AARP suggestions to save Social Security

As you approach your 50th birthday, you will start receiving mail from
the American Association of Retired People (AARP). I think it’s a good
deal, if only for the publications.

The latest monthly Bulletin describes 9, nine, count them NINE proposals
to save the solvency of social security. This in spite of accusations by
USA Next that AARP is “the bolder in the middle of the highway to
personal savings accounts”

Interestingly enough USA Next describes itself as a 1.5 million +
nationwide grassroots effort”, yet it’s tax return for the year shows
income of 25.3 million; 24.8 million from a single unidentified
contributor. (kind of makes me go Hummmmmm)

Anyhow the proposals are as follows – no one will work, some combination
will be needed to keep SS solvent and closely resembling what we have now.

The proposals

1) Raise the cap on earnings. Next year it will be on earnings up to
90K/yr – raise it slowly as average earnings increase. This will affect
only about 6% of taxpayers at present, but cut the projected shortfall
by 32%

2) Increase the payroll tax rate. Gradually increase workers (and
matching employers) taxes from 12.4% to 15% over 70 years. Estimated tax
increase could eliminate 100% of the shortfall

3) Raise taxation of Benefits. Higher income beneficiaries would make a
greater contribution. (Did you know that income taxes on SS benefits are
paid directly to the fund?)

4) Preserve SOME of the estate Tax and dedicate it to SS. Tax only
estates valued at 3.5 Million or more (7 Million for a couple). At this
rate only about ½ of 1% of estates would be taxed, but would reduce the
projected shortfall by 27%

5) Make SS Universal – About 30% of State and local government workers
are not covered by SS. Making SS universal would reduce the shortfall by 10%

6) Invest SOME of the trust fund in Indexed funds. Be a lot less
expensive than individual accounts, and the government would be better
able to ride out short term market declines.

7) Adjust the COLA – change from the current Consumer Price Index to a
newer (supposedly more accurate one) developed by the bureau of Labor
statistics) This would produce lower COLAs (Suggestion by Jim – Tailor a
retired CPI reflecting increased Medical costs)

8) Raise the retirement age to 70 – currently on the way to 67. Still
allow retirement at 62 with proportionately reduced benefits. Life
expectancy has increased, why not working life? This will reduce the
shortfall by about 36%

9) Index benefits to prices, not wages.

Note – the above is very much abbreviated and taken from he April 2005
edition of the AARP Bulletin. If anyone is REALLY interested, send me
your email address, and I’ll scan the article and send it to you. The
pros and cons of each proposal are discussed in detail.

I'm very encouraged by Bush's alarm over social security.

After all, if the President is savvy enough to realize that a
government program will begin paying out more dollars in benefits than
it receives in income about 30 years from now and to know that
represents a problem- surely he will also soon realize that a
government *currently* borrowing 2.16 billion dollars every day to
balance income and expense is a much greater and even more immediate
crisis.


http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

(Not sure whether expenses for the war in Iraq are included in the 2.16
billion, as that war is being waged
"off the books" and expenses are not officially included in the
budget).

All of those "plans" are laughable.

We need to get the money away from the government.



"Jim," wrote in message
...
AARP suggestions to save Social Security

As you approach your 50th birthday, you will start receiving mail from the
American Association of Retired People (AARP). I think it’s a good deal,
if only for the publications.

The latest monthly Bulletin describes 9, nine, count them NINE proposals
to save the solvency of social security. This in spite of accusations by
USA Next that AARP is “the bolder in the middle of the highway to personal
savings accounts”

Interestingly enough USA Next describes itself as a 1.5 million +
nationwide grassroots effort”, yet it’s tax return for the year shows
income of 25.3 million; 24.8 million from a single unidentified
contributor. (kind of makes me go Hummmmmm)

Anyhow the proposals are as follows – no one will work, some combination
will be needed to keep SS solvent and closely resembling what we have now.

The proposals

1) Raise the cap on earnings. Next year it will be on earnings up to
90K/yr – raise it slowly as average earnings increase. This will affect
only about 6% of taxpayers at present, but cut the projected shortfall by
32%

2) Increase the payroll tax rate. Gradually increase workers (and matching
employers) taxes from 12.4% to 15% over 70 years. Estimated tax increase
could eliminate 100% of the shortfall

3) Raise taxation of Benefits. Higher income beneficiaries would make a
greater contribution. (Did you know that income taxes on SS benefits are
paid directly to the fund?)

