What is Digg?172 Comments
- inactive, on 10/22/2007, -2/+33Wasn't Social Security only supposed to supplement--not be the only source of--retirement income.
- jeffiek, on 10/12/2007, -4/+34"The alleged compact is entirely artificial, acknowledged only by those who benefit from it. My three children (ages 16 to 21) didn't endorse it."
That very same statement could have been said from the first social security check. Maybe libertarians have been right all along? Social Security was wrong then, it's wrong now, and it will be wrong tomorrow.
But robbing Peter to pay Paul has always gotten the government support from Paul. - Akaji, on 10/12/2007, -6/+29I don't have to imagine. My parents live off of their own money that they saved up over the course of their life, and will do so until the day they die.
- inactive, on 10/22/2007, -10/+32This comment is a mini-survey, directed to readers born on or after 1975.
If you are willing to pay higher taxes in order to support the retirement of "the boomers" digg this comment down.
If you are NOT willing to pay higher taxes in order to support the retirement of "the boomers", and feel these people have already taken far too much from our generation and the world at large, digg this comment up.
Also, if you have the time, reply to this and explain why or why not. - implementor, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24Unfortunately, you're vastly outnumbered by all the baby boomers who don't care what happens to their kids or grandkids, as long as they get theirs. The baby boomer generation's desire for entitlements will likely destroy the futures of those that come after them.
- TroubleInMind, on 10/22/2007, -2/+21Sweet. Can I stop paying in twelve grand a year now? I'm self employed so I have to pay the same 7.65% that you do, plus the matching 7.65% that employers silently pay on your behalf, that's 15.3% of my gross on the first $85K of my annual income. About twelve grand, directly from me, paid to other people who gave me nothing. Please don't remind me how they fought in wars and stuff, there are kids fighting right now that will never get that government subsidy when they retire.
/endrant - danielwsmithee, on 10/12/2007, -8/+24My parents live of their savings, my wifes parents live off my earnings. Either way it would be a lot easier if I didn't have to throw away $800 a month into social security that I will never get back.
- geometry, on 10/12/2007, -7/+22Your future should be your responsibility, not the governments. I don't plan on SS being around for me so I make sure to invest on my own so I'll have my own money when I'm ready to retire. With that said I don't think SS should be taken out of my pay check, but of course it is, and there is nothing I can do about it. If that money wasn't pulled out of my pay check I'd have that much more to invest. And our government constantly shows us that they can't manage their own finances, why should I trust them with mine?
More and more I see the government assuming we are idiots, so they try to "help" us. If you treat people like idiots they're going to act like idiots. - vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.
or in this case...
Nothing is as all-encompassing as a supplemental government program. - CiXeL, on 10/12/2007, -10/+24I vote and im Gen X but I'm not sure it entirely matters. There are so many people in the baby boomer's generation that our votes are essentially insignificant.
That massive generation is moving through their various stages of life and destroying all social safety nets in their wake and theres nothing we can do to stop it.
oh and in an era of unstable employment even 401k's are a joke. You have to constantly transfer it job to job to job even if you only have contract jobs that last 6 months at a time with various recruiters. - catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -23/+34"Not everyone that goes with the bush plan will be rewarded, most will end up poor with no SS to retire with."
Complete and utter BS. Ever heard of a 401k or IRA? The only people who end up poor are people who don't start one when they are young. I hope you don't make that mistake because of some bizarre political stance. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+21So my incentive is to work hard, invest wisely, and then suffer additional taxation?
Or is my incentive to do whatever I want, because I will be fed and housed regardless of my behavior? - spengy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15@fjvwing
I do not think we need social security. People need to learn to save. The average American spends more than he/she earns annually. And they're NOT spending it on necessities. For the most part, people aren't going into debt buying bread and heating their homes. People are buying cars they don't need, huge entertainment systems, and other extravagances. I know people who are on their 2nd or third mortgage. Is it because they don't make enough money to live well and still save for their future? NO. If Americans learn to live within their means, they are more than capable of saving enough money for retirement. - hansblix, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Why does the government take "taxes" out of my paycheck so they can save it for later and then give it back when i'm 65?
Why dont they just let me keep it and i'll put it in a bank account and earn interest on it.
duh. - theodicey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Where do you live that someone can retire on just Social Security?
Roosevelt proposed that Social Security would provide a minimum income for retirees.
He also proposed voluntary retirement accounts for people who wanted to retire with more (i.e. IRAs).
http://mediamatters.org/items/printable/200502100009 - gspederson, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11@varmit
"Its not the baby boomers fault, its the government. "
Who do you think the government is made up of?? The baby boomers...and it is largely the baby boomers fault. They voted for those govt officials. If they were up to no good then the voters should have called them on this. I'm a GenXer and didn't have a vote during the bulk of this 'borrowing'....instead we just get our money stolen...if you earn money you have to pay in regardless of your age or voting status...remember those deducts from your paycheck when you were in high school??
