Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Ed Feulner :: Townhall.com Columnist
Social Security: Finding Fixes for the Flood
by Ed Feulner
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


A torrent often begins with a trickle -- and so it is with entitlement spending. The flood of retirees that could overwhelm Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid has started slowly, but it’s underway.

Last October Kathleen Casey-Kirschling, a 61-year-old teacher born in 1946 (supposedly the first baby-boomer born), became the first baby-boomer to file for Social Security benefits.

Her filing generated media attention. She completed the process at the National Press Club, then told reporters she looked forward to her benefits. “I’m thrilled to think that after all these years that I’m getting paid back the money that I put in,” she said.

Plenty of people have retired since Casey-Kirschling’s 15 minutes in the spotlight. And plenty more will retire today, next week and next year. Some 10,000 Americans each day will become eligible for Social Security benefits over the next 20 years. The only question is: How our government will pay for this?

Let’s start with what we can’t afford to d raise taxes or run up debt to cover the shortfall.

Recently Rep. Paul Ryan, a Republican budget-hawk from Wisconsin, asked the Congressional Budget Office to determine how much Washington would need to increase marginal tax rates to pay for entitlement spending over the coming decades. The answer was sobering.

The CBO says marginal tax rates for every bracket -- along with corporate tax rates -- would have to more than double. Doing so, the CBO determined, “would significantly reduce economic activity and create serious problems with tax avoidance and tax evasion.” Simply put, the CBO warned, such rates “would probably not be economically feasible.”

If our government tries to borrow money to pay for entitlements, the CBO says, we’ll run up unsustainable debt by 2050. In short, we’d destroy our nation’s economy. Income would stop growing and, by the late 2040s, actually start to contract.

We can’t let that happen. To preserve Social Security and our economy, we need a three-pronged approach.

First, it’s time to start raising the retirement age.

Social Security started in 1935, and at that time slightly more than half of workers lived to reach the retirement age of 65. These days, though, life spans are much longer. Our government needs to encourage people to work longer or, at least, not tap their benefits at age 62. The best way to increase the retirement age would be to increase it over time (say two months per year until it reaches, say 68) and then index it for longevity after that.

Next, lawmakers should ensure that Social Security and other entitlements only go to those who need help. Bill Gates, for example, recently stepped down from Microsoft. In 10 years, this multi-billionaire can start collecting Social Security and Medicare. That’s absurd. Reducing payments to wealthy seniors would leave more available for lower income retirees.

Finally, our government needs to shore up Social Security with personal retirement accounts.

The concept is simple, and would work similarly to an IRA or 401(k). All workers would be able to invest a small percentage of their Social Security taxes in an account that they would own. The money would go into a few simple, low-cost investments that would grow over time, just as other retirement plans do. These accounts would not replace employer-sponsored retirement plans, but increase the ability of Social Security to pay benefits to them.

In 1940, Ida May Fuller received the first monthly retirement check sent by the Social Security Administration. The program served her well; she paid in a total of $24.75 and collected $22,888.92 from Social Security over 35 years.

That sort of math simply doesn’t add up anymore. Our country needs fundamental entitlement reform. And quickly -- before the growing tide of retirees overwhelms our budget.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Dr. Edwin Feulner is president of The Heritage Foundation, a Townhall.com Gold Partner, and co-author of Getting America Right: The True Conservative Values Our Nation Needs Today .
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Ed Feulner's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Social Security
Here ya go. Social Security has always been a general revenue tax. The Supreme Court, in two decisions has ruled that even though one has paid into the system he or she has no right to any money from the system. It worked for years because there were plenty of people paying in for every person who collected. It did operate as a Ponzi scheme. We now have less than three workers paying into the system for each person collecting.
The system rips of the working poor as they and their employer pay a total of 12.4% of the salary they earn.
The solution is to privatize the system and allow each contributor own their account. There are several ways to do this. The younger workers should be able to place all their money in a private account. Do some research and see what plans have been formulated.
Here is an example of wealth building, all in today's dollars: A young couple earning a total of $30,000 per year puts $3720.00 per year into their account. They never make a dime over 30 grand per year and their money earns only 5% per year. When they wake up at 65 years of age their nest egg is close to $597,000. That is their money, not a "promise" of a monthly benefit that Uncle Sam has to pay.
The drawback: That couple is no longer beholdin' to the Government. The people inside the beltway don't like that at all!

Social Security
Ok people: Now wea as Americans are stupid, correct, we believe every thing politicians say. If the Govt wanted to fix Social security and Medicare, they could. Without raising taxes or the retirement age. People wake up for the last 40 years(Fact) Politicians have raided Social Security, which was set up as a trust fund. If you raid a trust fund it depletes the amount of interest and principal. When FDR instituted Social Security means just what it is Security for our Social wealth. It was never meant to be raided or touched it was meant to protect us from financial security. Politicians may tell you something different, however if you look up the original bill, you will see it was never meant to be used for Wars, Foreign Aid, to pay for infrastructure or any thing but retirees. So it is a bunch of you know what So I say if we want change we need to change. Change is not voting the same old politicians in, change is voting the politicians out. But do we do that no we as voters are lazy.

