WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

Posted by G lib on 2005-02-17 18:30:00 +0000

I plugged in a bunch of drastically different salaries, and each one got me -26%. ________________ Like whoa...

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-02-17 21:34:57 +0000

Did you change your birthdate? I think that's the main variable here...

Posted by tgl on 2005-02-17 22:00:26 +0000

If there are no funding changes to Social Security within the next 35+ years, I would also lose roughly 26%. Social Security's Future - FAQ That's one reason Bush's plan is bogus. They're using the possible underfunding of Social Security as the impetus to change the program, when the change proposed won't actually address the underfunding issue. Secondly, I'm not sure that a reduction of scheduled benefits is the same as a cut. Underhanded, yes. I am expecting a certain monthly amount upon retirement based on the amount I have already and will continue to put into the system. Reducing the benefit makes the whole system less desirable.

Posted by rladew on 2005-02-17 22:20:31 +0000

Um sorry to be a dick, but what would you really expect Senator Chuck Schumer's (New York - D - ) website to do? Dont get me wrong - personal savings accounts in and of themselves do nothing to solve the problem of Social Security currently. The best article I have seen about this so far has been the Economist's "America's Pension Challenge" article on Feb 10 2005 issue, where (IMHO), I feel the Economist is pretty much blasting both sides of the argument, while ultimately encouraging people to rely more on themselves and less on big brother. some (unflattering) analysis of it here. The Last paragraph reads (I had to cut and paste it from the washington monthly site - Economist is another one of those pesky Premium sites): "Note that changes such as these — delaying the retirement age, raising the payroll cap, and so on — are the ones that will actually stop Social Security going bust. In that regard, Mr Bush's new retirement accounts are no help. Yet this misses the point. Giving people greater control of their savings is desirable in itself: that is why private accounts deserve their place in this reform. It is wrong that in the world's most advanced economy so many retirees should rely so heavily on the state. That idea is at the heart of Mr Bush's “ownership society” — and it is worth supporting." sayin. _______________________________

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-02-18 09:12:07 +0000

If an answer (the Bush phase out) admittedly doesn't solve the problem, why do it? This is some bizaar techno anti-commie stuff, or I'm just on the wrong page here. the Economist: "It is wrong that in the world's most advanced economy so many retirees should rely so heavily on the state." Think about that for a second. "It is wrong"...? I don't know the mean retiree's dependence, nor the defintition of "heavily" here (so many are helped by the state, or the ones that do get helped, get helped so much?). But wasn't this the goal of Social Security, either way? Or did it step to far into socialism? I believe the vast majority of America thought not, either way. Ooo, the irony that you had to quote it from the Monthly, instead of the "premium Economist." Hey Redcoat: your policy is shit, and if you want to say something about my country, don't make me pay for it. I hope you die of Skaids...

Posted by frame609 on 2005-02-18 09:34:00 +0000

This whole thing is going to be worse than the Skalacaust.

Posted by Honar the librarian on 2005-02-18 15:36:33 +0000

I was under the impression that a pretty strong argument could be made that there is no social security problem: [url=http://www.bepress.com/ev/vol2/iss1/art1/] Paul Krugman (2005) "Confusions about Social Security ", The Economists' Voice: Vol. 2: No. 1, Article 1[/url] Apparently I liked the nuanced Krugman more than the op-ed version. Thanks tgl.

Posted by tgl on 2005-02-18 15:39:42 +0000

Here's my issue: If it's a great idea to institute forced savings accounts, let's debate the merits of that proposal. It's intellectually dishonest to pound the drums of CRISIS to push a policy that doesn't have anything to do with the supposed problem. It's getting a bit familiar: Islamist terrorism! --> Iraqi invasion Rising drug costs! --> Federal price protections for US pharmaceuticals

Posted by tgl on 2005-02-18 15:43:16 +0000

Geez, rladew, you aren't reading a blog with a James Carville quote at the top, are you? Washington Monthly

Posted by rladew on 2005-02-19 02:49:08 +0000

yep... sadly it was the only "e-source" I could find referencing the article I read.... _______________________________

