The problem is, in my view that SS is basicly a ponzi scheme. It depends on having enough new "investors" to pay off the old ones. Sadly, with costs rising, and people living a long time, being old isnt always cheap.

The other problem is, and forgive me for a lack of links, I've seen a few models of the return on Social Security payments, and basicly if you took the money you are being taxed, and put it in some very safe investments, youd make more than social security would be paying you out when you get old.
I've never seen any model anywhere that shows you being better off by putting that money into the system now, and getting your checks when you get old, than if you'd just put the money away in something safe and intrest bearing.

And, if that were the case, then people would NEED social security, because they'd have more coming in from that investment than SS would be paying out anyway.

Myself, I'd like an option to opt out. Thats it. Anybody at any time can say "Fuck it, I dont want to participate" and then you dont pay in anymore, and you certainly get no checks when you get old. Because right now, I have NO faith that it will be there when I get old, and I'd rather put that money in savings, or give it to charity, ect.

on edit, would shoudl be WOULDNT.
If people had better savings for retirement, they WOULDNT have a need for SS.

God Forbid! Rich people would be asked to payout! Hence your above post. Wallstreet thugs get paid, how do we pay for it? Penalize poor old grandma's who are eating dog food and cutting pills to get by.

Stephen,

First off, Social Security was built with projections of life expectancy extentions. All the way back in 1935. So the "people are living older" argument is moot - it is part of the system. In addition, the 1983 and 1995 "readjustments" to the system realigned cost of living increases and inflation numbers to reflect a modern economy. So the beginning of your argument is completely unfounded.

Secondly, Social Security pay-out can be completely fixed with an increase in payroll tax caps (the 90 - 120K figures that Bob was talking aobut). Completely fixed for another 100 years.
And then we will need to readjust again.

Finally, were you dropped on your head as a child?

Oh yes, it sure was built well, thats why if you or I tried a similar venture in private practice, say, as an "investment" or "insurance" company, we would go to jail.

Try it. Start a company, and promise people who pay for the elderly who sign up now that next group who joins your plan will pay for them, and so on. See what fucking happens.

It doesnt matter WHAT they predicted back in the day, because while they may have realised the population would expand, I seriously doubt they predicted the post WWII Baby boom, which even has the coffin industry getting ready for the eventual upswing.

Bottom line, refute Bush statement that in the past, an average of 16 workers supported one freeloader (excuse me, retired person who didnt bother to save any fucking money) and now we are gonna be running much fewer. Not that I really blame anybody over 20, they were promised this program, and they trusted the Gov, so it's not their fault.

What the FUCK gives Washington the right to force people to buy into their little insurance scam? Eh? Tell you what, let us greedy bastards opt out young, and if you're as right as you think you are, your last though can be to laugh at us as we are destitute, eating said dog food, and not collecting checks for your robust system of social retirement funding that the younger people could be using to plan for their future as they see fit.

LOOK AT OUR GOVERNMENT. JUST TAKE A GOOD, LONG LOOK. DO YOU TRUST THOSE MOTHERFUCKERS TO INSURE YOU ARE NOT SCREWED OVER IN YOUR OLD AGE? Half the bush-haters are screaming that this is the end of our nation, and yet they want us to believe in social security?

I strongly suggest you match your SS taxes in a solid, conservative investment at your local bank, and when you get old, see which is paying you more.

Bottom line, I look at Washington, and I dont see anybody who could keep a goldfish alive for a week, much less protect me from poverty in my old age. I don't want anything to do with it.

My grandfather is a Korean war vet. Saw more hours of real combat than you've spent watching TV, and he's boned already. My grandmother is sick as shit, and they want his HOUSE. Thats what he gets for paying into this bullshit his whole life, and he was never a rich man. Look at some really long term market numbers over the last 50 years or so, he'd have done better on his own. I won't be duped the same way.

Dropped on my head? I'm not the one who puts blind faith in their ponzi scheme. I'm not the one who wants to keep it running along, instead of sucking it up and looking for an alternative.

Mark my words, this program will be a domestic Vietnam.

And as for social welfare...well, thats what welfare is for.

And yeah, corperations can be assholes, but governments are much worse.