"Death Tax"
As a conservative Republican, I am always concerned when we resort to the same deceptive manipulation of terminology as is used by the Democrats. In this case, the term "death tax" implies some sort of unfair double taxation of assets accumulated during the lifetime of the decedent. This is patently untrue. The vast majority of assets transferred after death (after the $1 million+ exclusion) are appreciated assets (stocks, real estate, etc.) which have NEVER been taxed and are now allowed to evade even our currently modest capital gains taxes. Compare this tax loophole, which is designed to preserve the estates of the wealthiest Americans, with our confiscatory income tax structure, which is designed to prevent the accumulation of wealth by those who have not inherited it.

Too few children? Yes, but why?
One of the reasons people had large families in the past was to ensure that when they aged there would be a family to support them. Now, with the government having taken over that role, that incentive is missing. Ironically, while in the past a large family made economic sense because children supported their own parents, one's children now end up supporting everyone else; a large family benefits other people and because of the huge payroll taxes one's children don't have excess money to support parents. From an individual's perspective, having no children and living off other peoples' children is economically appealing. Why incur the huge cost of having and raising children if the economic benefits of doing so accrue to strangers?

Kill the death tax to fund SS
Remedies for the Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid shortfalls cannot involve any policies that reduce GNP, because regardless of the tax rate, historical data since 1950 show that government will actually collect no more than about 19.5% of GDP.

In 2005, the top 1 percent of tax returns earned 21.2 percent of adjusted gross income and paid 39.4 percent of the nation's federal individual income taxes. If the number paying what the top 1% pay could be increased, the shortfalls would be remedied.

The permanent demise of the death tax will do just that:

First, abolition would tend to lessen the conversion of tax producing assets into permanently nontaxable assets via gifts to nontaxable entities such as charities, churches, endowments, foundations, and the like. Thus the store of taxable assets will grow rather than diminish.

Second, making money will be rewarded in old age rather than punished. So there will be a lot more very able rich people hard at work well into advanced old age investing and accumulating income and wealth for further investment, job creation, and GDP growth, and thus the tax take.

Third, family businesses will continue to expand year after year, undiminished and unpunished by the death tax, multiplying the tax take, just like corporations and tax-free entities who, somehow, now are favored over real people: families.

The growth in the number who pay maximum taxes, as well as those who pay more taxes, will grow exponentially, easily covering the shortfalls.

It's just amazing
that if I tried to set up a savings system for my investment clients exactly like the Social Security system in every way, I would go to prison.
Just amazing.

When I was age 30
I would have gladly opted out of Social Security, If given the opportunity and given up my rights to any and all future payments. As long as I could take the dollars and put them in an investment acccount.
Now that I am age 61, my first Social Security check will arrive in September 2008.
Thank you FDR.

Another suggestion
would be to allow Social Security recepients to be fully employed between age 62 and 65 - 70 and earning all they possibly could so that they would not be a total drag on the system.

jim from CA
Take a look at social credit on the following link. It sounds like the townsend plan concept.

http://www.michaeljournal.org/home.htm

Fools and their money
The right answer to the social security problem is to end it today along with medicare and the senior drug benefit. The 15.3% payroll tax would be much better deployed in a productive manner rather than being thrown down the same rat hole. Better to rely on the kindness of strangers rather than ignorant lying politicians.

Try this for size!!!

Just think a moment of the impact of Soc. Sec. Payments each month, on the US economy.

What happens to the money paid out? Well Surprise, surprise, the money is spent, over $40 billion a month, $500 Billion a year.

I haven’t seen this number lately, but I remember reading some report years ago, that said that after money changes hands 7 or 8 times, Governments at all levels have received the money back as taxes.

If you go to the grocery store and spend $50, that doesn’t go into the pocket of the store owner. It pays the salaries of the cashier, the stock boy, the truck driver who brought the produce to the store, the people who built the truck, and the farmer who grew the produce.

Then what happens? Well it is spent again, and again. The cashier goes to a clothing store, the farmer goes to an equipment store, and on and on, and the people in those stores spend their salary in the next store.

And at each place, in addition to income tax, there is sales tax, property tax, gasoline tax for the vehicles that delivered the goods, and on and on again.

So don’t just look at Soc. Sec checks as payments to people, and that’s the end of that. No, that is just the beginning of another long cycle.

Try to think that all out to the end, and see what fun it is.

Remember the Townsend Plan that was proposed back in the 1930s, before Soc. Sec. was working? Each retired citizen would received $200 (a lot of money in those days), and they would have to spend the whole amount each month, and that would churn in and out and back and forth, and keep the whole economy working, and the old people eating.

Is there a real for true economist reading this who could verify or destroy my little gem?


I need an answer


45caliber
Location: TX
Reply # 45
Date: Jul 8, 2008 - 5:03 PM EST

45caliber said, “ Get Congress off spending SS.”

======

And for the ten millionth time I ask,

What should they do with all that money they collect, that is not paid out this month?

What they do is exactly what you would do if you got had more income than expense, find a place to invest the money, most likely in a Gov’t bond.

