Senators eye Social Security reforms as some in House GOP consider cuts

[Hoodat]

I've purposely have stayed out of the fray, but here is another perspective that angers me to my core......

My contribution to SS 1975- 2012- $161,131.  This doesn't even include employer contribution

My personal average investment rate of return 1975-2022- 12.2%

Taking midpoints and at said rate of return, you know what I would be able to invest right now additonally if that same money would have been left to me?  And this doesn't even include my wife's.

$1,603,358 additonal investable money......  That at my investable (even a decently safe amount of return) safe side of portfolio would be an addtional $96K a year.

Yeah, anyone else thinking the government isn't screwing us?

This has been my point all along.  And when you die, your family gets to keep the remainder of your personal investments, while Social Security only gives you $255.

[Idiot]

I've purposely have stayed out of the fray, but here is another perspective that angers me to my core......

My contribution to SS 1975- 2012- $161,131.  This doesn't even include employer contribution

My personal average investment rate of return 1975-2022- 12.2%

Taking midpoints and at said rate of return, you know what I would be able to invest right now additonally if that same money would have been left to me?  And this doesn't even include my wife's.

$1,603,358 additonal investable money......  That at my investable (even a decently safe amount of return) safe side of portfolio would be an addtional $96K a year income

Yeah, anyone else thinking the government isn't screwing us?

Who's your broker?  I think my rate of return last year was at least MINUS 12% and likely higher.  The only money making a return this year is my savings account making 4.5%.

[catfish1957]

Who's your broker?  I think my rate of return last year was at least MINUS 12% and likely higher.  The only money making a return this year is my savings account making 4.5%.

That 12.2% is an average return 1975-2022.  Last year I lost a tad under 1%.  Only my second loss.  Other year was '09, when I think I lost something like a little under 8% in the Obama recession debacle.

I am an Oil Company retiree, that didn't hurt last year.

[Kamaji]

Social security was never intended to be a government-enforced private retirement program.  Mind you, it was sold that way to a gullible public, in part because the concept of being on welfare, even for old folks, had many more negative connotations then than it does now, but that is not what it does.

It should be returned to its original function as a security net for the aged and infirm, and no longer treated as a general purpose welfare fund for liberals to throw money at their favored constituencies.  And like most insurance programs, you don't get a stated return on your "investment" - your premiums - you get payments only to the extent to fit the requirements for coverage - you meet the "need" requirements.  Hence, it should also be means tested; somebody who already has adequate retirement resources does not have an unmet, insurable "need" and should not be drawing social security benefits.

[Hoodat]

Social security was never intended to be a government-enforced private retirement program.

The intent of Social Security was to make people dependent upon government in order to survive.

[Kamaji]

The intent of Social Security was to make people dependent upon government in order to survive.

No, it wasn't.  That might be one use that a certain political party, or a component thereof, is trying to put it towards, but that is not what its universal purpose was.

[Hoodat]

Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.

-Henry A. Wallace, the father of Social Security-

[catfish1957]

Social security was never intended to be a government-enforced private retirement program. 

Nor in the eyes of its origniators was meant to be a considered a -91.3% in effective investment return. That based on my life expectancy and investment performance.

That is what it is in dollars and cents to me, and I resent it to hell. Even calling it a retirement program in the era of 128% debt to GDP, and considering future obligations?  Several pages ago, I called this process "criminal". I still do, and now that I have put the numbers to it, I have to take another blood pressure pill.

I literally hate our government worse than anything.

[Bigun]

Nor in the eyes of its origniators was meant to be a considered a -91.3% in effective investment return. That based on my life expectancy and investment performance.

That is what it is in dollars and cents to me, and I resent it to hell. Even calling it a retirement program in the era of 128% debt to GDP, and considering future obligations?  Several pages ago, I called this process "criminal". I still do, and now that I have put the numbers to it, I have to take another blood pressure pill.

I literally hate our government worse than anything.

 

For most of my working career I begged them to just take what they had already stolen and leave me alone! They refused, and I resent the HELL out of it!

[Hoodat]

Nor in the eyes of its origniators was meant to be a considered a -91.3% in effective investment return. That based on my life expectancy and investment performance.

That is what it is in dollars and cents to me, and I resent it to hell. Even calling it a retirement program in the era of 128% debt to GDP, and considering future obligations?  Several pages ago, I called this process "criminal". I still do, and now that I have put the numbers to it, I have to take another blood pressure pill.

I literally hate our government worse than anything.

I've asked this question to the Social Security supporters here already, and I still have yet to receive a response.

Again:

Why do you oppose someone like me having the free choice to opt out of Social Security even if you are still able to collect your social security checks every month?

[DefiantMassRINO]

The GOP will be able to kill Social Security and Medicare when the Boomers die off and Gen-X'ers start retiring.

Far fewer Gen-X'ers than Boomers.  Not as many old voters to complain.

Gen-X'ers will have shorter lifespan than boomers.

Millennials and Gen-Z'ers will be happy to stick it to Gen-X'ers.

[catfish1957]

The GOP will be able to kill Social Security and Medicare when the Boomers die off and Gen-X'ers start retiring.

Far fewer Gen-X'ers than Boomers.  Not as many old voters to complain.

Gen-X'ers will have shorter lifespan than boomers.

Millennials and Gen-Z'ers will be happy to stick it to Gen-X'ers.

I guess I am a cluelesss "Boomer".

Didn't realize there was some friction among the younger demographic groups.

[bilo]

I've asked this question to the Social Security supporters here already, and I still have yet to receive a response.

Again:

Why do you oppose someone like me having the free choice to opt out of Social Security even if you are still able to collect your social security checks every month?

I'm with you 100%.