Stephen,

The Social Security trustees in 1935 projected life expectancy increases (not population increases) up to 1985! It was reassesed in 1983. So your first point (again) is moot. Secondly, there are companies that do exactly what you claim we would be thrown in jail for - they are called Insurance Companies - and the last time I checked they were completely legal, perhaps unethical, but legal. And under the Bush Administration they have become even more unethical than ever before, legally. So, second point - wrong (again).

Your third point shows your true colors; (and this is fun because in your stupidity we get a Double Play) by calling Social Security recipients as "freeloaders". The Double Play comes with your seventh point - are you accusing your poor Grandparents of being freeloaders? - I hope not, but I'm not sure.

Your fourth point (if I can even call it a point) is irrelevant since the Social Security Administration has in fact secured pensions for millions of people since it's inception so that we could eradicate poverty amongst senior citizens. And continues to to this day and into the future.

Your fifth point - your conservative bank investment (based on a fifty year average of 4% is actually less than the 5% that Social Security gets). Please, Stephen, do your homework - this is getting boring!

Your sixth point - I have to agree with. I look at Washington and see George Bush declaring War on Social Security and everyone's retirement. So you are right. Congratulations!

The rest of your ramblings answer positively my quesion in the first post - so thank you.

What does "Lactar" mean?

Sorry, life expectancy increase. My fault, of course, bigger population means the same thing, and hey, they didnt see that coming, as I said.

Insurance companies do not pay EVERYBODY, they exist for special circumstances. Surviving into old age is not a special circumstance. Most people pay in far more than they ever get back, and current payers cover current members, on the OFF CHANCE that you need WAY MORE than you could possibly afford on your own. If it was the same, I'd have started paying into it when I was 3 so that current 16 year olds could make their car payments, and then when I turned 16, my payments would be covered. Insurance is really totaly different.

As for my grandfather, he's not so much a freeloader as he paid in, and was told it would be there forever. Hopefully, for him, it will, for whatever good it does. He also earned a little something extra for giving up his youth, an education, and whatever it means to a father to watch his family grow up so that he could sit in a freezing foxhole in Korea with the body of the last guy who almost killed him draped over it as a bullet shield. So no. He's not a freeloader. Really though, South Korea ought to be paying him a pension, because the US/UN saved them from being like their neighbor to the north. Barring that, your military should have done better by him, and it's not just Bush. The army has been doing what it does for a long time. Freeloader was a poor choice of words, because these folks dont know any better, and have been promised something that cant last.

Bush's plan, like all plans, are crap. Duct tape on the Mir.

And you can do better than 6 percent, if you make a little effort. Thats the story of the other grandparents, lol. They saved a great deal, invested wisely (and you dont have to be a genius to do it), and got quite a good return. Neither of them were wealthy either.

Honestly, would it suprise you if SS went down the shitter? Are YOU gonna depend on it for your future well being? Why SHOULDNT younger workers be allowed to opt out? would SS fail with only half the number of people participating? Why not use other funds to pay off the current old folks if too many younger workers bail, until it levels out. I dont understand why this cant be voluntary?

Stephen,

First - whichever phrase you prefer: life expectancy or population increase - the point is (and I'm getting tired of repeating myself) it was calculated in advance. Up to 1985. Then SS was re-adjusted to reflect both the reality of the population as well as the cost of living increases, as well as the program's liquidity. And it has been working.

As far as stock market returns, I'm glad the "other" grandparents faired better than your poor, "freeloader" (according to your logic) grandfather. But to claim that all returns will be as successful is wishful thinking. Hell, why not play the lottery. The reality is there are no guarantees in such a retirement approach but Social Security does guarantee payouts. It's the reason it exists. And, again, it works.

And as an aside, just based on your highly irrational postings, my strong advice to you is not to gamble on the stock market - I don't think you have the stamina (or intelligence) which you would need to truly weather that storm.

It is obvious that you would just like to dismantle the program for the sake of dismantling it. Why? I really don't know. It makes no sense.

But for you to get all upset about the supposed "crisis" in Social Security shows you do not live in reality, because there isn't one. Where do you stand on the real "crises" facing us: A massive deficit, a crumbling medicare, an Administration that loses 9 billion dollars in the Iraq reconstruction (that's your money too Stephen), an Adminstration that is in the pockets of big business (and vice versa).

I guess I know the answer to that: "all government is shit!" Well, in a language you most likely would understand: You go girl!