Come on now, many of you have said that same thing, but none have answered my question.



mike from tuscon
Yes, they promise yet another "fix". As I said earlier, why should we believe them this time?

"Fixing" Social Security
The problem with Social Security is NOT that a large number of people are now ready to retire and an increased tax is required.

The problem is that the U.S. Congress robbed the Social Security program of all its funds to finance pork projects to help them get reelected. Now that the SS is empty, they are trying to insist it is the number of people retiring or that it is only being paid by the young. Both are lies. (See the comments made at the time it was created and you will see.)

Social Security was set up as a retirement program in which people paid into it so they could draw later. Unfortunately, they had far more paying into it than drawing from it (since originally those who didn't pay couldn't draw)and Congress got greedy. Now that it is spent, they want to cut off the people who paid into it. Since they didn't add to it themselves - and don't draw from it - their retirements aren't affected.

You want to "fix" Social Security? Easy. Get all the ones who didn't pay into it off. (That would annoy a lot of illegals but ...) Get Congress off spending SS. Get all their programs off it. Use it ONLY for those who pay into it. Make Congress repay what they stole from it which means they can't finance more pork projects until they do pay it back. Make Congressmen pay SS taxes and make them draw only the maximum based on their salaries instead of setting up special programs for them.

We'd have so much money in it again that Congress would again be greedy.

And again I say!!


Austin
Location: FL
Reply # 43
Date: Jul 8, 2008 - 4:45 PM EST

Subject: Responsibility
A poster said that we couldn't let somebody take out $10 today, they would need it down the road.

=========
Yes I said that.

Now as I have said a million times, the only thing worse than any government regulation or program of any kind, is the stupidity of people who made it needed.

I bet you can not name a Gov’t program that did not come after the fact that required it. I don’t agree with a million of them, but someone did, and that someone was voted into office by citizens.

Would you rather have the Gov’t force someone pay into Soc Sec now, or force you to pay them welfare when they retire.

I don’t like it, but isn’t that the way it is?



Responsibility
A poster said that we couldn't let somebody take out $10 today, they would need it down the road. This bothered me, so our government knows what to do with OUR money better than we do? People can't be held accountable for their own decisions? That can only be true because they know for a fact that the government will bail them out in the end. If it was up to them to save for their retirement or they would truly be on their own, they would save. Our government doesn't save the excess money it takes in for SS. It spends the money and then issues a bond in the SS fund. Only the bond is a paper IOU since the government issued it to itself. If you or I bought a bond that would mean we set aside the money, the government didn't do that. THIS IS THE REASON Democrats oppose privatized accounts. It would instantly take away the amount of money that they had to spend on other programs.

This is how reckless our current government is. They know that the number of workers per retired person is going to go down drastically. They know that sometime around 2018 more money will be owed to SS recipients than paid to SS by current payrolls. They know there is no money in the coffers that they will have to pull it from other funds. Yet they still try to add government programs not reduce them. What happens when the next generation refuses to give the current generation its SS money since it has already spent it and there is nothing in the government coffer besides IOU's? Why should the next generation have to be saddled with the current's debt?

The problems are these...
1. The FED, an independent private bank controls the money of our country. The Constitution was ignored.

2. Congress is over taxing and over spending.

Until these problems are addressed and fixed there will be no solutions to any of our financial problems. Inflation will continue to eat away at our purchasing power. Congress will tax more which will make more people poor. Then Congress will throw money at the problems but they will have to borrow that money from the FED which will charge us interest.

If Congress would take control of issueing our money and stop banks from creating money we could have a solid financial system.

Oh me Oh my

Ron
Location: PA

WOW, I moved to PA 77 years ago and went to school there, but it must have been a different school than Ron went to.

Of course the Soc Sec money has been spent after it was loaned to the US Gov't. But why do you call a Gov’t bond a worthless IOU?

You say, Sixteen percent (16%) of all tax revenue shall be placed in a separate account not accessible to congress,

What will happen to the money that is collected, but not paid out each and every month? Is that going to be the trillion $100 bills in Fort Knox, earning no interest?

You don’t understand what a tax-free municipal bond is do you?

But the one I want to see enforced is, taxes paid on “proceeds from all criminal actions.”



Vic
Amen brother!
It's the old donkey and the carrot trick. The poor animal works all day to reach that dangling carrot and never quite gets there. Same with would-be SS retiree's. Just keep raising the taxes, the retirement age and stealing the money.
Govt. to retiring citizens: "Please drop dead soon. We need that money to buy our re-election and for the world poor, read; African and Asian dictators. (who will be expected to kick back a good percentage to off shore accounts as per usual.) Also to give benefits to the millions of illegal aliens we intend to make dem. voters."
The writer of this column seems to believe that we workers will gladly see the wisdom of his brilliance and forgive the graft and corruption of our government; and if we do not then we must be stupid for expecting our poverty-level social security payments to arrive when promised. Does he really believe that the socialist scum presently in power really care about people who don't produce revenue for them?
When National health care arrives, it will introduce several new words/phrases to older Americans. 'Triage' and 'Die With Dignity'. National health care, this monstrous socialist construction, will be the perfect vehicle to ensure that 'poor and useless SS recipients' get gurney'd out the back door of the old folks camps almost as fast as they roll in the front.
It is hard to not be disgusted with people who suggest that when out government steals from us that we grin our 'Gee whiz' grins, re-plan and give the miscreants more to steal.
Mr Feulner, You come across as naive. (or perhaps you seek indulgence?)
Massive central government has never been the solution, it has always been the problem and it will always be the problem!