4) Preserve SOME of the estate Tax and dedicate it to SS. Tax only estates
valued at 3.5 Million or more (7 Million for a couple). At this rate only
about ½ of 1% of estates would be taxed, but would reduce the projected
shortfall by 27%

5) Make SS Universal – About 30% of State and local government workers are
not covered by SS. Making SS universal would reduce the shortfall by 10%

6) Invest SOME of the trust fund in Indexed funds. Be a lot less expensive
than individual accounts, and the government would be better able to ride
out short term market declines.

7) Adjust the COLA – change from the current Consumer Price Index to a
newer (supposedly more accurate one) developed by the bureau of Labor
statistics) This would produce lower COLAs (Suggestion by Jim – Tailor a
retired CPI reflecting increased Medical costs)

8) Raise the retirement age to 70 – currently on the way to 67. Still
allow retirement at 62 with proportionately reduced benefits. Life
expectancy has increased, why not working life? This will reduce the
shortfall by about 36%

9) Index benefits to prices, not wages.

Note – the above is very much abbreviated and taken from he April 2005
edition of the AARP Bulletin. If anyone is REALLY interested, send me your
email address, and I’ll scan the article and send it to you. The pros and
cons of each proposal are discussed in detail.

All of those "plans" are laughable.


We need to get the money away from the government
***********

Prior to Social Security, most older people lived in abject poverty.
Many were forced to live with their adult kids- like it or not. From
this perspective, old-age benefits are part of the social safety net
legitimately provided by Social Security.

Nothing stops anybody from investing considerable sums of money, often
in tax advantaged or tax deferred programs, for retirement. Folks who
hope or expect to live as well in retirement as they do when working
will certainly need to make such investments throughout their working
career. Why is it necessary to gut social security in the process?

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
All of those "plans" are laughable.

We need to get the money away from the government.

That is always the solution from liebrals.......gimme more of your money.




"Jim," wrote in message
...
AARP suggestions to save Social Security

As you approach your 50th birthday, you will start receiving mail from
the
American Association of Retired People (AARP). I think it's a good
deal,
if only for the publications.

The latest monthly Bulletin describes 9, nine, count them NINE
proposals
to save the solvency of social security. This in spite of accusations
by
USA Next that AARP is "the bolder in the middle of the highway to
personal
savings accounts"

Interestingly enough USA Next describes itself as a 1.5 million +
nationwide grassroots effort", yet it's tax return for the year shows
income of 25.3 million; 24.8 million from a single unidentified
contributor. (kind of makes me go Hummmmmm)

Anyhow the proposals are as follows - no one will work, some
combination
will be needed to keep SS solvent and closely resembling what we have
now.

The proposals

1) Raise the cap on earnings. Next year it will be on earnings up to
90K/yr - raise it slowly as average earnings increase. This will affect
only about 6% of taxpayers at present, but cut the projected shortfall
by
32%

2) Increase the payroll tax rate. Gradually increase workers (and
matching
employers) taxes from 12.4% to 15% over 70 years. Estimated tax
increase
could eliminate 100% of the shortfall

3) Raise taxation of Benefits. Higher income beneficiaries would make a
greater contribution. (Did you know that income taxes on SS benefits
are
paid directly to the fund?)

4) Preserve SOME of the estate Tax and dedicate it to SS. Tax only
estates
valued at 3.5 Million or more (7 Million for a couple). At this rate
only
about ½ of 1% of estates would be taxed, but would reduce the projected
shortfall by 27%

5) Make SS Universal - About 30% of State and local government workers
are
not covered by SS. Making SS universal would reduce the shortfall by
10%

6) Invest SOME of the trust fund in Indexed funds. Be a lot less
expensive
than individual accounts, and the government would be better able to
ride
out short term market declines.

7) Adjust the COLA - change from the current Consumer Price Index to a
newer (supposedly more accurate one) developed by the bureau of Labor
statistics) This would produce lower COLAs (Suggestion by Jim - Tailor
a
retired CPI reflecting increased Medical costs)

8) Raise the retirement age to 70 - currently on the way to 67. Still
allow retirement at 62 with proportionately reduced benefits. Life
expectancy has increased, why not working life? This will reduce the
shortfall by about 36%

9) Index benefits to prices, not wages.