Okay...but what the HELL does "Lactar" mean?

Wow, I waded through the personal attacks hoping for an answer to the one question I really wanted a responce too, and it was not there. Which is why cant people choose not to participate? Of course, there isnt a good one, except that you know best, and they'd better shut up and like it.

I don't think SS is any more fucked up now than it ever was, but since you guys wanna help them wag the dog by talking about this instead of the war, I'll bite.

Couple of points.
1.) I explained why the first grandfather and his family are incapable of freeloading, as they have given more to this country than we'll ever repay.
2.) The second set didnt do better, they simply did. They didnt trust it, and so did their own thing, and it turned out well. The other grandparents only mistake was assuming SS and all these other programs would be around, and "take care of everything" when they got old, like they were promised, but the gov, by the army, ect.

As for being too stupid to do stocks, well hey. Why dont you worry about your future and I'll deal with mine. Keep throwing around insults, ignoring half the points, and twisting the other half out of context. Every time I read a post on DU about "How come those stupid fucking rednecks think we're condesending assholes when we're just trying to save them from themselves?" I come closer to understanding why there is no viable opposition in this coutry. The options are between spinelss pussies and assholes. Nobody wants to vote for either. Come on, you lost to George W. Bush. Keep telling yourself it was rigged, maybe it was, but its hard to rig against a landslide, which is what it should have been with George in office.

As for the bit about wanting to destroy SS,
I never said i wanted to dismantle it, I just want out, and I want everybody else my age who wants out to have that option. I DO NOT WANT TO PARTICPATE. Thats it. Period. And I am not alone. Think of it as pro-choice. That might help a bit.

Can someone, preferably "Lactar," tell me what "Lactar" means? Is it a Star Trek reference? Or something to do with nursing? Is it a family nickname? Is the grandparent who isn't a freeloader called Grampactar? Please, just for a second, stop talking about the SS and lend me a hand here on the "Lactar" question.

I never said i wanted to dismantle it, I just want out, and I want everybody else my age who wants out to have that option.

Yeah, and I want out of paying war taxes (actually, I don't, although I sure wish my money wasn't going for illegal wars and torture, and will do all I can to bring that about). I'd note that my concerns here are a bit more principled and moral than your own aparently selfish motivations.

Yes, you want "out". But that means that someone else is going to have to make up for your money. Who? Who should have to pay? And why them and not you?

I note your seeming distaste for insurance (never a great investment from a strictly financial standpoint, but the whole point of insurance is that it's never a catastrophic bet either). Maybe you also think that you shouldn't pay for fire departments or police?

Your claims as to the relative benefits of private investment are dubious and (at least here) wholly unsupported. I'd point out that bonds can't be a poor investment or no one would buy them ("free markets" and all that). But even were it so that more money would be made from differing investments, that could be fixed without privatizing SS. And SS has a very low overhead; did you really think that Wall Street is going to handle your accounts for free? Why?

Cheers,

I never said i wanted to dismantle it, I just want out, and I want everybody else my age who wants out to have that option.

Yeah, and I want out of paying war taxes (actually, I don't, although I sure wish my money wasn't going for illegal wars and torture, and will do all I can to bring that about). I'd note that my concerns here are a bit more principled and moral than your own aparently selfish motivations.

Yes, you want "out". But that means that someone else is going to have to make up for your money. Who? Who should have to pay? And why them and not you?

I note your seeming distaste for insurance (never a great investment from a strictly financial standpoint, but the whole point of insurance is that it's never a catastrophic bet either). Maybe you also think that you shouldn't pay for fire departments or police?

Your claims as to the relative benefits of private investment are dubious and (at least here) wholly unsupported. I'd point out that bonds can't be a poor investment or no one would buy them ("free markets" and all that). But even were it so that more money would be made from differing investments, that could be fixed without privatizing SS. And SS has a very low overhead; did you really think that Wall Street is going to handle your accounts for free? Why?

Cheers,

Stephen,

Okay...

In one paragraph you said:

"refute Bush statement that in the past, an average of 16 workers supported one freeloader (excuse me, retired person who didnt bother to save any fucking money)..."

And four paragraphs later you said:

"...Thats what he (my Granfather) gets for paying into this bullshit his whole life, and he was never a rich man."