Jim
The Social Security money was taken by the government and spent. IT IS GONE!!! All that is left is worthless IOU's. All they can do now is take more money from taxpayers and pay it out elsewhere. It is now totally a Ponze scheme.

Define it, then fix it
It is troublesome when the Heritage Foundation advocates means-testing. It's also troublesome when the Heritage Foundation advocates the preservation of a welfare program...as long as the market has a role.

So what is SS? Is it a government-administered retirement program or is it a redistributive income-support program?

If it is the former, means-testing has no legitimate place; if it is the latter, the prescribed eligibility age is the only legitimate means test.

By either definition, market financing renders the government's role as exclusively coercive, so why not simply advocate dissolution of the program?

What is clear is that SS is a policy crisis, not an administrative crisis. As such, the Congress should focus its discussion -- sooner than later -- on the objectives, rather than diluting their arguments with pseudo-responsible blather about costs.

The problem with having a policy-making body base its deliberations on costs is that it becomes implicit that programs will expand whenever fiscal conditions allow. I want to hear a legislator say "Here is my position; it will hurt at times and it will ease at times, but this is where I stand".

the cure
Effective December 31, 2008, all existing federal taxes, fees, and charges are repealed, and are null and void.
Effective January 1, 2009, all federal tax revenue shall be collected using a single full-income tax levied on living persons. there shall be no exemptions or deductions. There shall be no spending in excess of tax revenue except to fund the national defense during time of declared war.
A three-fifth (3/5) majority vote by the Senate and the House of Representatives is required to increase tax rates.
Sixteen percent (16%) of all tax revenue shall be placed in a separate account not accessible to congress, to fund Social Security and Medicare.
The official definition of income is this: Income shall include, but not be limited to, wages, salary, tips, royalties, stock options, inheritances (not including primary family residences bequeathed to spouses; or family farms or small family businesses bequeathed to family members), all interest including that from municipal bonds, dividends, capital gains (not including increase in assessed value of family home), pension payments, welfare payments, food subsidies, clothing subsidies, housing subsidies, all benefits and perquisites of public office, profits received by owners of small businesses, and proceeds from all criminal actions.

Jim
How naive. You didn't get the reality. Which is why you, and so many other people like you, are truly the problem. Government doesn't have the money to "honor" those debts to SS. You can't tax your way out of this one. The government either reduces the payouts, or defaults on the loans. You, after all, as well as those still working, aren't remotely able to provide enough tax dollars to pay the debts as they exist. To take taxes to the level required would not leave enough income for those working to pay for housing and food, let alone anything else. But, you don't get it. And neither do the other 65%. How sad.

Like I said. We will move fully into a fiscal crisis before people like you finally grasp the magnitude of the reality of this entitlement crisis.

Sorry, but I'm taking all I can get...
I had my own sole-proprietor business for 25 years, and, some years, would actually make a few extra bucks I could stash into a private retirement account...but the feds restricted how much I could deposit into my accounts. So I maxed out what I could save, and paid a total of 55% taxes on the rest. I decided then that, when I turned retirement age, I will take every stinking penny I can...because, apparently, the feds knew then and know now how to manage my funds better than I do. So I say, tough. You should have thought of a solution when I had the cash for my own retirement. Now you have it all, and I'm going to get as much as possible before it crashes... Bring on the "free" money!!!

I know what we can do
All of the liberals in the country like Jack can give up their homes and possesions,. move into communes in their city, and turn over ALL of their salary to the government to support SS.

The government will provide care of the communes with healthy meals low in carbs (meat) and high in bran (oatmeal).

That way ya'll can experience the true communist meaning of life that you love so much.

Who needs a lock box?


Now what on earth do you think a lock box should be? Do you want to place a billion $100 bills in Fort Knox?

What would you do with the excess collection of Soc Sec taxes in the years up to now?

The excess Soc. Sec payments were “loaned” to the government, not “given” to the Government. All that money sits in US Govt. Bonds, and will have to be paid for, including interest, when they expire, just like all other US Bonds.

Of course that will take taxes to do that, but what is the alternative?

The other thing is, Bill Gates and most likely many people on this site, are rich enough to not collect Soc. Sec, and it is too bad that some of those very same people do not have enough love for this country and its people, so they do not apply for Soc. Sec payments in the first place. It is not forced on you, you must apply.

Go to http://socialsecurity.gov/qa.htm and read
“Frequently Asked Questions About Social Security's Future”

Did you ever think that someone who lives in a million dollar home that they could affort while they were working, finds that epense excessive after retirement. They could move to a smaller place, and not collect Soc. Sec.