Another 'poor' thing that I think can be attributed to baby boomers is pollution and global warming.
Funny who easy it was for the baby boomers to turn their peace symbols in for Mercedes symbols.
Of course I know not all are responsible, just more responsible than the younger generations.
Of course that $500B spent in Iraq would have helped out....... - killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"As recently as 1950, there were 16 workers for every Social Security beneficiary. Today there are only 3.3. By 2030, there will be fewer than two."
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-mt092496.html
The system is broken. - catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@satanatnmtedu
I don't think you even understand what the plan was. This is going to be the problem with getting a fix. Most people don't even know what the hell is going on. - dracostimpy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@hackwrench
So for lack of a transition plan, we should continue inflating the social security bubble until it violently bursts? You have a bright future at the Federal Reserve Bank, since that's Bernanke's job with respect to the housing bubble. Painful change now is better than utter devastation later, and there's ZERO chance of this going over without some large demographic feeling the pinch. Grin and bear it now, or die a miserable pauper later. - danielwsmithee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9One of the problems is education first. Why do we teach so many optional classes in high school but when was the last time you saw a personal finance class taught in high school. I'm serious it is not that hard. A 401k is about as easy to manage as you can get, most of your fund options are already diversified for you so you all you have to do is pick two or three of them that are targeted for your stage in life. I invest 15% now into a mixture 401k and stock now. If it wasn't for SS it would be 30%. There is no reason why the government can not mandate that you invest a certain percentage of your income into an approved retirement account, and get more security then we have now through SS.
- gspederson, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11@xarc13
"Wasn't Social Security only supposed to supplement--not be the only source of--retirement income."
I don't know if that is completely true. The very first recipients never paid in and lived quite comfy lives on the pay outs....If you ask me this stinks of a pyramid scheme, and we're the last ones in.... - adminsr, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12This is really the story how welfare states hurt everyone. What we need is privatization.
Don't blame seniors for FDR's messy. - RedbeardUH, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10There are tons of private charities. The gov't isn't one of them.
- TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15@varmit
"SS is suppose to be sure thing for everyone, not a chance that you take on the stock market."
What? Republicans were trying to privatize social security. And "chance that you take on the stock market"?!? I'm going to assume that you are still yet a teenager and have no done any planning whatsoever for your retirement. If you had done some planning (research), then you would have learned that investments in mutal funds and 401ks actually give an average of about 14% return on your investment when invested long term. It is not risky. You'll be eating your words when you try to retire without investing in any of these.... And you don't always have to use 401k, there are Roth IRAs that you don't have to roll over. And those tax breaks......yeah....those are for investments like these too...
I'm really tired of all the ignorance about these things on digg... - hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9The thing is, can you propose an alternative that isn't also wrong? So far the alternatives seem to require that the people be fit at the time the alternative is first implemented and able to plan ahead for any misfortune that befalls them. I haven't seen any transition plans that bring people up to speed. The education part of the equation is missing.
- gallagherFTW, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13***** you dad!
- RansomDenton, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10@ dtfinch
Yes not only entitled but paid in. Some people are forgetting that a lot of that gen paid a lot of money into SS. I agree the system needs a major high colonic but to flush the baby out as well would be dangerous. My mother worked 3 jobs at times to keep us fed and in a house. Now its falling down, I cant afford to fix it or pay her inflated medical bills. Flat out she is on her way out and we cannot afford to help her...that is a shame and a crime and extremely anti biblical. That is one big hypocritical thing that I have heard from some on the right that profess to be Christian and hate SS...um ya I am pretty sure taking care of the least of us is a really important point in the Bible. - mabhatter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@fjvwing
you're correct, it's not the social security tax that's the problem... it's that it was mismanaged... the govt owes the fund nearly a Trillion dollars that they've taken over the years!!! Worse they allowed corporations to raid the pension funds in the same way! That's interest money we young have paid into the system they stole to pay for stuff like Iraq. People are correct, the system cannot work when it is managed hand-to-mouth by current taxpayers... but there are huge amounts of interest out there... the whole crisis is manufactured by a small group of people that have "got theirs" and don't want to manage for the rest of the country because it might inconvenience them.
