Social Security, when it began, wasn’t a bad idea. The problem is what it has morphed into. We should get back to the “safety-net” that it was intended to be in the first place. But any changes should be “fair” to everyone. SS is a good (not great) program for the poorer citizens, but it’s a lousy “investment vehicle” for the more affluent. We could start by freezing the “top” benefit payment, and only increase payments for those not yet at the maximum level, until everyone is receiving the current maximum benefit. At the same time we could slowly start decreasing payroll tax rates (at a revenue neutral rate) back down towards the 1% where SS started out at. This would increase everyone’s paycheck, raise benefits for those who need it, and after a couple of generations it would bring the SS program back to the safety-net that it was intended to be. And as for those currently receiving the maximum benefit, start by gradually lowering the tax rates on benefits until SS benefits are back to being tax-free, just like when it started out.
Jim Galpion
Chandler
downtownresident posted at 4:14 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.
In practice, the SS fund has been decimated due the thievery of Congress and the manipulations of people who don't need it.
It still is just a secure investment that works as intended, if administered by honest people.
The current maximum benefit is not a lot of money.
samkat posted at 4:46 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.
Separate social security disability from the social security program. It is nothing more than a rip off. I have a great niece who got onto it and she is a healthy as a horse 20 year old who supposedly has a learning disability and cannot work although she seems quite capable of doing everything else independently. Ditto for Medicaid and Medicare. If you want to ascertain true costs, have Medicare and Social Security isolated into a lock box as they should be.
onerebel posted at 8:06 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.
I would rather be giving money to people that have been paying into social security, then welfare recipients that never intend to pay for anything!
Arizona Willie posted at 10:43 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.
Social Security would have been in great shape if the Congressthieves hadn't " borrowed " the excess funds to finance their re-elections - err -- pork projects.
In fact, if you could spend IOU'S Social Security is STILL in excellent shape.
Because all those thieving Congresspeople gave Social Security IOU'S that Congress is responsible for paying back.
Only trouble is ... in order to pay back on the IOU'S they would have to raise taxes because there is very very little excess spending that various interest groups won't oppose having cut.
The Republicans won't hear of cutting one cent from defense, even though we spend more than the rest of the world combined.
Democrats won't hear of cutting spending that helps those who have been scrooed by life such as Social Security and Social Security Disability and Medicare and various other social programs.
Congresspeople borrowed and borrowed and borrowed knowing that they would not be in office any longer when the time came for the IOU'S to be paid back ( most of them ).
So now the country is faced with a huge unfunded pension plan and no politically acceptable way to pay for it.
The only realistic choices are to eliminate the earnings cap ( Republicans hate that because they would have to actually pay for something -- they love BORROW AND SPEND ) and to raise the age of eligibility ( Democrats probably hate that ).
So do both and p(eye)ss everyone off.
bubba posted at 11:11 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.
Arizona Willie nailed it. This article goes into detail of how Social Security has been looted, and actually offers some fixes for it, if our polititians had the will to represent thier constituents instead of the special interests that bribe---excuse me---lobby them.. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33316.htm
downtownresident posted at 9:28 am on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.
samkat,
"I have a great niece who got onto it and she is a healthy as a horse"
That makes you an accessory to fraud.
chatmandu002 posted at 9:41 am on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.
Social Security was a Ponzi scheme from the very beginning. Paying in a tiny percentage of your pay and getting back a lot more. Never would have worked after 5 generations. Then congress started adding people that didn't pay or let them in the program because of disabilities or family reasons. Then in 1967 President Johnson and congress decided to move the SS fund into the general budget so they could pay for the Vietnam war and issue IOUs to the SS fund. It's been down hill ever since. When SS, Medicare (Obamacare) and Medicaid become 100% of the budget what are we gonna do?
Arizona Willie posted at 10:22 am on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.
chatmandu ... it is IMPOSSIBLE for the social programs to become 100% of the budget because Defense is already over 50%.
Why don't right wingers ever want to talk about cutting a hugely bloated Defense allotment? Instead they vote to build more tanks that the Defense Department doesn't even want. More pork for some Legislators voters.
The Defense budget is LOADED with pork --- but righties love THAT pork.