So, by your own statements, your grandfather was a freeloader (I'm sure he is very proud of you right now). You see, Stephen, Social Security pays out to those who pay in - it is not, and has never been a welfare system. So by your own logic, by paying in (the only way to be in the system) your grandfather was a freeloader. But you obviously do not understand that. Like a lot of things.

Not really sure where you come up with the statement that "[you don't think that] SS is any more fucked up now than it ever was..."? When was it fucked up, Stephen? - please be specific (and that means not some dumbass personal andecdote - just want to be clear). Or maybe you mean that it's not fucked up? Facts, Stephen, facts.

As far as an answer to your desire to "opt out" of the system: the simple answer is - you already can (to a degree). It's called an IRA account. And there are even more aggressive (and tax free accounts) out there, like a Roth IRA and some states have triple tax free interest earning accounts. There are numerous options and possibilities of saving for yourself. And they are tax free! But my guess is you don't know about these options - thus your assanine complaining about SS. You see, Stephen, if you really knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't be complaining about being locked into a system that seems to be causing you irreparable harm; because it doesn't. You are really a stupid man.

As far as wanting to dismantle SS, again a simple answer - you most obviously do. Because every serious economist and even the SS Trustees (and now even Senior Bush aides and Republican lawmakers) agree that Bush's private accounts bullshit (which you buy into - of course!) is nothing more than the opening salvo of removing SS entirely.

Here's the game plan. Make private accounts legal, and at the same time reduce benefit payouts . Then a couple years from now, claim there is another "crisis" and reduce benfits even more - maybe make SS not a guarantee (I don't know which to do first - they'll all so enticing!). Basically rinse and repeat until the entire system is gutted. Probably this would take about 15 years total - but then a system the Republicans (and dunderheads like yourself) have hated since it's inception will be gone. And Americans will have no protection that as they get old, they will not sink into poverty. Congratulations - that sounds wonderful. God Bless America! And God Bless Lactar!

As far as the rest of your rambling crap, get a life. Or go back to school. Or just stop and think before you vomit up your hate and bile. It's getting boring.

Stephen, before you vomit up hate and bile, can you vomit up an explanation as to the meaning of the name "Lactar." Clearly, in the comments above, inquiring minds want to know.

And then you can cough up more fact-dodging hate and reality-denying bile.

Lactar stands for something. Knock yourselves out.

Does it stand for what you stand for? I mean, your principles?

Do you "lack tar"? Aha! You're like the patch, or Nicorette gum -- you lack tar!

Wow, man. Deep.

To answer the original question, Lactar is the reason we can't 'fix' social security by raising the caps. Or more accurately, people who hold malformed opinions like his. The basic premise is I've got mine, and screw you, why should I pay for someone else? The problem with the basic premise is social justice. Original position and veil of ignorance type stuff that people benefit from the inherent injustice in our system often think about.

The answer to the basic premise is this. Progressive taxes work. Yes, you pay more than those who have less. There are enough advantages to being rich, tax advantages shouldn't be one of them.

Social security is the retirement safety net, an advantage only to the least-advantaged, and so a good target for more advantaged. The debate is framed in such a way that we ignore the fact that those who have the means may already contribute to personal accounts targeted to retirement (IRAs).

Raise the caps. I enjoyed the extra money in my check come October, but I'll happily give it up.

P.S. Lactar is the Sspanish verb 'to breastfeed'. This is not an attack, just a fact. Some people were wondering.

Citizen Lactar is a racist.

The same President who spent his way out of the great depression is the same guy that created SS. There are at times forces beyond a persons control that will destroy a lifetime of savings. The stock market not only crashed in 1929 but again in Reagan's years. We all know about the burst of the ninties bubble and our 401Ks becoming 101Ks. Fate has a way of knocking even the fastest and smartest on their ass so don't be so smug lactar, everyone in this country is one major illness from financial destruction and they are the ones in good shape. In a time when women stayed home and had babies SS protected them also if the primary breadwinner died or was incapacitated, beats the living hell out of prostitution and street children (you know the good ole days the repbulicans long for). The greatest generation took care of the family in unbeleivable ways, now the blood of the American royals, not unlike the blood of the British royals, is obviously thinning.(can you just hear Poppy's little prince talking about what good eating peasant is?)

Reverse aging with human growth hormone hgh pills

http://hgh-pills.herbal-source.net