On a side note though, the "greatest generation" and the boomers have had it quite well, while shirking their duty to society. I don't know how many times I hear boomers bitch about how "unfairly" their taxed, but in the same sentence complain their house is worth ONLY 5 times it's cost adjusted for inflation... They don't want to pay for new schools to replace the ones THEY went to 50 years ago, etc... If they want to own the wealth, they have to pay for it like everybody else... it's one thing that is recent because until the last 30 years most families passed down much of the wealth of things like houses, cars, etc... a working child took over the homestead and the parents stayed on first to help then to be helped... and it was good. Then everybody go the idea that they could have Social Security to take care of them when the all moved to Florida where it was cheap.. now it's not cheap, the dream is "gone" and they haven't taught their kids to take care of family... - bbear, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@TubaTechno
"If you had done some planning (research), then you would have learned that investments in mutal funds and 401ks actually give an average of about 14% return on your investment when invested long term. It is not risky."
There is risk associated with mutual funds and 401ks. For most choices in where to invest your 401k the risk will be low but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Also the lowest risk places to invest your money (e.g. US government bonds) also don't give a return of 14%. For lowest risk investments the return is closer to 6%. With mutual funds there is always the small chance that something catastrophic in the market could wipe out most of your savings. It has happened in the past and even though there are safeguards in place today that make it more difficult for the market to crash that doesn't mean that the risk with 401k is zero. It is also possible to construct a very high risk 401k portfolio e.g. a coworker of mine had all of his 401k invested into the stock of a single company (before I stopped him). What happens if that company goes bankrupt? 401k is not idiot proof. - danielwsmithee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Not that makes Zaphod realistic. Look through history in other countries. People need incentives to work hard and be productive otherwise they will sit around a drink vodka all day.
- danielwsmithee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9That's what it became, and is now not even considered in retirement planning because most smart people under thirty are willing to bet their won't be anything left for them.
- RedbeardUH, on 10/22/2007, -4/+10Dugg up and here is why: The role of gov't (as outlined by the constitution) says nothing about "taking care of citizens throughout their retirement." It only says they'll be protected from invasion and have certain rights.
America, despite what the rest of the world thinks about us, is a great nation because we can take care of ourselves and our loved ones. - Salgat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I agree fully with you hansblix. Unfortunately people feel they should spend all their money now, and hope for bennefits from the government later in life, all the time avoiding personal responsibility and pressing burden on honost working people. Social Security should be dramatically restricted to those who can't take care of themselves, not for those who are just irresponsible with their money.
- CiXeL, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8modern Gen X americans are basically like illegal immigrants. we pay into social security and we'll never see a dime of it.
- ybfree, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11And the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not bleeding this country blind?
- ItsDon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I'm 46 and learned long ago that SS will not be there for me. I pay it because I live in America (thank goodness!) and that's what we do. However, if any SS shows up for me I'll consider gravy. I'll make, save and invest enough to see myself and my wife through until we perish. I'm teaching my kids to do the same and I'll expect them to teach their children. There's no ripping off the grandkids - they need to make their own bones, they need to learn it from their parents and they need to do it early on. If I did my job as a parent then the grandkids (and their kids) will have no problems getting through life. Government or not.
- TroubleInMind, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8All the money spent over the last five years in the post 9/11 conflicts, say about 280 billion dollars, would only pay for three months of SS and Medicare/Medicaid. I agree that the 280 billion is not money well spent, that's not the point. The point is that even such an obscene amount of money wouldn't keep the junkie happy for three months. And it's getting worse.
- danielwsmithee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@fjvwing
You are right no one wants to get rid of the "safety nets." What everyone wants though is the ability to guarantee that the government can not touch their "safety net." The only way to do that is have your "safety net" in your account not in a government controlled account. The only way these "safety nets" will be large enough to do any good is through investment. Everybody knows what needs to be done, the problem is how do we get there from here? - simmonsdd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Also Keep in mind that when soc sec was implemented a "retiree" was a rarity. The average life span in the us when SS was implemented was only a year or so past today's 65 retirement age, so nobody expected the small bit of money they put in their accounts to support them for 20 years+. Also most places didn't have mandatory retirement at 65. My great grandfather worked horses for the railroad (clearing trees) until he was 75. He never collected a dime of ss. And it should be noted that today if you are an african american male with an average lifespan of 63 last i checked, you are just being stolen from - you'll never see a penny. Yet 85+% of african americans still vote democrat. Of course it's not like we have much to choose from from the republicans either.
- William01, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5This is a phony "crisis" created by people that want to roll back all the safety nets created for the poor in the New Deal. Social Security is actually pretty much the only thing in our government that IS self-sustaining right now and does not require borrowing to run. Nor will it for quite a while. 2015 is the absolute worst case scenario of zero population and economic growth.
