AARP: nine ways to boost Social Security
Our ally and partner AARP outlines nine ways to boost Social Security.
posted by Hans Riemer at 6:36 PM
Thursday, April 21, 2005
> REGISTER TO VOTE
www.rockthevote.com
Share on Facebook
Previous Posts
- Angry Old Man
- Rock the Vote U sucK
- Hans Testifies on Social Security!
- Goodbye, Marla
- Its not about money, its about priorities
- Here's what they think about ya
- Rock the Vote in Jeopardy?
- You mean there's something more important than Mar...
- All the cool kids oppose privatization
- Associated Press: Youth support for private accoun...
22 Comments:
Number one, raising the taxes on any segment of the population will do nothing but cause problems. In helping put money into a dying program such as SS, your making the economy decline. So raising the cap and the payrole tax are real distractions.
Fuzzy math, not really...the liberals want to raise taxes no matter what.
Six of the proposed changes are tax increases. Three are benefit cuts. And the only other suggestion is that the government invest our money in the stock market - that's what economists call socialism. And, anyway, I thought the AARP was saying that investing in the stock market is too risky...
No matter what. RTV can't hide the facts or spin them to their favor. Anyone who reads these new nine ways to raise taxes can see this social program is failing and on the verge of bankrupcy.
I love the one where the taxes collected for SS should be invested in the stock market. They say the reason it would be safe is because the money would be invested as a whole. What a crock. Let the gov't invest in the stock market and watch how much of our money they will keep for themselves when our money starts making a high return. God forbid if we owned our own account.
I like the other guys point. RTV is suppose to be representing the youth of this country. If anyone reads this blog, theu will see that the vast majority of the youth supports privatization or some kind of change. The only ones that don't are the ones that have to be manipulated by this site.
Come on, do what you claim you are here to do. Represent us or become insignificant.
As if the comments on this blog lately represent the youth of america....gimme a break....there's a bunch of Bush supporters who have decided to raid the blog comments, that's all....polls show that RTV is right in line with the generation.
all these comments are at this point is an indication that RTV is having a huge impact and creating a huge problem for advocates of privatizaiton who are trying to fight back.
Wow! What a fix! Tax this! Tax that! Tax more! Raise the age! Wow to hear AARP tell it all we need to do is PUT MORE GODDAMN MONEY INTO IT TO FIX IT. But, it's definetely not broke. I can't believe anyone believes this. Social Security is not some grand plan, it's certainly not "in-line" with me. Social Security is a sack of soggy dicks there is nothing you can do to make it appealing. I am oh so sorry that you people need to government to take care of you, but leave me out of it. I'll provide for my OWN retirement, which will be at an age of MY choice.
Polls show this or that. What a momma's boy. I can show you a poll to support anything. You have to be a brain dead idiot to think that any informed young person would read that AARP site and think, "Wow, what a great idea. I don't pay enough in taxes."
If there is so much support for SS from the youth, then where is it. All I see is one person here or there that probably works for RTV or AARP supporting the current SS system. No one who supports the current system wants to touch the voluntary portion of the private accounts. That's right, your sorry ass doesn't have to take your mouth off your mom's feeding breast if you don't want to. For those of us who don't live at home and collect an allowance, we would like an option that fits our financial goals. I won't need SS when I retire, but for the people that do, you sure are kicking them square in the nuts by making them stay in this program.
Its ridiculous that RTV and AARP have teamed up together on this issue. The goals of these generations are completely different and separate. Everyone in the AARP has already payed a low tax into SS, now they won't all the young workers to pay as much as they can get the gov't to force us to pay.
The youth's goals are to see if we can create a system that is best for us when we retire. The system may look different than what is there now. The current system probably looked good to the current retirees when they were younger and there were 15 workers to 1 retiree paying into the system. I look at it now and see 2 workers to 1 retiree and think "how can this possible work."
That just shows you how disingenuous this Hans guy is. He could have been a great propaganda tool for his homeland during another time. He keeps saying that the system can work because they're will always be workers paying into the system. That is a complete lie. SS was started with the assumption that the number of workers would increase in comparison to the number of retirees. Guess what? That's not the case. It actually trended the other way. How long can we go with the number of retirees increasing to the point where they almost outnumber the workers. The system is bust when there is a 1 to 2 ratio between retirees and workers. Why don't you tell people that Hans? There will still be workers paying, but the system won't work. What a Propagandist.
I know all you bedwetters don't quite understand what all of us real workers that moved out mommie's house are talking about, but trust me, your God (the gov't) is a false god and sooner than later you will see that these politicians don't give a crap about you or your retirement. If they did, they wouldn't have spent all the ss money already.