Note - the above is very much abbreviated and taken from he April 2005
edition of the AARP Bulletin. If anyone is REALLY interested, send me
your
email address, and I'll scan the article and send it to you. The pros
and
cons of each proposal are discussed in detail.

John Herbert wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, "Jim," wrote:
AARP suggestions to save Social Security

OT spam is not wanted nor appreciated. Please restrain yourself. Go
post
your **** in the appropriate group. This post of yours has nothing to
do
with boats.

Darn right, John. We could get so distracted with this stuff we'd miss
one of your on-topic posts. That would certainly be a shame. In fact, I
think I did miss it. Would you mind reminding me of the title so I can
go back and look for it?

On 12 Apr 2005 20:12:14 -0700, wrote:

All of those "plans" are laughable.


We need to get the money away from the government
***********

Prior to Social Security, most older people lived in abject poverty.
Many were forced to live with their adult kids- like it or not. From
this perspective, old-age benefits are part of the social safety net
legitimately provided by Social Security.

Nothing stops anybody from investing considerable sums of money, often
in tax advantaged or tax deferred programs, for retirement. Folks who
hope or expect to live as well in retirement as they do when working
will certainly need to make such investments throughout their working
career. Why is it necessary to gut social security in the process?

Chuck, that isn't the money under discussion. The money being discussed is that
which the government takes from our checks for Social Security. If I could
invest it and get a better return, why shouldn't I be able to? If I could pass
the savings on to my children, why shouldn't I be able to?

All the IRA, 401k, and 403b plans are great - for those who can take advantage
of them. But whether an individual can or cannot take advantage of them is
beside the point. The point is the return on the money the government takes for
Social Security.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Chuck, that isn't the money under discussion. The money being discussed
is that
which the government takes from our checks for Social Security. If I
could
invest it and get a better return, why shouldn't I be able to? If I
could pass
the savings on to my children, why shouldn't I be able to?

All the IRA, 401k, and 403b plans are great - for those who can take
advantage
of them. But whether an individual can or cannot take advantage of them
is
beside the point. The point is the return on the money the government
takes for
Social Security.

************

The challenge with your perception is that you are looking at Social
Security primarily as a pension plan. It is not, and never was intended
to be primarily a retirement pension system.

The purpose of Social Security is to provide a social safety net for
people who cannot take care of themselves. For esample, when my
brother in law died last November and left a dependent wife and a
4-year old son behind, the money he and others paid into social
security is being used to insure that the 4-year old will have a very
basic but secure lifestyle during the 14 years it will take for him to
become an adult and legally responsible for his own care. (My sister in
law gets 1200 or so a month from SS- just enough to live at about the
poverty level- so the family helps out, and she has a mini-wage job to
do what little she can- of course).

Among the persons identified as less-able under the social security
system are those individuals who are too old or sick for gainful
employment. When the system was enacted, very few people lived to be
65, but in today's society probably 85-90% of the people who make it to
55 will survive to 65 and beyond. Social Security has become a defacto
pension plan, when it should not have. We would probably have to raise
the age to 75 in order to once again extend retirement benefits to the
same small group of old folks that the system was originally designed
to serve.

It's downright silly to talk about the "return" on the money impounded
for Social Security. What is the rate of financial "return" on our
dollars spent for national defense, for the interstate highway system,
or for federal law enforcement efforts? None, nada, zip, and who cares?

You want to invest for retirement? Great! Everybody should. But those
who are in such tight financial straits that they can only free up
investment money if 2% of their wages are returned to them via a
reduction in SS taxes? Those people have NO BUSINESS in the stock
market. None. Anybody cutting it that close can't afford to be exposed
to the ever present risk of loss with securities. If it's all spent
every month so that there is no money to invest for retirement, a
worker would do far better to analyze his family budget and figure out
how to free up some serious money rather than moaning that SS has dealt
him a cruel blow.

On 13 Apr 2005 13:20:55 -0700, wrote:

Chuck, that isn't the money under discussion. The money being discussed
is that
which the government takes from our checks for Social Security. If I
could
invest it and get a better return, why shouldn't I be able to? If I
could pass
the savings on to my children, why shouldn't I be able to?