Posted by rladew on 2005-02-19 02:56:46 +0000

"Ooo, the irony that you had to quote it from the Monthly, instead of the "premium Economist." Hey Redcoat: your policy is shit, and if you want to say something about my country, don't make me pay for it. I hope you die of Skaids..." (No Sarcasm intended here, just an honest request for information) Could you explain this "redcoat" post to me like Im a 5 year old? The Economist, Salon, WSJ, ESPN, whatever totally has a right to their work and to keep premium areas on it if they wont, just cause it inconviences us folk who like free info doesn't mean its bad. there's always the town library (although having said all this, Im not honestly sure if you were even saying anything negative about the Economist or Premium sites in general....) Skaids? Who's policy is shit? What Policy? Social Security? _______________________________

Posted by rladew on 2005-02-19 03:04:46 +0000

One other thought here: If a Person / Boss/ Government / entity tells you that they will do something for you, I absolutely agree Dawn that the ethical (and only truly human thing to do) would be to follow through and be true to your word. But When was the last time that any of you trusted the government to follow through though? Dont you all think that teaching someone how to fish / hunt / gather food on their own initiatitive is better than just giving someone a sandwich? I dont think the United States gives a crap about my retirement, but I sure do! Im not going to leave something that important to the government.. If any of you guys, do, I wish you the best of luck, but Ill also hope you have a few backup plans as well... _______________________________

Posted by rladew on 2005-02-19 03:14:19 +0000

I don't necessarily think it should be forced (But then again how long have we all been forced to send such a huge amount of our paychecks to the Federal gov't for?) and I'm not saying that what Bush is proposing is right, but what is the oppositon offering as a counter solution? Are there other ideas on how we could strengthen what we have of Social security now for Seniors and also see to it that it exists in some form when we all get older so we can see some return in our weekly paycheck contributions? (There very well could be, but all I see and hear and read is one group of people suggesting some degree of private savings acctounts and another group strongly protesting it). Strong protest is necessary for positive changes in our country, but what are some other constructive plans here on how to solve the problem? _______________________________

Posted by tgl on 2005-02-20 02:43:17 +0000

I know of no government that does not levy a tax on it's citizens. Maybe Sudan... that's not the type of place I'd like to live. What's wrong with the solution Ronald Reagan signed into law twenty years ago? Bump up the retirement age and the cap on taxable income. Social Security is not an investment vehicle, it's an insurance program. If your goal is to get a better return on investment for your 7.65% (15.3% for self-employed) tax, then, yes, forced private accounts in securities is what you want. I want a government program that reduces the need of elders to be financially dependent on their descendents, and provides for disabled workers & survivors. SS has done a lot to help reduce the poverty rate for senior citizens. This is precisely the one government program that does exactly what it is supposed to do, and does it well. I trust the federal government to provide a safety net for those workers who have paid into the system their entire lives. I trust that safety net will be there for me. This is one of the important aspects of SS, it is a generational compact for good government. Trusting your entire retirement on Social Security is a red herring. SS was never intended, nor never expected, to provide 100% of an individual's retirement. It is one component of retirement planning. It can keep elderly people out of poverty, but it can't provide the same lifestyle for someone making 40K/year. http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/quickcalc/index.html Check it out, the estimated benefit, for someone retiring in 35 years after making 40K/year is $1,237/month. No one should realistically expect maintain their lifestyle (esp. if they were not saving as a worker and blowing it all away) _and_ keep up with likely medical costs. While I think it's inappropriate to argue for SS as an investment vehicle, when you think of SS as part of overall retirement planning, your getting a good deal. A portion of your investment portfolio should probably be in T-Bills. Voila! 7.65% of your paycheck, every week, gets tucked away. An additional bonus is that if you live longer than expected, you aren't out of luck, since SS is a defined-benefit program, not a defined-contribution program (like that IRA). I could go on, but I gots to get it on....

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-03-13 22:21:13 +0000

Bush's phase out looking DOA when it reaches the Senate. Post article [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25304-2005Mar10.html?sub=AR]here.[/url] Thank the Gods for those NE Senate Republicans, keeping it real for New England...

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-04-14 01:43:51 +0000

The irony is too much: [url=http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Estate-Tax.html?hp&ex=1113451200&en=1ba9492e1cbcc863&ei=5094&partner=homepage]Slash the budget with tax cuts to the wealthiest 0.3%[/url] so you can't pay back loans to Social Security, and then claim Social Security is bankrupt. (By way of Talkingpointsmemo.com) GOP policy ("SS is in crisis" proponents) is now actually a joke. Like, honestly funny.