We are not too stupid to invest our own money. Don't let RTV or anyone else convince you otherwise. By making an informed decision, and not relying on RTV or AARP to make it for you, you can make a difference.
Let your representatives know how you feel, one way or the other.
www.house.gov
www.senate.gov
Social Security reform is necessary and good. By the time we retire (I've got 40 years), the system will not be able to fully fund the promises it has made to us. All that paying in, and no paying back out. Doesn't sound fair to me.
I hope americandream reads no. 5 on that list. 30% of all government workers not paying into SS? I hate to say I told you so... but...
anonymous pretty much summed everything up in the second post, these schemes all propose either the raising of taxes or the cutting of benefits... not acceptable.
These solutions are akin to giving a blood transfusion to a patient whose legs are cut off and are hemorrhaging blood faster than the doctors can pump it back into him. First we need to fix the problem with solvency, thats the spending of the SS fund by politicians in Washington. Next we need to revise the system so politicians can't steal the money in the account by turning it into a private system, which means you own the money, its yours to do with what you want and 51 Senators can't vote it away.
That will fix Social Security, not throwing money down a hole.
We have elected officials who don't feel it is important enough to reform social security because thet don't pay into it. They have a real nice cushey retirement all their own!...They could care less about our future generations retirement! They refer to it as "Silly," and" It is not a priority"...
People, WE really MUST insist our political pals in Washington work for us! There are some great Quotes on WILLisms.com IF anyone would like to be enlightened with some reality...I believe Hillary when she says social security is not on her top five list! Hillary doesn't need to make the time because it doesn't really concern her!
responding to anonymous who thinks these comments are just from Bush supporters:
check out www.secureourfuture.org. It's Students for Saving Social Security - a non-partisan network of students supporting personal accounts. They have Democrats and Republicans. They are actually run by our generation (college students), unlike RTV. And they support what most college students support: the choice to save our money as we please.
Hate the war in Iraq? Think Bush is wrong on gay marriage? But still think personal accounts are good for our generation? So do the students at secureourfuture.org. That's non-partisan. Non-partisan is not supporting every policy of the DNC.
"Ally and partner AARP."
Unbelievable.
If our generation is truly represented by Rock the Vote, we have no hope in the future. Rock the Vote, you are robbing the 18-34 generation blind, and no one out there should stand for this partisan nonsense.
Do your own research, and Rock the Vote, for God's sake, please stop being so blindly partisan, and do what is good for our generation for once.
The socialists have invaded, and used media sources such as this to promote their ideas. TAX & GOVERNMENT RUN LIVES...these are the only the RTV wants you to hear. Not Capitalism, not free market enterprise...
If Rock the Vote continues this behavior, they're going to lose any little bit of credibility they still have left with the generation they claim to fight for.
I, for one, am done with Rock the Vote. This "partisanship over progress" agenda of Rock the Vote's has been nothing short of appalling, and I vow to never support this organization again until it cleans its act up.
I wonder if we will ever see a REAL organization devoted to supporting the youth, and not one that intends to turn us into slaves of the Democratic Party.
It seems clear to me that according to the polls RTV doesn't come anywhere close to representing thier supporters.
3/15/05 Washington Post:
"In this month's poll, 68 percent of adults 18 to 29 years old said they support investing some Social Security contributions in the stock market."
Gee, so AARP wants to raise taxes and cut benefits in order to shovel our money into another government sinkhole. The funny thing is that this government sinkhole is actually worse for the poor and minorities that they are claiming to help. The current social security system offers a pathetic .86% rate of return. Raising taxes or cutting benefits will only make said rate of return even more pathetic. We need personal accounts in order to assure a reasonable rate of return on our investment.
I'm all for Rock the Vote taking an active stance. Just voting is absolutely necessary, but it doesn't give the elected politicians enough reason to pay attention to our votes. It's vital to make the politicians pay attention not only to our vote, but what we think. Rock the Vote is probably the biggest youth politics organization in the country and it's about time that it made a real play.
Enough from all you who just want feel good politics: "Yeah, I voted; and I still don't have a good chance of job security; I still know people who are getting sent to fight in a war I don't know why we're still in; I still believe politicians are a class apart." Let's tell them something about what we really need out of our government. Rock the Vote has a better ability to do that than any other youth political group in the nation. And it's being targeted right here on this blog by those who don't agree with it. But let's not delude ourselves into thinking our 22 posts are anything close to representing what youth think one way or another. You're going to have to look outside the highly exclusive coterie of bloggers to find a representative sample of youth. And besides, here's one more post bringing it back in balance.
The economic reality for young folks is not that hot. The economy is great, sure - for those who already are doing great. But for young people, who are generally guaranteed to be without job security and making a low salary (that's just common sense, plus what I know about my friends), a solid economic hand-up is only a good thing. And that's what Social Security is. It is solid.
