Even if this number is true (I’ll provisionally take it as so), you are advocating a pretty fundamental change to the SS system.
Ok…but then that kind of also calls into question that $11 trillion figure from above, no?
Go back and see my post #8…both Balls 2003 and 2004 plan are discussed. Factcheck.org disagrees with you that either is viable long term, but this gets back into those 75 year projections. Check it out though.
This seems contridictory to me. If you acknowledge that SS needs fixing (and you cite Ball, who is proposing some fairly radical changes to keep the system going), then how has Bush manufactured this "‘Crisis’ out of whole clothe’? And if you acknowledge that there is a potential problem, then why WOULDN’T the Dems want to propose a plan as well?
Agreed. And if the federal government would accept the fact that now those IOU’s must be repaid out of the general fund where the money disappeared to, the sooner this ‘crisis’ will end. All future SS obligations should come out of the federal budget, and taxes should raised to cover it. The President and the Republican Congress just lack the accountability to do the honorable thing.
Um, do you get all your information from Jim Angle, or do you spend the extra time to filter out other sources before defaulting to that position anyway? I grant the major beneficiaries will be the fund managers, vs. CEOs, but as the present TSP for Federal employees is run very much like your standard 401k, I cannot fathom the pubbie numbers claiming this isn’t a huge cash infusion for the private sector. You might look into Austan Goolsbee’s study claiming a trillion-dollar winfall just for Wall Street over the next 75 years. This is more than a four-hundred-fold increase in business over what the Street currently earns from the roughly three-and-a-half million people who presently take advantage of the lauded TSP. Some 40% of the eligible workforce saves nothing right now for their retirement. Of the 60% that do, certainly not all of them utilize 401k’s or similar investment plans (even if they can), nor have any of their investments in stocks. It seems we’re on the verge of making 100% of the eligble workforce stock investors. How is it possible private interests will not benefit hugely from such a cash infusion?
Um, considering I’m only vaguely aware of who Jim Angle is, I’d have to say the answer is ‘no’ to that question. Nice try though.
In point of fact, I got this tidbit from the same source I got the idea from the OP…factcheck.org. Just happens I was on that site today catching up after not having looked at it much recently. I’ve seen this debated other places though too. Unless you are going to claim factcheck.org isa Pub biased site of course.
I was wrong about one part though…its 16 cents for every $10k, not around a dollar:
All this assumes that Bush in fact is going to use that model…which I did conceed when I wrote that other post. Seems likely though, as he’s stated he will be using a similar system.
Guess it all depends on your initial assumptions. Assuming Bush really is planning on using the TSP model (which he’s stated he is using as the basis for his currently sketchy program), I don’t think you can really make the case that it will be a huge windfall for the private interests.
I’ve seen the following suggestions to save the program without creating private accounts:
raise the tax rate
raise the cap
reduce the COLA adjustments
raise the retirement age
All the solutions that save the program tend to be short term. Since short term is about 50 years, it seems reasonable to make those changes since no one can make a model that far out. I wonder, has anyone suggested this:
include more workers
Maybe I’m wrong but aren’t there millions of state, local and military workers that are exempt from the system? Why not put them and their salaries into the net?
Well, those numbers certainly are vastly different than what other economists are quoting. I’m not sure who to believe at this point, but it still strikes me as seemingly impossible that govt.-mandated investment isn’t a windfall of such proportions that the private sector wouldn’t invest mightily, collectively, to lobby and sell us on the idea. I sure as hell don’t trust Bush by himself, but I thank you for the other cites, and I guess the best I can say at this point is I’ll read more.
Loopydude, if you haven’t already, read through the link I gave. Its possible we are talking about two different things…though if you are talking about what I think you are, I don’t see how investing more in our industries in this country has a downside. That aspect would be win/win I should think. Anyway, read through it and then if you have some other cites I’d certainly be willing to look em over too. Thats why I started this thread, to get back up to speed on this issue…been out of the loop for a while now.
