Social Security
By bobmnu
@bobmnu (8157)
United States
September 6, 2008 11:28am CST
When Senator Obama criticizes Senator McCain for even considering raising the age of eligibility on Social Security he is showing his lack of understanding of the foundation of the program. The Age 65 was chosen by FDR and his staff because it was the average life expectancy of Americans at the time. The thinking could have been that people pay in all their lives and the majority will never collect so it is a great taxing program. Everyone pays and few collect. Senator McCain suggesting that he would consider raising the age would be in keeping with the intent of Social Security.
If you read your Social Security Statement closely you will see that in the paragraph "About Social Security's future..." The first sentence is extremely important. "Social Security is a compact between generations." This means that it can be changed or eliminated depending upon the will of the voters.
The only way to truly protect you Social Security is to start to change over to a private fund owned by the individual such as the Wisconsin Retirement System. It is a fund collected and invested by the state but controlled by an elected board from its membership. The state is acting as a agent to hold the money but the members own and control the money. Social Security is the government taxing you and giving you the promise that they will pay you back when you retire but the law can be changed and you could have paid in all your life and get nothing when you retire. You only have the word of your elected officials. Nothing in the law says you are entitled to receive any benefits if the government decides to change the rules.
Senator Obama's plan to increase the income taxed does not say that your benefits will increase when you retire. You are paying in more but getting less out of it.
2 people like this
5 responses
@maria_k (925)
• United States
6 Sep 08
I could not agree with you more. I don't think raising tax is the way to save the social security system. Our social security system is outdated and need to be overhaul. I, for sure, will go for private fund as you said and willing to see Social Security raise the age above 67 ( taht is what says for my group, I think). I am 34 y/o now
1 person likes this
@rodney850 (2145)
• United States
6 Sep 08
Bobmnu,
The numbers you use are in fact very conservative! I believe I have read that the average increase over the last 30 years to be 12% so 7% wouldn't be giving anyone "pipedreams"! I wonder why this kind of accounting is so difficult for liberals?
2 people like this
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
6 Sep 08
Social Security is also betting that you will die before you have a chance to collect too much.
Social Security was never intended to be a stand alone retirement plan, and it was originally intended for widows and orphans.
When it was first introduced it was acknowledged that additional income sources would be needed, and the ideas that Bush and a few others have had about privatizing it and transforming it into a more realistic program have repeatedly been derided by those on the left (socialist) side of the political spectrum, because they want us to be totally dependent on this failed program.
SSA is nothing more than a government Ponzi scheme where new money pays of older investors. Citizens who run Ponzi schemes go to prison... when the government does it, they just talk about raising taxes and the retirement age, and do everything they can to prevent a better and more sustainable program from being adopted.
1 person likes this
@rodney850 (2145)
• United States
6 Sep 08
Destiny,
I agree, it is a "ponzi" scheme with one hugh difference. The people who actually get to collect from the "ponzi" scheme(although very few) get big profits from their investments, with SS it is exactly the opposite!
2 people like this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
7 Sep 08
That is why it's best if you can get one of the rare jobs that don't force you to pay Social Security. My old library in Orange County was great with that. I paid no Social Security, and the library directly contributed what would be my social security payments into an ICMA retirement fund. They were also willing to match up to 5% of what I personally chose to contribute myself. Now that just blows away social security. Unfortunately employers like that are not easy to find.
1 person likes this
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
6 Sep 08
No one will ever get out of social security what they put in to it. It is also NOT a guarantee. Anybody who relies on a retirement account that doesn't show a net posative return is just being foolish. ihink we should at least have the option of defering at least part of our contribution to a private fund of our choosing, I know how to best use and grow my money. Why would I rely on a body that wouldn't know a balanced budget or a surplus if it bit them in the wallet pocket to plan for my retirement or well being?
1 person likes this
@Jenaisle (14078)
• Philippines
7 Sep 08
Very detailed analysis and logical explanations.Obviously, you just have to choose who offers the lesser evil?!! Is it Obama or McCain? The social security should profit more people who are at an older age. You're right that the government is only the caretaker of the people's money and as such they should be under the obligation to see to it that the money goes where it is intended or they will have to answer to charges. Thanks for sharing.
1 person likes this
