Why I am supporting Obama

[Indy Coug]

Are some of you really that stupid. I thought you were an accountant.
Tell me what you base your numbers on. Do you know how much I have put into the system? Do you know what the rules are going to be for what you will have to put into the system.

Quite frankly I am happy to have some type of adjustment now for my kids benefit. However, there is no guarantee my sacrifice won't be squandered.

Also when I see the stupid argument you and Jacob make, I figure I might as well take it all. These guys are to dumb to know how to save it anyway.

It's your generation's fault:

1. You didn't procreate like the jackrabbits your parents were. That has resulted in a smaller cohort of workers trying to fund the retirement dollars of the baby boomers -- an era where the over 65ers constitute a larger percentage of the population than in any time in US history.

2. You still expect to be given SS benefits at the same retirement age set up in the 1930s, despite the fact that your life expectancy at 65 is approximately 50% longer than back then.

3. Your generation, while serving in their roles as policymakers and voters of policymakers, didn't force fundamental changes to get away from such fundamentally flawed policies such as pay-as-you-go funding and failing to wall off taxpayer contributions, thereby allowing the government to raid the coffers for other nefarious purposes.

Reap what you sow, baby.

[byu71]

Calm down, no one is going to fix SS yet. It's political suicide to do it given that the 55 and over crowd is so large.

But what I don't get is why you think it shouldn't be fixed now. You've paid into the system for over 40 years and when I retire I'll have paid in for over 40 years. You'll get 100% of your promised benefits, but I'll be lucky to get 70%. I pull the 70% figure from my last SS statement that was sent to me, so I'd imagine it was conservative coming from a government publication. The actual amount will likely be between 50-70%.

So if it's not fixed, you'll end up getting more than me because, well you were born earlier. Yeah, that sounds fair. I guess one nice thing is that my generation is not counting on SS to carry us trhough retirement so we are actually trying to save enouhg on our own.

Let's fix it. I will be right there. Make me wait until 68. Make EVERYONE wait til there sixty eight. If that is a hardship on some, tough. Let their families or the church help them out.

Yea, I will get all mine back if I live to be 82. Of course that is it back without any return on my money for over 40 years, just the return of it.

[PaloAltoCougar]

First of all, I'd say that it was not a bargain in the first place. the promised benefits would be a very low rate of return for the average person.

Secondly, I've come around to the idea that the current generation of retirees almost deserves to have their benefits cut. They knew that the system relied upon having productive younger people pay taxes so that the benefits could be paid out, yet they (as a generation) decided that it wasn't worth it to have many children. As a result, they raided their own trust fund. Their children were their retirement and they collectively decided to forego having enough children. They shouldn't get the retirement either.

The fecund Mrs PAC never got that memo. Since she managed to crank out six productive taxpayers, I assume you're cool with her and me taking out at least some of the dough we've been pumping in for the last 40+ years, and I'm going to be paying in a substantial amount for awhile yet. We won't start sucking at the SS teat for another seven years, and I'd be willing to push that out yet another three (I'll be 70). I'll even accept a reduction in benefits (but not total elimination) because we were responsible and saved a bunch of money over the years when we did without a lot of luxuries our first 25 years of marriage.

Of course, the foregoing offer is conditioned on a LOT of belt-tightening elsewhere. Simpson-Bowles would be a great place to start.

[creekster]

I haven't proposed social engineering. The bargain that you entered into, as drafted by your elected representatives, was that you'd pay for the benefits of retirees while you worked, and that the next generation of workers would pay for your retirement benefits. Your generation failed to produce a sufficient generation of workers to support your retirement. As long as we are sticking with contract law, you are in default. You failed to pay your consideration.

Of course you don't exempt anyone because they had more kids. I just indicted your entire generation. It is no excuse that some of you had more foresight than the large majority. These are laws of general application.

And I'm not making any policy proposal except to say that current retirees should share in the burden, especially the relatively young ones. We shouldn't pass the entire burden of your generation's failure to make sound economic, retirement, and social policy on to the younger generations, just so you can get the benefit of a bad deal. Most in my generation want nothing to so with SS. But it is your generation who still refuses to consider fixing the thing or getting rid of it altogether.

I am sharing in it already. Retirement age has been raised and I will never get all my benefits. But to make a policy choice on the basis that a generation should be 'blamed' for not having children is nonsense. I am not suggesting that SS shouldnt be dealt with, either. but Wuaps proposal was to elimiante SS for anyone born in 1960 or later (as I recall this is what he said) and that strikes me as fundamentally unfair when someone like me has paid into the system and relied on the existence of some benfits for retirement planning purtposes. Moreover, if you simply eliminate SS altogether you are going to have all sorts of problems with reitrees who lack means to live.

My poriginal musing was merely ot make the point that it would piss me off to have paid so much into SS and then have it elimianted altogether.

[byu71]

It's your generation's fault:

1. You didn't procreate like the jackrabbits your parents were. That has resulted in a smaller cohort of workers trying to fund the retirement dollars of the baby boomers -- an era where the over 65ers constitute a larger percentage of the population than in any time in US history.

2. You still expect to be given SS benefits at the same retirement age set up in the 1930s, despite the fact that your life expectancy at 65 is approximately 50% longer than back then.

3. Your generation, while serving in their roles as policymakers and voters of policymakers, didn't force fundamental changes to get away from such fundamentally flawed policies such as pay-as-you-go funding and failing to wall off taxpayer contributions, thereby allowing the government to raid the coffers for other nefarious purposes.

Reap what you sow, baby.

LOL. I will bet the real damage has been done to Social Security since the time everyone on here has been voting.

1961 the age was lowered to 62. That is before I could vote. The age is now 66.

By the way I think the early takers from the system had a life expectancy not much beyond the age they retired. On the other hand, they didn't pay into the system for nearly as long.

