likely) -- but unless his only purpose for getting an education was to make money, your "good debt / bad debt" dichotomy is incomplete. What makes debt good or bad isn't JUST whether or not it makes you money (and definitely not if it *guarantees* you'll make money) -- what makes it good or bad is if it gives you a positive return, possibly in terms of money, but possibly in terms of other things that are worth more to you than money. I mean... every time you buy food, you're losing money -- but the food is worth it to you. I bought a car and have thousands of dollars of debt -- but having the car is worth it to me. Avder got an education and has thousands of dollars of debt -- but having the education is probably worth it to him. In each of those cases, the debt is generating a positive return -- it just so happens that it's not generating money; it's generating something worth more than the money to the individuals involved.
All I'm saying is... don't be so judgemental of people because they have debt, especially short-term debt. If I still owe the bank money in 5 years, maybe then you can tell me I have "bad debt" -- but right now, nope.
But "making money" is not the only purpose in life, and it's not the only reason to accumulate debt.
In my eyes, any debt that's accumulated for a purpose that sufficiently offsets it (such as, for example, getting a nice degree) is "good debt". It may not meet your particular requirements for "good debt" (maybe that's a technical term, I don't know) -- but it's better to have debt and an education than no debt and no education. In my case, it's better to have debt and a new car than no debt and an old car. The monetary return on the car is negative -- but the fact is, now I can visit my family across the country, and that's worth the thousands my car will cost me over the next few years.
Now, don't go thinking this is a sign that I suck with money or that I'm going to end up hopelessly saddled with debt my whole life. I intentionally created some (very manageable) debt because it was worth it for what I'd get out of it. Hence, "good debt". It's not debt that's earning me money -- but it's debt that's allowing me to visit my family, and that's worth more to me than money.
In Avder's case, the loan isn't guaranteeing him a positive financial return (though it is making it likely) -- but unless his only purpose for getting an education was to make money, your "good debt / bad debt" dichotomy is incomplete. What makes debt good or bad isn't JUST whether or not it makes you money (and definitely not if it *guarantees* you'll make money) -- what makes it good or bad is if it gives you a positive return, possibly in terms of money, but possibly in terms of other things that are worth more to you than money. I mean... every time you buy food, you're losing money -- but the food is worth it to you. I bought a car and have thousands of dollars of debt -- but having the car is worth it to me. Avder got an education and has thousands of dollars of debt -- but having the education is probably worth it to him. In each of those cases, the debt is generating a positive return -- it just so happens that it's not generating money; it's generating something worth more than the money to the individuals involved.
All I'm saying is... don't be so judgemental of people because they have debt, especially short-term debt. If I still owe the bank money in 5 years, maybe then you can tell me I have "bad debt" -- but right now, nope.
Good debt and bad debt is infact a techincal financial term 
so in that sense, you are incorrect. Your car is still bad debt and Avder's student fees are still bad debt.
If you detach good/bad debt from its techincal intendment and affix an emotional value to the words, in this sense I can relate to what youâ??re saying. However, keep in mind this discussion has financial roots and as such it would be prudent to uphold its technical stature.
Avder, if you don't mind me asking..
What exactly are you studying?
Could you achieve your desired outcome without this course?
Can you own the ladder instead of trying to climb it?
so in that sense, you are incorrect. Your car is still bad debt and Avder's student fees are still bad debt. If you detach good/bad debt from its techincal intendment and affix an emotional value to the words, in this sense I can relate to what youâ??re saying. However, keep in mind this discussion has financial roots and as such it would be prudent to uphold its technical stature.
Avder, if you don't mind me asking..
What exactly are you studying?
Could you achieve your desired outcome without this course?
Can you own the ladder instead of trying to climb it?
-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10135
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
Yea yea, and a good guitar solo can only be one by Yngwie Malmsteen, all technically correct and soundly supported by the strict, ancient rules of music theory.XeonJr wrote:Good debt and bad debt is infact a techincal financial term
But you know what, I prefer a sloppy struggling riff by Jimmy Page or Joe Perry anyday because it does so much more for my soul.
Point being, value is subjective regardless of what your financial textbooks tell you.
Microcomputer Specialist.XeonJr wrote:Avder, if you don't mind me asking..
What exactly are you studying?
Basically I'm being trained on how to administer all sorts of systems, mostly networking based. I'm administering Windows Server environments, Netware environments, Linux environments, routing environments, and switching environments.
Possibly. But the lab time provided by being in a classroom is invaluble. I'd really have no idea how to do any of this stuff if I was trying to get certified in anything based on what I read in a book. I need to do it hands on. Especially with the routing and switching stuff.XeonJr wrote:Could you achieve your desired outcome without this course?
Sure, if I had untold thousands, possibly millions, of dollars needed to buy advanced routing equipment, multiple PC's, and a ton of Fibre optic cable. I could start my own ISP! </sarcasm>XeonJr wrote:Can you own the ladder instead of trying to climb it?
If I can find a well paying job right out of college I'll be looking at a decent sized paycheck and I'll have this "bad debt" paid off rather quickly. System administrators arent as easy to outsource as say, programmers or tech support personnel. Every company needs networking support people nowadays.
Are you done?