For a moment, let's get past "Social Security is going broke" and whether more workers might be taking out than are paying in to the system right now. There remains just one question: Do we want a system that will provide us and our families a guaranteed benefit in case we are disabled or killed, and that will provide us with a guranteed middle-class quality of life when we are old. Whatever the answer is, we as a country have the political will to make our desire reality. For me, the answer is real basic: Yes. I want a system that is guaranteed to provide me with a base-line income when I am too old to make a living on my own. I know a little something about investing, and I know that with a guaranteed, adjusted-for-inflation, zero-risk investment like that, I can really afford to take some more chances with the rest of my money and make investments that might really give me a good return.
The way the posts keep cropping up on this blog convinces me of one thing that Rock the Vote is 100% right on: The politicians aren't talking about "reforming" Social Security right now. They are talking about keeping it or stripping it until it is worthless. And quite a few of you seem to be saying that you would much rather flush it down the toilet.
Well... and if you still think that your few blogs represent the majority of young people, remember just why Social Security, the most successful program at ending poverty the U.S. has ever seen, is the third rail of U.S. politics. Because it works, and millions of people across the country, young, middle-aged and old, know it and want it to be there for them when they need it.
As do I.
The previous poster needs to take into account that this so-called "most successful program" in the history of our government has constantly run itself into financial problems- so much so that we have raised payroll taxes over 20 times since the start of the program, just to keep up with the money that it has to pay out.
The more and more time goes on, the less and less beneficial Social Security becomes to the average worker. 80% of Americans pay more in payroll taxes than Social Security taxes. Only the upper 20% doesn't. This makes Social Security the most regressive tax in American politics.
Now I ask you all: is a 23% benefit cut fair for our generation, given that we will have paid even more money into the system than our predecessors did? Is an even larger benefit cut fair for future generations, even though they'd pay even more money into the system than we do today? Absolutely not. Yet, with each and every generation, we continue to allow this situation to become worse, because when it comes down to it, Social Security is set up like a ponzi scheme.
It is time to reform this system for permanent stability. Enacting personal retirement accounts (which are VOLUNTARY) would allow those of us who wish to to greatly increase the return on our Social Security taxes. Such a change would allow the government to pay less money out, since the return on investment will have been increased. Combine that with an indexing change, and you have solved the Social Security problem permanently.
All of this partisan fear-mongering about "oh, [insert name here] wants to DESTROY Social Security" or they want to "strip it down" is a dirty game, and it is appalling that anyone in our generation would actually engage in that kind of rhetoric, given that our generation will have to pay for the Social Security irresponsibility that will take place if we do not reform the system.
REFORM is not "destruction" or "stripping" anything. Reform is solving a problem that exists, so that none may exist in the future. And the President is giving us that opportunity.
Whether you oppose the rest of his agenda or not, Social Security reform is the one policy that stands to benefit our generation- and those after us- the most.
ben, sounds like you might be the racist to me. Wanting special treatment because your race has certain averages. Please.
The problem is obvious. SS is a ponzi scheme scam no matter what race you are. This is clearly another example of age discrimination. More factors than just race may determine life expectancey. I only see life expectancy as a merit worth testing against if you also consider how many dollars someone has put in and how many dollars they will need to survive to their life expectancy and a reasonable buffer beyond. I see too many variables in play here for AGE to be an appropriate qualifier.
Hey, Anonymous at 4:15 in the morning,
Check it out, I am glad to see you write: "our generation will have to pay for the Social Security irresponsibility that will take place if we do not reform the system".
I would be more inclusive and add that not only our generation will pay for any such irresponsibilty. But I like your approach that denigrates stripping the system or destroying it. Reform is needed, you're right. But we both seem to agree (am I wrong?) that the government needs to supply a retirement benefit that will ensure a basic level of financial security in old age and to the family of the disabled and killed.
Perhaps we disagree over the level of that guaranteed benefit.
I am not concerned that Congress has many times found ways to keep Social Security working well for coming generations. The program deals with lots of impossible-to-know variables - just how many people will be working in 50 years? Just how much will they make? Just how much will the elderly, disabled and widowed need to stay out of poverty in 50 years? and so on.
Yet every time, the politicians have decided that this country should have a guaranteed minimum benefit that lifts out of poverty the elderly, disabled and their family, and widows.
Let's do it again, and keep the basic benefit strong.
You say that with "with each and every generation, we continue to allow this situation to become worse" while in fact in every generation we have preserved Social Security for ourselves and our future generations. Now it's time to do it again.
You say that private accounts (with other changes) can save the system. Even *voluntary* personal retirement accounts can lose money. However well you do for however long, if you retire the year the market hits bottom, you can be screwed. That is unacceptable. And it is a drastic change from the current program that provides a benefit that is fair to all who receive it.
