what makes?

[SamSpade]

Originally posted by jlabsher
Anybody who relies on social security as a retirement fund is not hitting on all cylinders. I look at social security as a possible adjunct to my retirement, something akin to welfare, something that will help my family if I die or become disabled tomorrow, and something for all the poor folks who have jobs without retirement funds or who are too poor to pay into one today.

I personally don't trust the government to plan for my retirement needs and am totally against privatization, because as we know markets go up AND down. What do you do to the people who put all their SS money into a high risk fund in their 50s and lose it all? Somebody will have to take care of them, you can't put old people out onto the cold streets. It can't be totally privatized.

I'm planning my retirement on the assumption that SS won't be there at all. But I know WAY too many people that have reached their forties - or later - who have NEVER saved for retirement. Without SS, I haven't the faintest idea how they plan to survive. I mean, what you say is true. But the majority of people I know, not just the ones with good jobs - have no other plan, just as they have no health care plan.

The plan I've seen for SS retirement is similar to the TSP. Only a portion of the SS will be invested at all, probably as a hedge for what you described. But I have yet to see a fund in the TSP where someone could possibly lose everything.

I look at it this way - SS is going broke. NO question about that. It's going broke. When it was created, there were about a dozen or more workers putting money in for every one taking money out. It was safe. The demographics of the nation has changed, and there will soon be more payout than coming in. It will be broke. Either it needs to be totally phased out, or it needs to be saved.

To save it means one of three things that I can see:

1. Raise the payroll tax, which is 15.3%. *Doubtful*. For some poor, it is the highest tax they pay. Raising taxes on the poor is never going to happen in Washington, not even by Republicans.

2. Raise the retirement age past 70. Won't happen, and it keeps getting refused.

3. Find some way for all that cash to MAKE money, because EVEN if we don't touch a dime of the current surplus, it won't change the fact that in the near future, payouts will STILL EXCEED pay-ins.

Right now, because the cash does NOTHING, it actually LOSES money. No? Take 100 bucks and bury it. Dig it up 50 years from now. See how much it buys.

That sitting cash is *losing* money. You're arguing to keep a fund that WILL go broke, that loses money, against the possibility however faint that *someone* will screw up a portion of their account and have less money than one of their peers. That's ridiculous.

 

[Pete]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
And then there are some folks that are just flat not paying attention.

My grandmother is a staunch Democrat - always has been, always will be. Her Dad came over from Scotland and voted for Democrats around the turn of the century and she always figured he was smarter than her and ought to know. She's a Yellow Dog, right alongside Zuchick, and doesn't realize how much the party's changed since the days of Woodrow Wilson. She hated Reagan because she didn't like any of his movies.

My Mom always voted Democrat, like her mother and grandfather before her. When she met my Dad, he told her he wasn't going to marry any damn Democrat so she changed her registration. She spouts the party line, but it's just regurgitating what my Dad has told her.

My buddy, Sean, is a gay black man. Needless to say, he votes for Democrats. I challenged him on this and he said that's because the Democrats are advocates of his ethnicity and lifestyle. I was like, "What benefit have you gotten, as a gay man OR as a black man, under 8 years of Clinton?" After much back and forth, the answer of course was "nothing". But there's still that perception that Democrats are best for gays and non-whites.

I think there are a lot of people out there like that.

I am a republican because I like the letter "R" better than "D".

 

[jlabsher]

I agree with you *except* the employee share of SS is 7.65% that is 6% for OASDI & 1.65% for medicare. They also have been raising the retirement age steadily. For me (born in 58) full retirement age is 66y 8m. For people born after 1960, full retirement age is 67y.

As far as the plans, I don't know I havent' seen them. I did lose a lot on the C fund but have now made it back on the I & S, maybe it will be something like the G fund, but that will be borrowing from the gubmint anywayze.

 

[Larry Gude]

jlab...

I personally don't trust the government to plan for my retirement needs and am totally against privatization, because as we know markets go up AND down. What do you do to the people who put all their SS money into a high risk fund in their 50s and lose it all? Somebody will have to take care of them, you can't put old people out onto the cold streets. It can't be totally privatized.

Social Security is OASDI, Old Age and Supplemental Disability Insurance. Nobody runs an 'insurance' program based on 100% flat out gauranteed claims. Social Security is so bad of an idea that it is the poster child for bad ideas.

