NationStates Jolt Archive

My generation, the generation without a name, is looking at the reality of not having Social Security available to us when we get old and crotchety. This is due to several reasons, a system designed for 1960's lifespan, a huge amount of fairly greedy baby-boomers, and other governmental agencies dipping into the social security fund so that they can have more cash (this has happened under every prez since Johnson). There are 3 options that we can use to save social security, and they can be used alone or in combinations: 1. Raise the retirement age 2. Raise taxes on Social Security 3. Cut benefits. There are objections from each group on at least one of the options for #1 baby boomers will claim to feel cheated and lied to. With #2 Our generation doesn't want to pay more taxes on our current meager part time job incomes. Under #3 seniors will claim to be wronged. No one likes any option. What is needed is a bunch of last term politicians to bite the bullet and make modest changes on all three.

Now, what do the presidential candidates say?

George Bush: No changes involving my suggestions, but he wants to add "privatized accounts". Whatever those are. If they work, congrats, but no one knows, they are just theory.

John Kerry" No changes at all. He just wants to let it run on until it runs dry in 2044, just in time for us to be nearing retirement age!

So, Bush gets a point for even considering some type of change, but if anyone were to offer a real change they'd get mega points.

I think that they should not raise the age for retirement or cut benifits. People that are in their 60s already have a hard time working as it is, like my grandmother is 63 and still working. But if they cut benifits, then all those taxes we paid for it, what good is it doing? I cannot think of anything to make it better...

Social Security should be scrapped and replaced, for the most part, with a privatized system. The government should force workers to save money in relatively safe investments, but not in government bonds, which would have to be paid back with tax money. Those people who lose everything in the stock market tend to be those who concentrated too much of their money in one stock (can anyone say Enron?) or one sector (can anyone say dot.com bubble burst?). This system is not without flaws as well. Some financial institutions who receive "free" money, in the sense that the government is making us save and invest the money, will take risks with our money that they otherwise might not. Still, Social Security is a welfare system in which older people who have worked all their lives feel like I now owe them a living. I do not mind my payroll taxes paying them what they paid into the system, but once that amount has been reached with interest, anything beyond that is nothing but welfare. ~ Michael.

I am not in the US so i dont have to worry about benfits and social security, but in the UK there is a huge corporate pension deficit in many companies such as BT. This means that the employees pensions are non-existent. :( aargh.

Bush's plan to privatize social security will do 3 very important things.

1) prevent politician's from dipping into the account(well the private part anyway)

2) potentially allow people to get a slightly higher rate of return than the pittance the general account gets now from govt IOU slips. You can limit it to prevent "riskier" investments.

3) Make a small start to govt getting out of this business and letting people take charge of their own lives.

I am not in the US so i dont have to worry about benfits and social security, but in the UK there is a huge corporate pension deficit in many companies such as BT. This means that the employees pensions are non-existent. :( aargh.The real societal problem behind Social Security and deficit pension plans is that families are not having enough children to keep the economy going. Pension systems need new investors, entrepreneurs, employers, employees, and consumers to keep going. Without children to replace older people in these areas, pensions will fail. ~ Michael.

The problem is population. Too many old people, not enough young ones, eventually there will simply be too many old codgers for the young ones to support... unless the old codgers impose some kind of slavery taxation a la communism when this happens.

The problem is population. Too many old people, not enough young ones, eventually there will simply be too many old codgers for the young ones to support... unless the old codgers impose some kind of slavery taxation a la communism when this happens.

Or...(speaking for the UK here)

The baby-boomers grow old. They have always been the largest, most radical, demographic. Politicians pander to the largest demographic. So policies reflect the needs of the aging baby-boomers. They want higher state pensions. Taxes go up, welfare and public servies are stripped back. People work to say the pensions of the old. Class-tensions repalced by age-tensions. After this, who knows.

I'm not advocating any sort of cut backs in the pensions, if anything they should go up. But the worst case scenerio (above) could well occur, given dwindling birth rates and increasing life expenctancy. I suppose the alternative is (to me) to become more socialist, take over the reins of industry, cut back on buraucracy, and have a truely representive system. Then again this will nevr happen - people in the UK want socialism, but for them alone. In essense they want something for nothing.

The problem is population. Too many old people, not enough young ones, eventually there will simply be too many old codgers for the young ones to support... unless the old codgers impose some kind of slavery taxation a la communism when this happens.

oddly enough, the soviet union had very low taxes on individuals.

My generation, the generation without a name, is looking at the reality of not having Social Security available to us when we get old and crotchety. This is due to several reasons, a system designed for 1960's lifespan, a huge amount of fairly greedy baby-boomers, and other governmental agencies dipping into the social security fund so that they can have more cash (this has happened under every prez since Johnson). There are 3 options that we can use to save social security, and they can be used alone or in combinations: 1. Raise the retirement age 2. Raise taxes on Social Security 3. Cut benefits. There are objections from each group on at least one of the options for #1 baby boomers will claim to feel cheated and lied to. With #2 Our generation doesn't want to pay more taxes on our current meager part time job incomes. Under #3 seniors will claim to be wronged. No one likes any option. What is needed is a bunch of last term politicians to bite the bullet and make modest changes on all three.

Now, what do the presidential candidates say?

George Bush: No changes involving my suggestions, but he wants to add "privatized accounts". Whatever those are. If they work, congrats, but no one knows, they are just theory.

John Kerry" No changes at all. He just wants to let it run on until it runs dry in 2044, just in time for us to be nearing retirement age!

So, Bush gets a point for even considering some type of change, but if anyone were to offer a real change they'd get mega points.
bush's change means the government wont be making sure you are socially secure, it means you have to do it yourself, if you, yourself, do not put money away from your paycheck each week or month, you wont have any money when you are older

its not a "fix", its just something the make the government less responsible

=3) Make a small start to govt getting out of this business and letting people take charge of their own lives.
*dies laughing* no, really, thats just rich. people can blow their entire life savings away all they want, its not the governments business if almost everyone in the US turns into a poor hobo, but its damn sure the governments business who you are screwing and how.

The problem is population. Too many old people, not enough young ones, eventually there will simply be too many old codgers for the young ones to support... unless the old codgers impose some kind of slavery taxation a la communism when this happens.
thats a strange point considering the last census i saw said there are more people of working age than there are jobs for them.

*dies laughing* no, really, thats just rich. people can blow their entire life savings away all they want, its not the governments business if almost everyone in the US turns into a poor hobo, but its damn sure the governments business who you are screwing and how.


Now see, thats the underlying differance between people like you and people like me.

You feel that everybody is stupid and cant survive unless the govt runs their lives for them.

I on the otherhand think people are smart enough to take care of themselves if they are given the chance.

In any case, privatizing social security would problably run more along the lines of an IRA plan, except that it is a forced contribution. In other words, instead of the govt taking ALL of your social security payments, they would allow you to keep a portion of it in an account that you cannot withdraw from until a certain age. You will also be allowed to invest this money as you please except that there will be limitations on what you can invest in. For instance, you might be allowed to buy AA(or higher including gilts) Corporate bonds but nothin of lesser investment grade. Or that maybe you can invest in large index funds but not allowed to invest in individual stocks.

thats a strange point considering the last census i saw said there are more people of working age than there are jobs for them.

My point related to the changing ratio of nonworking old people to working age. Your census reflects the state of the economy and overall population growth.