That drastic of a change is part of my basis for believing that conservative proposals will in fact, "strip down" and perhaps even "destroy" the most successful poverty-ending program in the U.S. (however hard it sometimes is to keep it rolling).
Anonymous 3:30am.
To address your assertion "The program deals with lots of impossible-to-know variables - just how many people will be working in 50 years? Just how much will they make? Just how much will the elderly, disabled and widowed need to stay out of poverty in 50 years? and so on.
First, you seem to believe that in the current system and benefit payout that retirees are able to stay out of poverty. This is false. Anyone living off of SS benefits is absolutely living in a state of poverty.
Next, the fact is, you can predict how many people will be working in 50 years with considerable accuracy. All one needs to do is look at the year SS was forced upon its citizens and then follow the trend to current. It is clear that the number of workers as compared to number of retirees has been on the decline. This is the cause for the many bump up's in the tax needed to cover this trend.
Also, another important factor that can be predicted with a high level of accuracy is average lifespan. This has also consistently trended towards longer life expectancy. In 50 years, one could and should expect life-expectancy to be higher than todays average. These 2 factors alone will need to be satisfied with an influx of money or a decrease in benefits, which I already know the answer dems will choose. Either way, the choices are unacceptable to the average american.
You should do a little more research to satisfy your conclusions.
The other trend that is attractive for privatization is that there has never been a 20 year history of the market that hasn't seen a significant increase in return. The key is to make sure participants are in the system for at least 20 years and that their investments are diversified. So, even if you are retiring during a down period in the market, you are still higher than what you put in. Then it is up to you whether you want to wait for the market to trend up to get a maximum payout, but either way you win.
The best thing is that this system is voluntary. That's right, you stay where you are and I can try the stock market. Privatization is in practice in Chile and Galveston County Texas for all to see. Look in to it and let me know what you think.
Oh yeah, worth mentioning it again "ITS VOLUNTARY".
In regard to burr's statement:
Even *voluntary* personal retirement accounts can lose money. However well you do for however long, if you retire the year the market hits bottom, you can be screwed. That is unacceptable. And it is a drastic change from the current program that provides a benefit that is fair to all who receive it.
That drastic of a change is part of my basis for believing that conservative proposals will in fact, "strip down" and perhaps even "destroy" the most successful poverty-ending program in the U.S. (however hard it sometimes is to keep it rolling).
*****
With all due respect, you show a total failure to understand basic investing principles. If you had invested money over a 20 year period, even during the Great Depression you would have made a bigger gain than Social Security can give you. Go ahead, look it up, the data supports what I say. Over a period of 35 years, the gain is even bigger.
Why is this? Because first of all your stocks are diversified; second of all you can make changes to become more conservative or more risky as time goes on to your liking. MOST IMPORTANTLY OF ALL, even a significant drop in a few years reverses itself and you end up making a net gain. Case in point: if you invested in the early 1990s, even after two recessions, you STILL made a tremendous net gain. Want proof? Go look at the government employees who pay into the Thrift Savings Plan (the government alternative to Social Security)- the most popular investment option made a TEN PERCENT yield which is seven percent higher than Social Security. Even the worst performing options gained more money than Social Security. And this after TWO recessions, mind you.
Just because a program has been around for a long time, does NOT mean that it is "successful." Please, stay away from this partisan drivel, and understand that this system has been fundamentally flawed from the start- because it relied on the assumption that population would go up with every generation, and that there would always be more workers than retirees. The Baby Boom and the aftermath (which we deal with now) proved that assumption fundamentally wrong. Social Security has required 20+ tax increases as a result- all to pay out proportionally the same level of benefits that workers got decades ago, and a level of benefits that WILL be cut if the system is not reformed. Is that "successful"? I think not.
AGAIN, I reiterate that just because REFORM is being undertaken, it doesn't mean that we're "destroying" or "scaling back" or "stripping" the program. That's just you behaving like a partisan hack to try to scare people away from a reform that IMPROVES an already existing system. Do the math. Use some logic, particularly when it comes to your assertions about investing. Stop being so blindly partisan.
I opposed reform once, because of my political affiliation at the time. I later read about the issue and thorougly researched it- and the fact of the matter is that this reform IS a good idea, which is why the very Democrats who oppose this idea now supported it when Clinton was suggesting it in the 1990s.
The partisan hackery needs to come to an end.
I just came across your blog about christian dating service
in weblogs and wanted to drop you a note telling you how impressed I was with the information you have posted here. I also have a web site about christian dating service
so I know I'm talking about when I say your site is top-notch! Keep up the great work, you are providing a great resource on the Internet here!
Post a Comment
<< Home