However, let me give you another sad perspective. I own and manage apartment buildings. Over the years I've had several tenants who lived well into their 80's who only had social security to live on. It's shocking how many people live pay check to pay check and don't prepare for the day when they will have to retire. I wouldn't wish this on anyone, but it is reality.

I wonder if social security could survive if responsible people could opt out? I know I sure would have.

[Bigun]

I've asked this question to the Social Security supporters here already, and I still have yet to receive a response.

Again:

Why do you oppose someone like me having the free choice to opt out of Social Security even if you are still able to collect your social security checks every month?

It appears that most now have no idea what true freedom means so let me inject a clue;

It means being accountable for ALL the decisions you make be they good or bad! It is NOT the government's job to protect us from ourselves!

[Hoodat]

I'm with you 100%.

However, let me give you another sad perspective. I own and manage apartment buildings. Over the years I've had several tenants who lived well into their 80's who only had social security to live on. It's shocking how many people live pay check to pay check and don't prepare for the day when they will have to retire. I wouldn't wish this on anyone, but it is reality.

I wonder if social security could survive if responsible people could opt out? I know I sure would have.

So here's an option.  Keep the 12.4% mandate.  Lift the cap.  But instead of the 12.4% going to the government, it would instead go to an approved^* private investment account belonging to that worker.  Let's say there are a dozen corporately held fiduciary investment options that are approved for this purpose, similar to a 401(k).  The employee choses which option to take, and can then track his/her investment over time.  The worker can be given the option of increasing his/her contribution, again similar to a 401(k).  And employees as an incentive could add to it.  This would enable people at the lower scale to participate in the same options that are available to those higher up.  And it makes them vested in their own retirements instead of relying on government to maintain poverty level living for them in their later years.  And most of all, it creates an inheritance for surviving family members.

[cato potatoe]

This same principle applies with wages.  The shift in the curve results in a new equilibrium affecting both parties.

Unemployment is sitting at 3.5%, correct?  Seems to me the elimination of employer tax would be well-advertised, and there would be immediate pressure on companies to announce salary or benefit increases.  Those who did would receive job applications from the more ambitious workers at stingy companies. 

I like your opt-out plan with the caveat of benefit reduction IF the overall budget deficit is manageable.  Dems are shameless ... I remember when Obama became a budget hawk the last time privatization was discussed.

[Kamaji]

Nor in the eyes of its origniators was meant to be a considered a -91.3% in effective investment return. That based on my life expectancy and investment performance.

That is what it is in dollars and cents to me, and I resent it to hell. Even calling it a retirement program in the era of 128% debt to GDP, and considering future obligations?  Several pages ago, I called this process "criminal". I still do, and now that I have put the numbers to it, I have to take another blood pressure pill.

I literally hate our government worse than anything.

That was never taken into account.  It was intended to be an income tax - a legal compulsory extraction of wealth pursuant to the granted taxing power - and nothing more.  Read the statute.  More broadly, it was intended to provide a financial security net for the aged and infirm.

[Kamaji]

I've asked this question to the Social Security supporters here already, and I still have yet to receive a response.

Again:

Why do you oppose someone like me having the free choice to opt out of Social Security even if you are still able to collect your social security checks every month?

Why should you be given the option to opt out of a generally applicable income tax?

In fact, you have that option:  expatriate.  See ya later; don't let the door hit you on the way out.  If you don't leave, then that was nothing more than empty posturing.

[Hoodat]

Why should you be given the option to opt out of a generally applicable income tax?

Because I would also be relieving the government of future liability.

In fact, you have that option:  expatriate.  See ya later; don't let the door hit you on the way out.  If you don't leave, then that was nothing more than empty posturing.

Wow.  Just wow.

[cato potatoe]

However, let me give you another sad perspective. I own and manage apartment buildings. Over the years I've had several tenants who lived well into their 80's who only had social security to live on. It's shocking how many people live pay check to pay check and don't prepare for the day when they will have to retire. I wouldn't wish this on anyone, but it is reality.

But do you worry about them, really?  Billions of people are impoverished due to unwise personal and collective decisions.  With rare exception, they will not thank you for sacrificing your happiness, and nor will they learn anything from it.

[catfish1957]

That was never taken into account.  It was intended to be an income tax - a legal compulsory extraction of wealth pursuant to the granted taxing power - and nothing more.  Read the statute.  More broadly, it was intended to provide a financial security net for the aged and infirm.

Then honestly just call it for what it is....   American institutionalization of Socialism.

Doesn't mean I like it.   I still think it is (was) a criminal affront to millions of hard working Americans who happened to be ants instead of grasshoppers.  Any defense of it is almost as criminal, and its destruction and removal from our system is patriotic.
Or at least let the victims opt out.

[Kamaji]

Wow.  Just wow.

Why?  Is it so earth-shattering to expect you to pay the same generally applicable income taxes we're all subject to?  What's next, the option to opt out of paying bits and pieces of the regular income tax because you disagree with one or more policies being funded with general tax revenues?

[catfish1957]

Why should you be given the option to opt out of a generally applicable income tax?

In fact, you have that option:  expatriate.  See ya later; don't let the door hit you on the way out.  If you don't leave, then that was nothing more than empty posturing.

So I should expatriate for opposing a Socialist tenant?.  Do you realize what you are saying?

Sure doesn't sound like you.

[Hoodat]

Then honestly just call it for what it is....   American institutionalization of Socialism.

And it was America's first Communist Vice President that came up with the idea.

[catfish1957]

Why?  Is it so earth-shattering to expect you to pay the same generally applicable income taxes we're all subject to?  What's next, the option to opt out of paying bits and pieces of the regular income tax because you disagree with one or more policies being funded with general tax revenues?

lol...Sorry dude, I've paid nearly $2M in fed income in my life.  That's not enough?

How much is enough?