OK. Gotta admit I’m in a wasted state at this point, and post here largely when I’ve got twenty minutes betwee step 3 and step 4 of a 14-step whatever I happen to be doing to meet some deadlines. But it’s part of being a good citizen and all, so I’ll try to contribute more from intelligent sources who still have their minds.
You’re hardly the only person ever to bring that comparison up, you know. The observation was *not * addressed to you, even in spirit, so please get over yourself. That particular myth is a very common one, surely you’ve come across it before, and indulging in mythology of any type does not help address the problems - *whoever * indulges in them. May we assume that no one here will attempt to do so?
I’m fine with a combination of increasing the cap and adding a sliding means test as a way of addressing the reducing worker/recipient ratio, the fundamental problem here along with habitual deficit spending in general. It would be superficially satisfying to see SS be a separate fund, separately taxed, but so would it be to see any other government function clearly linked to its own funding source and not intermingled. But it doesn’t really matter much as long as total expenditures do not exceed total revenues. SS is just one of many obligations the government has, and far from the only inflexible one.
Used to be, but Federal Workers switched from CSRS (no FICA but you don’t get SS) to FERS (FICA, but you get SS, and there’s the Thrift savings plan) about 20 years ago. Still a few workers on the old plan, sure, but darn few. Most state workers pay into FICA. Dunno about Military…
I could be wrong, but I think after the baby boom there was a drop off in birth rate and population increase for the US. That’s the problem, we’re not growing like we were. I think the ratio of workers to retirees will remain small just as the parent to child ratio remains small.
When SS was set up 9under president roosevelt), two classes of workers were exempted:
-railroad workers (they have their own RR Fund)
-agricultural (ie. farm slave) laborers
Now I understand that the railroad Retirement Fund is well-endowed, and railroad pensions are quite good. Why doesn’t SS migrate over to what these people enjoy?
In sum then:
-SS has been looted over the years (harry truman “borrowed” from it to finance the Korean War
-benefits are being paid to perpetrators of criminal fraud (e.g. “crazy money”)
-benefits are being paid to the heirs of deceased recipients (in foreign countries)-with ABSOLUTELY NO controls on this!
But none of our political :"leaders’ have any intention about addressing any of this. they talk, but do nothing.
I don’t think the Baby Boomers are a big problem for SS because I don’t think most of us will live into our 90s as our parents’ generation (at least the females) have.
A lot of us used drugs from questionable sources. Little enough is known about the long-term effects of these substances in pure form, let alone in combination with adulterants. It’s doubtful that David Crosby will attain anywhere near the longevity of Bing Crosby.
In the summer, most of us who spent our formative years in the 50s,60s and, early 70s were routinely exposed to heavy fogs of the now-banned DDT every summer. Is this why so many non-smoking, non-drinking, non-farming individuals like my wife have developed lymphomas of a type formerly lnked to heavy drinkers, heavy smokers, or agricultural chemical applicators? Though the lymphoma is largely curable by chemo and radiation, don’t these treatments themselves take years off one’s life?
The federal government admits that lies were told about the public health risks associated with above-ground nuclear testing and various experiments studying radiation dispersal through the air and water.
Women in today’s economy can’t just stay home and watch kids the way so many women of past generations did. Women are catching up to men in the areas of heart disease and other stress-related illness.
Our folks didn’t have to care for decrepit parents when they were in their 50s and 60s. Most of my peers didn’t have grandparents left by high school graduation time. Most of my peers’ parents were under 50 when their own parents died.
Surely, the frustrations of dealing with elder-care creates stresses that past 55-to-70 year-old generations didn’t have to deal with. Stress is a killer.
If the government grossly overcollects taxes to meet a funding crisis and that crisis never materializes, will our children and grandchildren get some combination of refunds and/or lowered taxes and/or bigger retirement checks and/or lowered retirement ages?
I’d prefer waiting a few more years to see whether or not the first Boomer retirees die off faster or slower than their parents before giving the government big tax increases. Politicians rarely repeal taxes ( at least where the bottom 80% of us are concerned).
Are you serious? That’s the other option? So, if the govt. is going to default on SS payouts, why won’t it default on T-Bills? They figure all the other investment in stocks will prevent this? And if there’s a market crash?