All the military bases overseas, with the possible exception of Korea, should be shut down and the troops brought home. Unless the host country is willing and able to pay 100% of the cost of operating the base and having the troops there.
Just that one thing would save more than enough to solve ALL the problems with Social Security and Medicare funding.
Those countries such as England, France, Germany, and Italy are NOT threatened by anyone anymore. There is no need to us to spend trillions of dollars every year on those bases.
sockratties posted at 12:07 pm on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.
Samkat, onerebel, downtown & AZW... You're right. SS has been highjacked by Congress who then borrowed everything so it became part of the National Debt. Congress owes almost $3T to SS and would like to find a way to not have to pay it back.
I know people who are milking the system and my citing that fact doesn't make me an accessory to fraud. The fraud may be the doctor that certified the eligability.
The original purpose of SS was to provide the above mentioned safety net. Some cap on payouts to those who are most successful is reasonable. When we start out we don't know if we will be rich or destitude 50 or 60 years hence. It should be kind of like insurance that you hope you don't ever need but it's there if you do. tI could even be provided as a pro-rated policy to ensure that recipients have at least a living income after they can't work anymore.
Arizona Willie posted at 2:14 pm on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.
sockratties: you railed against people who abuse the system and say you know someone who is abusing the system.
You have a " moral " duty to turn them in.
Actually, if you know of a crime being committed on an ongoing basis and you just let it continue, then you are indeed an accessory.
Or is your ire only for people who abuse the system whom you don't know?
sockratties posted at 2:47 pm on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.
Willie
If I were able to turn in the people who abuse the system you wouldn't have a congress left.
It's easy to milk a system without actually breaking the law. I was alluding to the comment regarding Samkat's niece being a fraud. I don't think that rises to the level of railing unless you're trying to change the quality of the discussion. That is your prerogative.
Arizona Willie posted at 9:02 am on Mon, Jan 21, 2013.
sockratties: my mistake!! :(
I misposted that. It < should > have been addressed to samkat. If he KNOWS of someone defrauding the government he has an obligation to turn them in. Especially since he is < railing > against people who cheat the system. He calls Social Security a " rip off " and I call that railing :)
Sorry for the goof up.
Bluepoet posted at 3:15 pm on Mon, Jan 21, 2013.
One big elephant in the room, regarding SS...the age of full retirement benefits should be raised, because more and more of the population is getting older.
Of course, that should happen, only after I start getting mine--but don't worry, it won't be long, now...(can grandpas get grandfathered in?)
Mr. Galpion seems to assume that we have a Congress that not only has foresight, but the will and a collective attention span longer than a hummingbird, in order to pass such legislation. Good luck with that!
PatrioticPerson posted at 7:10 pm on Mon, Jan 21, 2013.
In 1935 the life expectancy for females was 63 and 59 for males. In 2010 it was 80 and 75 respectively. The government didn't make the appropriate adjustments over the years to the Social Security system to accomodate this change. Recipients were added to the program that didn't contribute to the program. The government didn't make the appropriate adjustments over the years to the Social Security system to accomodate this change.
FDR originally set up the Social Security program as a safety net but it was never intended to be the sole source of retirement income. This idea has to be brought back to the forefront.
Many other things happened to Social Security but the Government didn't make the appropriate adjustments over the years to accomodate these changes.
Now changes need/must to be made and it will impact our children and their children and their childrens children. But changes must be made unless we want to just throw our hands in the air and say "It's their problem".
DonMey posted at 11:49 am on Tue, Jan 22, 2013.
Bernie Madoff went to jail for running an investment firm that used incoming investors to cover the pay-outs to his current investors.
When a private individual does it, it is called a Ponzi Scheme, and people lose millions and go to jail. When the government does it, it's called good social policy.
VofReason posted at 1:26 pm on Wed, Jan 23, 2013.
Yet another column and set of comments bringing credance to the need for smaller government and lower taxes. Wouldn't you feel safer if you could put away your own money, make decisions on where and when you want to use it? Or are we operating under the assumption that most people are too stupid to do this for themselves and that we need the fairhanded and super efficient government to do this for us to save us from ourselves. Don't answer.