My problem with getting rid of Social Security and Medicare...

[akphidelt]

Alright, so this is not meant to be a partisan bashing thread. A serious discussion about alternatives to social security and medicare.

So all of us in this thread and those that are serious about politics and finance probably know how to save and know what to do for retirement. I would love to have a larger paycheck with out paying social security.

But the question comes to... what would we do with all the old people, who are the most needy people because they can't work and they need much more medical attention who don't use that money to invest in retirement.

We have come to a conclusion in America that we just won't let people suffer and die. So my problem comes from the fact that with out making people prepare for retirement, that they now can buy bigger tv's, buy more expensive cars, spend more money, and then when it comes time where they are in need, they will still get that need fulfilled on our dollars and not theirs.

So how do we combat that problem? I know all of us here understand how to save for retirement. The rest of the country??? I'm not to sure. So what are your views on handling retirees and social security?

 

[guitarjosh]

Chile has privatized their version of SS and it has been wildly successful. There was a reporter from the New york Times that compared what he would have with their model versus ours, and found he would get about $18,000 a year in ours, and $54,000 a year plus a one time $223,000 payment using theirs. Of course, the left, which claims to be for personal freedom, would never go for this. Not due to risk but then the politicians can't spend the money when it is in the stock market.

 

[Willie99]

teacher's have privatized mandatory contribution pensions, their retirement benefits are at least 3x better

Congress has privatized mandatory contribution pensions, their retirement benefits are infinitely better

(both of those groups are excluded from SS, why are they so special?)

If as much money was invested into privatized plans as is invested into social security, everybody would be retiring as millionaires, and they would have an asset to leave to beneficiaries. Or at a minimum, their retirement benefits would be at least 3x greater (like teachers)

How do we handle the transition?

People age 60+ would receive 100% of their SS benefits
50+ 85%
40+ 70%
30+ 30%
20's zero

or something like that. the younger you are, the better off you're going to be

there would have to be some sort of transition period tax (allocation) to fund promised benefits, but at least we stopped the bleeding

as for people who never contributed to the system but receive benefits, they would have to be moved to the welfare rolls, which is where they belong to begin with

 

[texansfan]

Willie might now the answer, but since I'll receive a pension I'll only qualify for reduced SS. I'm not sure of the percentage.

 

[Willie99]

Willie might now the answer, but since I'll receive a pension I'll only qualify for reduced SS. I'm not sure of the percentage.

teachers and recipients of government pensions are subject to offsets, but not private pensions

are you a teacher or government employee?

 

[texansfan]

City of Houston employee.

 

[Willie99]

evidently you're subjected to the GPO, Government Pension Offset

don't know how that's calculated, Social Security Laws are a specialty in and by themselves

I only know the GPO exists, and I contact the appropriate people when the need arises

 

[CHOPTALK]

That Bush guy tried to get that passed 8 years ago and nobody wanted it.
I guess if Obama comes up with the idea it will be a good idea.

Chile has privatized their version of SS and it has been wildly successful. There was a reporter from the New york Times that compared what he would have with their model versus ours, and found he would get about $18,000 a year in ours, and $54,000 a year plus a one time $223,000 payment using theirs. Of course, the left, which claims to be for personal freedom, would never go for this. Not due to risk but then the politicians can't spend the money when it is in the stock market.

 

[CHOPTALK]

Your idea is sound. Throw in kicking out all illegals that have never put into the plan and you have a winner.

Something else im in favor of that is anti republican is to not allow anyone with a net worth of over 10mil to draw SS.
This is something I am not thrilled about, because fundamentally I believe the rich deserve there payout just as much as anyone, but desperate times call for desperate measures.

teacher's have privatized mandatory contribution pensions, their retirement benefits are at least 3x better

Congress has privatized mandatory contribution pensions, their retirement benefits are infinitely better

(both of those groups are excluded from SS, why are they so special?)

If as much money was invested into privatized plans as is invested into social security, everybody would be retiring as millionaires, and they would have an asset to leave to beneficiaries. Or at a minimum, their retirement benefits would be at least 3x greater (like teachers)

How do we handle the transition?

People age 60+ would receive 100% of their SS benefits
50+ 85%
40+ 70%
30+ 30%
20's zero

or something like that. the younger you are, the better off you're going to be

there would have to be some sort of transition period tax (allocation) to fund promised benefits, but at least we stopped the bleeding

as for people who never contributed to the system but receive benefits, they would have to be moved to the welfare rolls, which is where they belong to begin with

 

[snoop]

I would combine all mandate retirement/life insurance/health savings into one plan. The contribution will go to a trust which paying at least 3% interest annually. Politicians have to stay the fuck away from this trust.

Current participants in SSI have the option to rollover to this plan or continue to support the ponzi scheme Social Security run by the US Gov. If they choose to rollover, the Gov must pay them a lump sum for what they and their employers have contributed plus 3% compound interest.

The goal is to phase out or getting rid of that ponzi scheme ultimately.

 

[snoop]

Oh, and this plan will safeguard itself against all the leeches who contribute ZERO dollar the fund but will find every opportunity to milk it.

 

[steaktartar]

I would combine all mandate retirement/life insurance/health savings into one plan. The contribution will go to a trust which paying at least 3% interest annually. Politicians have to stay the fuck away from this trust.

Current participants in SSI have the option to rollover to this plan or continue to support the ponzi scheme Social Security run by the US Gov. If they choose to rollover, the Gov must pay them a lump sum for what they and their employers have contributed plus 3% compound interest.

The goal is to phase out or getting rid of that ponzi scheme ultimately.

great plan....we can hope and wish

 

[gynecologist]

getting rid of Medicare??

WTF!!!!

You want chaos on the street.

 

[akphidelt]

I'm not against privatizing it for sure, I just don't get how exactly the transition would work. We are talking trillions of new dollars now being put in the market each year? What happens if the market tanks and people lose half their earnings in the span of a year.

What about a system that pays you back what you put it? So if you only put in $40,000 in social security... you get $40,000 + inflation back. People that live long past retirement age are making thousands and thousands of dollars they didn't put in the system.

And when it comes to retirement any system you have is a "ponzi scheme".

 

[SmallDaddy]

Who gets the money put in when people die, say in their early 60's?

What happens if people outlive the money they put in?

 

[akphidelt]

Who gets the money put in when people die, say in their early 60's?

What happens if people outlive the money they put in?

There is just a standard they all get each month after retiring. If they die, no one gets it, if they live... they get the checks until they die regardless of what they put in.

 

[SmallDaddy]

So what exactly will privatization mean? Who handles the money? Goldman Sach????

What if I gamble and lose? What if I gamble and win?

 

[Willie99]

So what exactly will privatization mean? Who handles the money? Goldman Sach????

What if I gamble and lose? What if I gamble and win?

we're not re-inventing the wheel y'know

all we have to do is copy the model employed for teachers, or congressmen, or any one of thousands of government pension contracts (sans the abuses)

 

[SmallDaddy]

Just about all those pension funds are way short

 

[Willie99]

So what exactly will privatization mean? Who handles the money? Goldman Sach????

What if I gamble and lose? What if I gamble and win?

even if we have pure privatization, you will not be enabled to gamble your money. retirement assets will be managed just like other retirement assets are managed today. Your benefits will be based on actuarial calculations. At the end of the day, 100% of participants will be better off than they are under social security. And under a pure privatization plan, as opposed to copying something like an existing teachers' plan, any remaining assets will be available to beneficiaries.

that type of plan will be much harder to implement and administer, thus that's why I argue just copy one of the plans that's already out there.