All the IRA, 401k, and 403b plans are great - for those who can take
advantage
of them. But whether an individual can or cannot take advantage of them
is
beside the point. The point is the return on the money the government
takes for
Social Security.

************

The challenge with your perception is that you are looking at Social
Security primarily as a pension plan. It is not, and never was intended
to be primarily a retirement pension system.

The purpose of Social Security is to provide a social safety net for
people who cannot take care of themselves. For esample, when my
brother in law died last November and left a dependent wife and a
4-year old son behind, the money he and others paid into social
security is being used to insure that the 4-year old will have a very
basic but secure lifestyle during the 14 years it will take for him to
become an adult and legally responsible for his own care. (My sister in
law gets 1200 or so a month from SS- just enough to live at about the
poverty level- so the family helps out, and she has a mini-wage job to
do what little she can- of course).

Among the persons identified as less-able under the social security
system are those individuals who are too old or sick for gainful
employment. When the system was enacted, very few people lived to be
65, but in today's society probably 85-90% of the people who make it to
55 will survive to 65 and beyond. Social Security has become a defacto
pension plan, when it should not have. We would probably have to raise
the age to 75 in order to once again extend retirement benefits to the
same small group of old folks that the system was originally designed
to serve.

It's downright silly to talk about the "return" on the money impounded
for Social Security. What is the rate of financial "return" on our
dollars spent for national defense, for the interstate highway system,
or for federal law enforcement efforts? None, nada, zip, and who cares?

You want to invest for retirement? Great! Everybody should. But those
who are in such tight financial straits that they can only free up
investment money if 2% of their wages are returned to them via a
reduction in SS taxes? Those people have NO BUSINESS in the stock
market. None. Anybody cutting it that close can't afford to be exposed
to the ever present risk of loss with securities. If it's all spent
every month so that there is no money to invest for retirement, a
worker would do far better to analyze his family budget and figure out
how to free up some serious money rather than moaning that SS has dealt
him a cruel blow.

As long as you consider SS a welfare system, then there's little point in a
discussion.

For many folks, SS *is* a large chunk of retirement income, if not all of it.
Perhaps that wasn't the intent, but it's a fact.

For those people, maximizing a return should not be precluded. I would much
rather my SS withholdings go to the Thrift Savings Plan than wherever they go
now!

Right now, about 6% of my taxable earnings go to FICA. What is silly about my
withholdings going to something like the TSP? Notice, I've never said anything
about the withholdings being returned to the individual as a reduction in SS
taxes.


--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

As long as you consider SS a welfare system, then there's little point
in a
discussion.

For many folks, SS *is* a large chunk of retirement income, if not all
of it.
Perhaps that wasn't the intent, but it's a fact.


*******************

Social Security isn't a welfare program as much as it is an insurance
program.
Using my 4-year-old nephew as an example- if his father had not paid
into social securit for 35 years he wouldn't be eligible for benefits.
Like any other insurance, you pay your preminums and then if X, Y, or Z
happens you collect benefits.

If you get too old or sick for productive employment, social security
will provide you with a subsistence lifestyle. There are certain
medical standards to meet before you can claim you are "too sick" to
work, as well as age requirements to meet before you can claim you are
"too old".. Those who want to retire in luxury, or even relative
comfort, have always needed to make financial arrangements far beyond
the scope of social security.

Pardon me if I don't trust Bush's motives in this matter. Throughout
his presidency, he has sought to dismantle the social safety net in the
US. Step one, of course, is to make a lot of noise about "faith based"
social services and propose taking the money currently funding the
social safety net and giving it to churches. If he can accomplish that,
it's a short and easy little hop to "The government shouldn't be
funding churches!" Voila- with the elimination of all welfare and
social support systems he will have freed up a walloping 12 percent of
the national budget (that can instead be diverted to defense
contractors or turned into tax cuts for the top 2-3% of wage earners).

While Bush and his cronies make a lot of noise about taking the
responsibility for social services away from the government and giving
it to a group of (approved, naturally) churches they are failing to
recognize a short sighted aspect of their plan. The poor, the disabled,
the mentally ill are in less need of "welfare" that curches and
families may be able to better provide than they are social justice-
and that *is* the business of government in a democracy.