Just be careful what you spend

Moonkeeper Location: NJ
Reply # 23
Date: Jul 8, 2008 - 10:03 AM EST

You quoted from my Response #2, then accused me of — “Apparently you think very lowly of the vast majority of people.”

Not at all, but isn’t that the fact? How many people who worked very hard for many years, did not save enough money to live well in retirement, even after Soc. Sec payment were included.

Many people never in their lives have taken care of their money in a responsible manner. Just look at the Credit Card bills, and interest. My credit card is dated 1967, and we paid interest in two different months, in the late 1960’s. The last interest, except for mortgages, was paid a couple of months on our 1965 Olds.

Over the years we met many people with less income than we had, who owned fancy cars, and many other things that they really could not afford.

Hey, I just thought of something. We were a middle class family who went out to dinner quite often, who had people over for dinner or a Bar-b-Que.

I was in computer sales, and hosted a 1,000 lunches and dinners, but WE NEVER SPENT ONE PENNY OF OUR MONEY FOR ALCOHOL.

The business meals were on the expense account, if I HAD to be in a bar on my own, I bought a coke that lasted me all evening, and I never bought a round of drinks on my wallet.

Wonder how many 10s of thousands of dollars that saved us.

All we missed was the opportunity to look like a stupid drunk.


MADE IN USA
When Bill Clinton smoozed the Chinese and began the exodus of manufacturing, he caused a ripple effect. Now, those manufacturing workers do not pay federal income taxes, do not contribute to social security, do not contribute to the cynergy of spending their paychecks in American stores. They do however, want automobiles, increase the demand for oil, help drive up the prices of oil and gas, and make a fortune in interest on the money we borrow from them, pollute more, and have civil rights problems. We have ended up being our own enemy. We borrow the money from them that we spend buying their cheap products while simultaneously devaluing our own currency! That is the sucking sound I hear. Our jobs and money going to China and THEY ARE NOT A STRATEGIC ALLY! This is a strategic disaster in the making. Thanks to our government promoting the exodus with their taxing and adding heavy restriction on our domestic industry. They are doing to us what we did to the USSR and apparently nobody seems to give much of a damn. Perhaps if we focused on manuracturing in the USA again, we would have a worker base to help with the SS problem. I get a stomach ache everytime I buy something made in China or Taiwan, but there aren't the choices anymore.

Ideology vs What Works
All you need to do to evaluate your plan, whatever it is, is to ask yourself what teh reaction would be if McCain or Obama proposed your solution.

This, if MCCain came out and said we need to dissolve Social Security, how would it effect his chances of being elected.

The best solution is a solution that will work. The only way to deal with this is to realize that A) benefits will have to be cut, B) retirement age must rise, C) SS must become means tested, D) limits on dollars charged FICA have to be lifted.

There is no other realistic possibility.

It's a Tax.
It's not enough to deal only with SS, we must also deal with Medicare, Medicaid, and the recent Drug Entitlement Act.

And this is being discussed in a time frame when Health Care Costs are growing over twice as fast as peoples income.

I'm one of those who saw Social Security for what it was - a tax.

The bottom line is that once Social Security was taken out of its lockbox, the government then transferred the excess money to the general fund. Under Reagan, we doubled the payroll and SS tax. Now remember, it's called a tax. We then turned around and again, simply transferred that money to the general fund. This was nothing more than a back-door method or raising taxes while claiming otherwise.

We're on a collision course. Neither Reagan nor Bush could change SS because 63% - 65% of the people made it known that they were opposed. And, they still are, which is why neither McCain nor Obama want to remotely discuss this, let alone Medicare, Medicaid and the Drug entitlement act during this election.

This man is dreaming. He's making the case that a naive public, after being told for years that they had paid into these entitlements and would receive them, should now be willing to give up much of these benefits.

I will guarantee everyone that nothing will be done until we've reached the point of insolvency. Only then will people finally understand that the money isn't there - it has never been there, and it will never be there.

Prinicipled Solutions
I am thankful that I am not the only person who thinks the system should be eliminated. We need politicians and pundits who are willing to offer principled solutions based on the Constitution rather than compromised "solutions" such as this proposal.


If you think that's not fair...
consider this:

How much did the first generation of SS recipients pay into the system?

Like every ponzi scheme, the correct answer is ZERO!

How much will the last generation receive from the system?

Again...ZERO.

Someone's going to be left holding the short straw. That's just the nature of illegal schemes like the one invented by Mr. Ponzi.

I'd be thrilled to write off all my "contributions" to date in order to opt out of the system from this day forth and forever more. Of course, I'll be claiming all previous contributions as an investment loss on my tax return.

KILL SOCIAL SECURITY FIRST!
The problem is with people who think it's a function of the federal government to interact on any level with private citizens.

"To preserve Social Security and our economy, we need a three-pronged approach."

This statement proves there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans. They both believe that big government is a good thing that can go a long way towards "helping those in need."

Well, they've bankrupted our country. Our children will be in hock for generations to pay for the financial mismanagement of our fathers.