Everything else is unsustainable RIGHT NOW. Not X number of years from now. If having to borrow money makes you panic, start pulling those soldiers home, slashing those defense contracts, and creating a national healthcare system before Medicare crushes us from soaring healthcare costs. - theodicey, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Samuelson is engaged in partisan disinformation. Notice that he always says "Social Security and Medicare." He never differentiates between the two, which is strange since one is a retirement annuity and the other is a heath plan!
Social Security is basically sustainable -- it might need a 10% cut in 10 years, but even Bush's budget agency admits that it's fine until at least 2040, which in economic terms is basically forever.
Medicare, like the rest of the US health care system, is royally screwed. It's going to collapse in 10 years (the Republican's Medicare drug reform made the situation much worse) unless something is done (like cutting out the insurance middlemen, and massive technology investment to reduce the 20% administrative overhead). - neeyo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5This is just a side note: to all young people that are saving money (like me) to have a million when you retire, or think you'll "be a millionaire" when you retire, you need to remember this annoying little bitch called inflation.
I'm 25. I want to retire at 65 AT THE LATEST. That's 40 years... seems like a long time to save some moolah, and it is. However, assuming an average of 3% inflation per year, the value of my dollar will drop to LESS THAN 1/3 the value it is today when I retire. So even if you have $1,000,000 when you retire 40 years from now, it's only the equivalent of having $300,000 today. Still a good chunk of change, but not a lot to live on.
Want to retire as "today's" millionaire? Then you need more than $3,000,000 when you want to give your last job the ol' heave ho'. Man that sucks. - drmobutu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Ho, Ho. One of the greatest "megatrends" that astute buisiness people have been anticipating for years is the "Graying (and Fleecing) of the Baby Boomers".
There are all kinds of people who specialize in business models that tap into government spending, and the the flow of Social Security entitlements that will soon be disbursed to the retiring boomers will be too fat an opportunity to pass up...from nursing homes, to annuities, to the Clapper, to funeral and cremation services, there are hoards of MBAs who are going to seize this generation's inevitable demise as their personal opportunity to get rich, or richer. - danielwsmithee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6The baby boomer came way after WWII. It's not the 80-90 year olds that are going to be the drain on society it is huge number in their 50-60's. It's the Vietnam, Free Love & Flower power generation.
- pahoehoe, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Also, even if my parents didn't properly save money, or they got their savings squandered by Enron-type people, I'd much rather take the money that goes to social security benefits and send it directly to my parents. Using the government as the middle-man for taking care of family members just adds cost to the entire process. Also, by my supporting family members, I'd take more interest in what is going on in their lives, and anything that brings a family together is greatly preferable to the faceless payments the government does now. I'd strongly support social support programs for those retirees who are having real difficulty because of family members who cannot provide (or perhaps non-existent), but I have never liked the social security program for the reasons above.
- mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It didn't say it was my parents' fault and it certainly isn't my fault. I didn't vote for the people who are making this a political football. It's a simple actuarial problem, people just need to quit getting their panties in a twist over it and fix it.
- Trublmakr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3What's uncertain? Simply apply some common sense. Rather than intelligently managing a government SS fund, the government spent all (and much more) of it's tax revenues and left the program unfunded while labilities skyrocketed. It's unsustainable and therefore will inevitably end. Now,.. consider the republican argument that individuals should be responsible for saving for their own retirement anyway,.. Fine,.. no argument,.. but what happens to the stock market when a MASSIVE generation of boomers all decide they need to start dipping into their collective savings? To suggest there's anything but a HUGE economic crisis on the horizon for America is intellectually offensive. I personally think that young Americans shouldn't be mad as hell, they should start DEMANDING the government pay down some of the debt being thrust on them, and REFUSE to particpate in this giant generational pyramid scheme currently referred to as the the stock market.
- cmiz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That's the whole problem... Social Security is SUPPOSED to be self sufficient, but the government keeps skimming money off of it with the pretense of "borrowing" it, and then it never gets paid back. In theory, we pay money in and then we get money out, pretty hard idea to screw up... but the government got greedy for funds and now Social Security is falling apart and lacking most of the money that it should have.
- danielwsmithee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I'm more afraid of the Government taking away my social security then my 401k and IRA disappearing. Social Security is by no means more secure then any other institution because. The difference is with SS law makers control the money with 401k/IRA I have control over it.
Show me that 9% mutual fund I'll invest. The stock market maybe that big of a return average but not a mutual fund. - sailor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Sorry your medical system is not superior...no socialized system is better, just cheaper.
I am a boomer and I have a retirement plan through my employer. All of you, boomers or not, should start thinking about your future now! Don't expect government to pay for your retirement, that is foolish.
Put money away every pay check, social security is not a living and it was never intended to be...get the facts, and get your ass in gear.... -
Show 51 - 100 of 172 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is