tjt (01/26/83)
I don't have any brilliant ideas about how to save the SS system; I doubt
if anything drastic will be done until it falls apart. However, I personally
would be willing to forego ANY social security benefits if they would merely
STOP my payroll deductions RIGHT NOW. I don't want to know how much I've
invested so far, I don't care. I'm pretty young (28), so at this point I
would probably benefit by just getting out, losing my investment, and starting
up a decent IRA.
Anybody else feel this way? Any impression on how many people (obviously
the younger generation) feel this way? I know this is kind of crazy, but
I'm actually kind of scared about what will happen (not to me, but the country)
when the SS system falls apart.
===Tim Thompson===BTL/Holmdel===hocda!tjtjgpo (01/27/83)
I agree. I feel that I'm young enough (also 28) to afford losing my SS investment so I can put my SS contributions into an IRA or similar fund and stop wasting it on a soon-to-be-defunct anachronistic *ripoff*. I say that everyone already in the system be given the option of stopping contributions, losing what they have already put in, and waiving all rights to future benefits. At the same time, those people who choose to remain in the system will be *guaranteed* benefits for the rest of their lives. Probably, most young people will opt out and those who have a sizable investment already and are near retirement will remain. Eventually, the system will die a graceful death, the dropouts will have established personal retirement savings (if they're smart; if not, well...), and the persons who elected to ride it out will have received all the benefits they were promised. It seems fair and reasonable. Of course, that's the best argument against it. When did the Government EVER do anything that was fair or reasonable or (God forbid) BOTH????? Revolutionarily yours, John (the mad Hungarian) Opalko
lmg (01/27/83)
Here's another vote for opting out of the SS joke. Of course, there is no way in hell the government will let us do that. In fact, the plan of the "Bipartisan Social Security Commission" is just the opposite: Force EVERYBODY into Social Security! Right now, non-profit organizations and state and local governments can withdraw from the SS system after giving 2 years notice. Los Angeles county just withdrew the other week. They said that by investing their money in IRA plans instead of in SS their employees could realize MUCH BETTER BENEFITS than under SS. I believe the county also took private health insurance plans into account (as a replacement for Medicare) when making their decision. The idea that the SS system can be "saved" by making it universal and even more mandatory confirms my long held belief that the system owes its existence to many people paying in large amounts of money and then DYING without collecting anything. Forcing people presently exempt to participate in a program which is unsound and probably fraudulent is to me a highly immoral act. Two more points: 1. FICA is a "regressive" tax, as has been mentioned, but the bebefits are also regressive, that is, you get (more or less) what you pay for regardless of your income. The system may be a fraud, but I feel the tax is fair. 2. One of the currently "popular" plans for "saving" the SS system is to tax 1/2 of the benefits of anyone who has > $25000 in other (say, pension) income. This would eliminate the advantage of (1) above by making the system as a whole "progressive". At present, about 30% of receipients fall into that category, but of course inflation (no matter HOW low) will eventually bring us the $25000 Big Mac and cause EVERYBODY to be in that category no matter how poor they are in real terms. Larry Geary Computer Sciences Corporation at American Bell Inc, Holmdel ...npois!houxb!lmg
mat (01/27/83)
Here's a variation on Social securityIt takes the form of a Gov't-required savings/payroll plan, but the monies involved are directly calculable, and when outgo exceeds income, it will be easy to place the responsibility ... Here's what we do: The government continues it's payroll deductions/employee contributions as it does now, but all money collectedfrom an individual is invested in, say, Treasury Bills at current rates. You would be free to contribute MORE tax free, if you wished. Every year, at tax time, you get a statement. You can begin collecting at some reasonable age, and a portion of the fund might be available for catastrophic injury insurance. My quick computaions suggest that over a 40-year period, at 10%, a contribution of $1/annum would come out to $442, so an annual contribution of $2000 TOTAL would come out to almost 900,000 dollars. Presumably contribution amounts would be partially indexed to inflation, etc. Problems? Apart from the fact that it makes sense, this could drive the T-bill rate down some; on the other hand, when the time comes to bail SS out using general funds, the stress on the economy will probably be greater than the damage caused by making some of the money available. In the meantime, those now receiving SS would be put on a general fund ``retirement entitlement'' welfare, which, coming out of the general fun, will push rates back up ... and in the future, when a persons savings runs out, the same ``entitlement'' will be available ... but in a VERY limited way. This way, it LOOKS like welfare -- which it is. True, it is a ``moral obligation'' expense, but isn't that the very nature of welfare? hou5a!mat
keaton (01/28/83)
I agree. I'm 20 and have even less of an investment in SS to lose, but I wouldn't even object to a rule that you couldn't pull out until you were X years old or had contributed Y dollars to the system or something. When the deficit dropped, X or Y could be lowered. Finally (after about a generation or two) the whole thing would probably fizzle out, but everyone who stuck with the system would have gotten their money.
mcdaniel (01/28/83)
#R:iwsl2:-13500:uiucdcs:10600039:000:641
uiucdcs!mcdaniel Jan 27 22:08:00 1983
"Probably, most young people will opt out and those who have a sizable
investment already and are near retirement will remain."
Pray tell: if most young people opt out, who will pay for the benefits
given to the retired and soon-to-be retired? Why, it'll come out of
general revenues -- i. e. the young. The only difference from the
situation now would be (a) the taxes would be labelled differently on
your paycheck (income tax instead of FICA), and (b) the young would
get no benefits for the money put in via their taxes.
Tim McDaniel
(. . . pur-ee!uiucdcs!mcdaniel)jrm (01/31/83)
If SS were eliminated all you well meaning 28 year-olds would retire with no means to support yourself until you check-out. Most people have very short range vision and have trouble even saving up for a car. How many of you have car loans???? SS is at least a means of collecting funds from working individuals to support a group of people (retirees) that may have not prepared for retirement on their own. Chances are that left to their own means we would have more street people, more starving and freezing senior citizens. Before you flame-on and incinerate your tube, think... Maybe *you* believe that it would not happen to you, and maybe *you* would be able to prepare for retirement, but what about the majority?? I personally don't like the tax, I think that I could prepare myself for retirement, but it's nice to have something to fall back on *just in case*. Have you ever read Charles Dickens? Think about the options available to his down and out characters. Not very pretty. It would seem that in such a rich (relative term) country as ours we could give the masses a little peace of mind when looking forward to retirement. enough... j.r. miller - btl columbus
pn (02/01/83)
To mork-cb!jrm: "in such a rich country we could afford to give a little peace of mind...". The reason for all this discussion is that the SS system is FAILING, running out of money. We CAN'T afford to go on like this. You are encouraging fiscal irresponsibility. I know, Reagan does it too.