Social Security cannot be fixed, it cannot be "adjusted," "modified," or reformed. If we actually want to save our economic future and the future of our children...Social Security must be killed, dismantled and completely abandoned.

Of course, the gimme generation votes, so that will never happen.

I expect my (now 4-year old) son to be working Jan-Aug to pay for the retirement of someone he's never met who "paid into the system and deserves their money."

The original Social Security concept . .
was to force a savings rate that would protect subscribers from the potential ravages of insufficient pensions or insufficient retirement savings. Social Security (SS) was to be a supplement - controlled by the government through the employer, for the subscriber, because the subscriber could not be trusted to do it themselves (sound familiar?)

The baby boomers are the first generation to subscribe to SS for their entire working lives. They will be able to test the truth of the FDR-Democrat promise - that government controlled retirement savings, a socialist principle, is good for Americans.

Other forms of socialism is still being sold to this nation as a truth that you can trust.

When the boomers suffer social security's ultimate failure, will the media tell he truth about Social Security or will they simple fix the blame on some person they don't like?

THE TRUTH IS THAT GOVERNMENT SHOULD ENCOURAGE RETIREMENT SAVINGS, NOT CONTROL IT.

How much would a "401K type account" with half the level of SSN contribution, over the same time frame, be worth? Better yet, what if the SSN account got "treasury interest rates", what would be the value today of that nest egg. It's not there!

Who, when, why and where was it spent? (Hint: Congress spends the money not the president!)

THERE'S THE STORY!


What happened to freedom?
In a free society, the individual has the right to keep what he or she has earned. All of this discussion of saving SS never involves discussing how a person would retain liberty in such a system. The reason? It can't! As long as SS exists, it will in some form or another involve government telling its peasants what they can and cannot do with their own property. In a free society, I can choose to not participate. No amount of semantics or socialist/fascist leaning reasoning will change that basic truth.

Jim
"Someone said he wants to opt out of Soc Sec. If he could, so could the person who just wanted an extra $10 to spend today. Then when you reach retirement age, you would have to step over that $10 person, as he was laying in the street."

Apparently you think very lowly of the vast majority of people.

The best part of this article was...
'Our country needs fundamental entitlement reform. And quickly -- before the growing tide of retirees overwhelms our budget.'

Mr. Feulner's three steps toward fixing SS are logical given they come from a long term insider. But they are basically band aids on a system that was ill conceived at best.

The first thing the government should do to fix SS is to get rid of the FED and start issuing our currency as provided for by the Constitution. This would eliminate the debt financing concept which feeds profit to the FED. The currency of our country should not begin its life as a debt. It should be an asset.

Secondly, the SS payments should be new money created by our Congress and paid to the people on SS. This new money would not be a part of the debt incurred by Congress as it over spends our tax dollars. This asset would stimulate our economy rather than depress it because it is not a debt.

Thirdly we should replace SS with something called social credit for everyone without means testing or age discrimination. The amount given to each legal citizen of the United States would be enough to cover basic necessities of food and shelter.

The concept of social credit may be foreign to most people. For information about this concept follow the attached link. http://www.michaeljournal.org/home.htm

part 2 crooks decide
ive heard consrvatives use exactly the same rationale when discusinf=g raising the income tax. its a nonsense arguement because the truer it is the worse it becomes for our country the higher we should raise taxes to hire the people necessary to catch the crooks

Unfunded Liability
According to the Republican house leader, unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare are 54 TRILLION dollars.

Our national debt is 9.8 TRILLION dollars.

The S.S. system is insolvent thanks to the "leadership" in Washington from both parties. A lot of lying to the American people also helped create this mess.

The legislative branch calls the worthless bonds held by the Treasury a "trust fund". The "trust fund" bonds are issued by one part of the treasury to another part whenever new social security taxes are put into the general fun and spent to buy votes.

To try to "fix" this system for the forth time is the same as to beat a dead horse.

crooks decide social policy
this author is really suggeating that because he believes that raising taxes would cayse more people to cheat on their taxes we should not raise taxes. what keind of morality is this. stop puting money in banks immediately because the more you put in the more likely that the banks will be robbed because there is more money. oes he really believe that this is enough to justify what he wants done. how about doing something magic like hiring more people to catch those who are cheating
and [puttin them away. . sound radical. its what you have continually done when drug use nd violence o up. more police , stiffer sentences, more prisons and damn the cost. why do you beg off when white coller crime is concerned.

Hold your horses
"enouraging middle class people to have kids"
Hm. Just them?
Vic is right. We boomers have paid our own way and now the drunken spenders on government want to take it away. Go to hades, all of 'em.
I keep hearing the same reasoning/logic/illogic in two very different debates.
Bear with me just a sec.
In oil the dems say it's no use trying to drill our way out, there isn't enough to be gotten.
In Social Security the government types are saying that trimming the fat and waste and goofy spending and so on and so forth isn't nearly enough to pay for the upcoming drain on the Social Security obligations.
Well, dag nabbit can you at least give it the old college try first? In both debates all I am hearing is an excuse to do nothing that would upset certain somebodies apple cart. Plainly, I don't give a hoot about your apple cart. I am all for kicking the stinking thing over.
Drill for oil. Cut everything government does. Those things that don't meet strict Constitutional muster should go away entirely. Bye, bye Dept. of.... dang near all of them.
Until then you all who want to pare down the benefits I paid for can take a flying leap.
As for the future generations. Let them get off the system. It is a rotten thing. But for us boomers, we're trapped and we knew we would be the minute we started working. It is too late for us now. Give the young ones a new compact but pay me mine. I'll be dead before you know it anyway.