You tell me since you are such a fabulous stat guy. Who are the people who are getting far more than they pay in?

[Indy Coug]

You tell me since you are such a fabulous stat guy. Who are the people who are getting far more than they pay in?

You can start by disabusing yourself of the notion that you paid in for anything. You paid to cover the costs of the retirees that were still sucking air while you were in the workplace.

[Jacob]

The fecund Mrs PAC never got that memo. Since she managed to crank out six productive taxpayers, I assume you're cool with her and me taking out at least some of the dough we've been pumping in for the last 40+ years, and I'm going to be paying in a substantial amount for awhile yet. We won't start sucking at the SS teat for another seven years, and I'd be willing to push that out yet another three (I'll be 70). I'll even accept a reduction in benefits (but not total elimination) because we were responsible and saved a bunch of money over the years when we did without a lot of luxuries our first 25 years of marriage.

Of course, the foregoing offer is conditioned on a LOT of belt-tightening elsewhere. Simpson-Bowles would be a great place to start.

That all sounds great. But who are you voting for? Because nobody that anybody is serious about being elected will support such radical change to the system. At least not publicly. Bush tried to make some modest changes and got nowhere. Paul Ryan isn't talking it on (largely because Medicare is an even more imminent disaster). And it seems to my that the older generation is the most keen on keeping guys like Hatch et. al. in power. And guys like that will not solve the problem. They'll kick it down the road like he/they have since they've been elected.

You and I (probably even 71, even though he took such umbrage to my post) are probably close to on the same page. I'd wager that many, if not most Americans are too. But that's not what they are voting for.

[Moliere]

Let's fix it. I will be right there. Make me wait until 68. Make EVERYONE wait til there sixty eight. If that is a hardship on some, tough. Let their families or the church help them out.

Yea, I will get all mine back if I live to be 82. Of course that is it back without any return on my money for over 40 years, just the return of it.

Actually, you won't. I'm assuming that you have saved for retirement outside of SS. To the extent you make over $30K a year in retirement, your SS benefits will be taxed up to 85% (meaning 85% is subject to tax not that you'll have a marginal rate of 85%). So even those that planned and saved and will generate income as retirees will just have some of their SS benefits go back to the government as taxes.

As Indy and you point out, 65 is a silly age for SS benefits to kick in. People today are capable of working much longer, so they should. I have a guy in my ward that retired at 55 and is enjoying his retirement. He planned and saved and worked to get into that spot. I hope to one day join him, but maybe not until I'm 60.

Does anyone know where Obama stands on SS? I'm assuming he's all for keeping retirement at 65 and just taxing the rich to pay for the ballooning cost.

[byu71]

The bargain that you entered into, as drafted by your elected representatives, was that you'd pay for the benefits of retirees while you worked, and that the next generation of workers would pay for your retirement benefits.

The bargain I entered into???? I didn't enter into any bargain with kids. I entered into or was forced into, a bargain where I lent the government money and they would pay me back when I retired. Just like the government can default on it's debt to China, it can default on it's debt to the SS system.

Do you know who one of the largest Treasury bond holders is in the world. That is US government debt. I gues you think the US systems should be defaulted on instead of the Chinese because we didn't bang out enough kids. I don't remember that being a clause in the bond.

[Jacob]

My original musing was merely ot make the point that it would piss me off to have paid so much into SS and then have it eliminated altogether.

You have every right to be pissed off about it. We all should be. But most are not. Most don't care.

LOL. I will bet the real damage has been done to Social Security since the time everyone on here has been voting.

IIRC, the last time they "fixed" SS was during the Reagan years. That was long, long before I could vote.

[byu71]

You can start by disabusing yourself of the notion that you paid in for anything. You paid to cover the costs of the retirees that were still sucking air while you were in the workplace.

I was lending them money. Now I am calling my note due. You do understand the principle of debt and repayment don't you.

[byu71]

You have every right to be pissed off about it. We all should be. But most are not. Most don't care.



IIRC, the last time they "fixed" SS was during the Reagan years. That was long, long before I could vote.

Yes and it was fixed. So blame those who have been able to vote since his administration.

Can anyone tell me what social security goes to pay for. If a guy works for 3 years and pays in say $4,000. He dies and has 3 kids. Does his wife and kids get more than $4,000 or just up to the $4,000.

[Jacob]

The bargain I entered into???? I didn't enter into any bargain with kids. I entered into or was forced into, a bargain where I lent the government money and they would pay me back when I retired. Just like the government can default on it's debt to China, it can default on it's debt to the SS system.

Do you know who one of the largest Treasury bond holders is in the world. That is US government debt. I gues you think the US systems should be defaulted on instead of the Chinese because we didn't bang out enough kids. I don't remember that being a clause in the bond.

I think you are confusing something. Creekster made the argument about entering into a "bargain," so take that up with him.

I have no idea where you came up with the idea that I support defaulting on our debt. I specifically stated (in some detail) that we would NOT default and that there would be no reason to default on the SS trust fund as it is is secured by the full faith and credit of the US. I'd prefer we first defaulted on China, if it came to that. The SS "trust fund" money should be paid out as benefits as required by law.

I think you are reading in a lot more into my posts that what I've said.

[Indy Coug]

I was lending them money. Now I am calling my note due. You do understand the principle of debt and repayment don't you.

Except that principle doesn't apply here, no matter how much may have romanticized the notion. It was a tax to cover expenses and nothing more. It certainly wasn't a loan.

You should have bought 30 year treasuries awhile back. That would have been more akin to a loan.

[Jacob]

I was lending them money. Now I am calling my note due. You do understand the principle of debt and repayment don't you.

Just a minute ago you argued that there was no bargain. And now you want to enforce a contract? Can you produce a fully executed agreement?