It was a scam, a lie to begin with simply because Franklinus Maximus the I wanted something for people to remember him by.

It was called 'insurance' because not everybody collected. Only people who made it to an age most people didn't live to at the time and because some people become disabled, not everybody.

If we are ever to balance peoples expectations of SS (government gauranteed minumum pension) and the fuducial possibilities then we have to start looking at it that way instead of the mystery and scam it is today.

It is possible and way less expensive to start TAKING peoples money, as we do now BUT give them an option of a Government bond or T bill, say bought every quarter or even monthly or to retire from the system and go into the market or savings account or whatever.

In this case everybody has an asset, it is THEIRS. The average 'return' of Social Security is about 2% for people up to about 50 or so. Give us T bills at 2 1/2 or maybe 3 or 4%. Hell, US savings bonds kick all hell out of Social Security.

Folks can be audited via designating a savings account as their "SS" account, similar to IRA's now. If a person is under performing T bills or some minimum, then they may be required to re-enter the government plan. If they do better, then the income taxes they pay help EVERYBODY.

BTW: It IS 15% because I, as an employer, pay your other half just a sure as I pay wages. No you, no SS/Med expense. It is YOUR money. I'm not getting it back. It's yours.

It is terribly easy ensure peoples finacial future. The will isn't there.

 

[jlabsher]

I know employers pay the other half of SS, just like they pay unemployment insurance, etc. If it was something like the TSP G fund, which is the civil service & now military 401K it may be OK. That invests directly in T bills. Last year it had a 5% return rate. I just can't see it being 'privatized' into the stock market.

 

[Kizzy]

<a href='http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb008' target='_blank'><img src='http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/10/10_9_136.gif' border=0></a>

 

[sleuth]

Originally posted by jlabsher
As far as hiring two people for the price of a GS-11?!? How many good people are you gonna get for $25K a year? Try buying a house in St Mary's county on that salary big guy. Could argue more, but I have to earn my salary so's I don't get privatized!

You misunderstand this, I think.

Here's an example. The numbers are guesstimates and I'm not sure I got the players right (I'm still new to this myself), but I think this is how it works.

I am a GS-9, and the cost to the Program Office for my services supporting their program is about $100 per hour, only $18-$20 per hour of which I see on my paycheck.

That's about 80% of the money that The Program Office is paying for me to work their program going into government overhead.

Whereas, there are members of my department who are contracted by the government, who might work for say, CSC, to do the same job I do, for about $10K per year more than me, yet for the contractor to pay for the services of the contracted help to do the same job that I do and who carries "almost" the same level of authority, it only costs them about (a guess here) $50 per hour, of which ~$30 an hour goes to the contracted help.

So the contracted help is doing the same job as me for less cost to the Program Office, yet getting paid more.

It's about efficiency. In this example, CSC is much more efficient and has less overhead than the government, and as a result the contracted help costs less to the Program Office and he gets a larger share of the price for his services.

This is why you could hire 2 contracted engineers for the price of one government engineer.

Feel free to correct me anyone... like I said, I haven't figured out completely how it works. I've only been in the government for less than 2 years.

 

[Pete]

Originally posted by sleuth14
You misunderstand this, I think.

Here's an example. The numbers are guesstimates and I'm not sure I got the players right (I'm still new to this myself), but I think this is how it works.

I am a GS-9, and the cost to the Program Office for my services supporting their program is about $100 per hour, only $18-$20 per hour of which I see on my paycheck.

That's about 80% of the money that The Program Office is paying for me to work their program going into government overhead.

Whereas, there are members of my department who are contracted by the government, who might work for say, CSC, to do the same job I do, for about $10K per year more than me, yet for the contractor to pay for the services of the contracted help to do the same job that I do and who carries "almost" the same level of authority, it only costs them about (a guess here) $50 per hour, of which ~$30 an hour goes to the contracted help.

So the contracted help is doing the same job as me for less cost to the Program Office, yet getting paid more.

It's about efficiency. In this example, CSC is much more efficient and has less overhead than the government, and as a result the contracted help costs less to the Program Office and he gets a larger share of the price for his services.

This is why you could hire 2 contracted engineers for the price of one government engineer.

Feel free to correct me anyone... like I said, I haven't figured out completely how it works. I've only been in the government for less than 2 years.

you got it