Where's the bucks?
Since the boomers are going to bust the system what happened to all the money we paid in?
If our wonderful elected officials had left SS as it was initally set up the money would be there. Originally it was in a separate fund then congress moved it to the general fund so they could spend it other places, which they did freely. To the tune of over 5 TRILLION dollars.
If something is to be cut why cut SS, which all of us would receive?
How about cutting welfare? Which is for a few who need it and the many who are milking the system?
How about cutting congress salarys and benefits?
Put them in SS with the rest of us!
How about cutting funds to the UN? They bleed us to the tune of billions annually.
How about cutting aid to all the countries, like Mexico, who use it to make the rich richer.
SS ain't killing us, it is our spendthrift elected officials and the sheep who keep electing them over and over.

Responsible Subsidize the Irresponsible
"Next, lawmakers should ensure that Social Security and other entitlements only go to those who need help. Bill Gates, for example, recently stepped down from Microsoft. In 10 years, this multi-billionaire can start collecting Social Security and Medicare. That’s absurd. Reducing payments to wealthy seniors would leave more available for lower income retirees."


No, no, no. What you pay in should determine what you get out. Otherwise, Social Security is nothing but income redistribution.

approach part 2

4.All workers over age 45 will remain in the current system but will be age indexed for participation in the new system. For every year they are under age 65 they will be allowed to place 5% of their FICA taxes in an account as the under 45 year olds will do. ie a 55 year old person will have half of his/her FICA taxes going into the new account and half going into the current system.
At retirement they will be able to draw from both accounts with any monies in the new system governed by it's rules and therefore owned by them.

5. Current retirees will be unaffected and will be governed by the rules now in place thereby losing nothing.

6. This system will over a 20 year time frame become a phase out of Social Security as presently constituted as the majority of present retirees will have died. It will bolster the economy by freeing up capital for investment and create jobs thereby increasing revenue flow to the gov't and will solve the problem that we face with the current system which will be in the red by 2015. This system should preclude raising taxes or the retirement age, both of which will have to be done in the near future and are an untenable solution as we are bringing new people into a system that is no longer viable.

All it takes is a politician with stones to explain it to the people and make the case. We know the present system will bankrupt us, yet dems like reid refuse to do anything about it and brag that they killed Pres Bush's attempt to privatize just a small part, which was a Band-aid.

If the FERS plan is good enough for congress, it's good enough for us.

Try this approach Pt1
Proposal to re-structure Social Security

1. Shift all workers under age 45 to a new system based on the current Federal Employees Retirement System and credit them with all the monies they have currently paid into the present system. The infrastructure is already in place which reduces the cost of the changeover.

2. All FICA taxes they pay from that day forward is paid into their accounts and they are free to designate which of the three funds those monies will be invested in depending on their risk tolerance as federal employees currently do and the accounts would be theirs and governed by the same rules as the FERS.

3. All FICA taxes paid in by employers goes to the current system for a minimum of 20 years to maintain funding. A re-evaluation at the 20 year period will determine when those taxes will begin to be paid to the participants but in no manner will they be retained by government once the changeover is complete.


Yes Mr. Slobberdog
just what we need another tax increase. Like I said, they can all ESAD.

How to permanently fix Social Security
http://www.FairTax.org


hmmmm
Social Security is one big ponzi scheme and going to crash and burn. What to do about it? Is going to be one big head ache for the next President, and lots of luck as He is going to need it.

Sorry but i don,t agree with Mr.Feulner here, since Bill Gates put the money in then he should be able to get it out. AS to make Bill Gates put the money in and not take out, does Mr.Fuelner believe in Socialism? just like some many in Congress. Socialism is never going to work. in the long run it is going to crash and burn, just as now that SS, Medicare, and Medicaid are going to crash and burn

Independent Thinker
Social Security was never meant to be a Welfare Program -- if you are able to read, you can check this out. It was designed as an INCOME SUPPLEMENT. That is, it is supposed to ADD to what you save for yourself.

The raising of retirement age has already begun; mine is 66, not 65. My sister got 67.

And by the way, we are not to blame for the fact that the Apparatchiks preferred to pretend that this day would never come. They had to build more and bigger everything to accommodate our generation, and the fact that they somehow believed we would all die before we got old is hard for anybody with a brain to believe.

The Unions were the canary in the coal mine. The main reason that the Big Three are hurtling toward bankruptcy is that they have more retirees to support than people who are working at building cars.

What liberals do, you know, is once they have the keys to the candy store, they eat all the candy, smash up the store, then stand in the ruins and cry that somebody has to rebuild the store and restock the candy.

Every suggestion I have heard so far is nothing else but that.

Solutions
All either of these two candidates have to do to solve the SS mess is look directly at the American masses and say that the benefits will be cut, the age of retirement increased, the taxes raised, and the system privatized.

That's all.

My money's on McCain to say something stupid like this first. Why not? Why shouldn't he go all the way and pizs off all the old white folks who are probably among the last of the groups who he hasn't betrayed yet.

Hey, did McCain get back from Mexico and Central and South America yet where he praised immigration and the global economy. . . after his swing through the Midwest where he spoke to union groups praising globalization and outsourcing? Who's the political genuises that set up that schedule? Jesus H. Christ, I could have given him better advice than that.

Are we sure he's not just a fall guy planted by the DNC?

Independent Thinker
The system was actually intended to be a tax increase and nothing more. The initial age for eligcability was 10 years after the average death age at the time.

The problem has been that they called this a retirement program and they kept raising the tax rate year after year to "get it over the hump".

In other words they have been liars for decades. Why should we believe them now after all these years of lying? When they say they will raise taxes to get us by the hump one more time what is different about this time than all of the other times?

I say BS again and again
I have gone through 3 major tax increases that were to "fix" the baby boomer bubble so that the system could get by that bubble. What happened to the "fixes". First the Commiecrats under LBJ took SS out of that mythical lockbox and began spending it. That made it easy for the next phase.

The next phase was a new program for old age "health insurance" which eventually became any age health insurance.

Under the commiecrats and Peanut Brain Cahtah they expanded the people eligible to get SS. Now we have foreigners who never paid anything collecting, children collecting, and even drug addicts and alcoholics collecting before being eligible, and in most cases without having paid anything into the system.

Now we have Bush and his drug benefit.

All of these things that INCREASED spending of the money before the baby boomers even hit.

Well I paid in all those years and before I see a reduction in benefits for ME I want to see every lying AH politician that has been in congress for the past 50 years pay half of their incomes and savings into the fund to recapitalize it. In addition, LBJ and Roosevelt's descendents should give up all money inherited from them. That is what the Constitution says is "corruption of blood". We just will not call it treason this time and it will be ok.

We had a chance to start fixing this sorry program with privatization but the Commiecrats and the RINOs screamed. Well now they can all ESAD for all I care.

Though I'm far from an Obama fan...
he may have one point, sensible though not very honorable.
Take the cap off FICA taxable income and finally turn the system into what is was meant to be: a glorified welfare program for retirees.

Our problem is two fold
(1) Demographics (fewer productive people having children) and (2) people living longer.

Raising the age would be fundamentally unfair. Many 65 year olds simply cannot easily work everyday. While we have cured all sorts of conditions to stop people from dying over the past 60 years we have not been able to produce a fountain of youth (unless you count HGH).

So, we need to do a better job enouraging middle class people to have kids (big tax incentives). Also, from a practical matter, people in my age group about 40 know that we will not get exactly what our projective income is. That is, if they project my income at about 1600 per month, I figure that it will be closer to about 1200 per month. This will occur with slower inreases of COLAs. So, the problem will pretty easily be fixex. Those who want to gut it will cause total waste and fraud and also take away the survivor's benefit for minor children (part of the reason SS does not earn a great rate -- it is INSURANCE not an investment.

discouraging savings isn't a good idea
While People like bill gates could do without social security you need to be very clear when you define wealthy. If saving up 1 million is going to get you exempted out of social security, then you are in fact discouraging savings which will place a greater burden on the system, not lessen it.

Alternatively, you will line the pockets of accountants and attorneys who will help people circumvent these wealth requirements, the way they do with medicaid and nursing home care now.

Social Security is in trouble....
and one problem that I can see on the horizon is the advent of a large number of illegal aliens that our leaders in government (mostly on the left) want to provide with these benefits. They want to do this even though they have paid nothing into to system. I was speaking with an illegal one day and he told me that when they are able to get a bonafide social security card they always up their age by 10 years. This is so they can collect their money 10 years earlier.

So far, a good investment for me


Some people have commented that Soc Sec is not retirement money. Well, the $200,000 I have received so far is excellent. I receive about half of the maximum because I was on a non-profit payroll for a while, and then was able to retire at age 50, and pay no more into Soc Sec. It would take $360,000 in the bank to earn interest equal to that Soc Sec payment I receive.

Someone said he wants to opt out of Soc Sec. If he could, so could the person who just wanted an extra $10 to spend today. Then when you reach retirement age, you would have to step over that $10 person, as he was laying in the street.


Another idea
Why not accelerate the end of the program. You could do what Congress has already done - usually during an election year - increase benefits at a far higher rate than is mathematically feasible.

This program has become a chain around us for too long. When first implemented - it was totally sustainable (but still unwise). You paid on 3% - up to the first $3k of your income. Americans were promised that was all we would ever pay.

I would like to see an opt out measure. Perhaps a deal could be made that I could opt out, be owed only on what I have "paid in" provided I put $5k into each of my kid's retirement accounts (run it through investment tables to figure out what they would need at what age). They should never be saddled into this stupid system.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.