Double the benefit. The fund is still solvent for 12 or 13 years. Double the cap on contributions, from $106,400 to $213,000.

Problem solved.

Next?!

(this is how you run America. Socialism. Get Some. Bitches.)

Everyone in this country should have a stipend for housing, food, medicine and education which is at a pittance compared to the opulence of the 1% living off our taxes and the sweetheart welfare deal they have by the way The System is constructed which happens to include their hand perpetually in the till up at the Federal Reserve from whence all things $$$ flow.

Great minds think alike. These points can’t be made often enough. Our Social Security is pitiful compared to European benefits. Social Security was only intended to be one leg of a three-legged stool: the other two legs being personal savings (primarily home equity as the mortgage was paid down) and pensions. The first job I had out of college was the only place I worked that offered a pension, and even then, you had to work 7 years before you were fully vested in a very small pension. As for profit sharing, that has essentially disappeared, as well, and 401Ks are a bad joke.

There isn’t much the government can do about private pensions (except to encourage and support unions and manufacturing jobs), but it could have a major impact on the housing market and SS, if it chose. The time to do something is now, since far too many baby boomers, like me, are really caught just at the moment we most need help. A doubling of SS benefits wouldn’t be nearly what I’d receive if I were in Europe, but it would be enough to allow me to stay in my home, and not have to try to sell in an abyssmal market.

I’ve taken to reading the obituaries in my very local small blue collar town paper. Almost every man who was mentioned graduated high school, joined the military, got a blue collar job when they left the military(most went to a war), worked there until retirement, which was at 62. No one worked past 62 years of age.

Anyone who says we “don’t have the money” should be direct to look at our military budget, which is roughly five times larger then the next largest country’s.

The military budget is really much larger than that.

If you factor in:
1. interest on the military debt
2. nuclear programs hidden in the Dept of Energy
3. rent of foreign bases paid for through foreign aid
4. foreign aid earmarked for purchase of US arms
5. veterans’ affairs
6. clandestine activities hidden in other departments
etc.

The US military budget is greater than the rest of the world’s military spending combined.

Geez, Kris, you were a Commie-Sochulest yesterday, and here you are, still a Sochulist-Commie again today! zomg!

Commie. Bitchez. Git sum!

I think the treasury should give the SS administration a non tradeable bond for, say 50 trillion in perpetuity with say 5% interest. That ought to fund SS forever, or nearly so. When it runs out we can issue another bond.

Now we should talk about increasing the benefits.

I reckon you think I am kidding?

I thought Social Security was a public safety net, always a minimalist investment and outcome, nearly a non-profit enterprise. When you start trying to re-define it as leisure comfort forever, you’re playing into the privatizer’s ‘for profit’ arguments.

Take the cap away would be better and yes Double SS and they might be jobs for the young because people who are staying at work because their 401 tanked. Hell while at it lower the age to 60 to collect in Full.

Sorry war and death is more important then Main Street.

Good luck with that.

I have clients who are retirees in the State Teachers Retirement System.
Many receive over $4,000/mo. in retirement with cost of living increases. I point out to them all the time how lucky they are to not be in the Social Security system like the rest of us schmucks.

And don’t get me started on the military. We could shave $200,000,000,000 (it’s fun to write it out sometimes) off of their budget easy by making the rest of the world pay its own defense costs.

I agree with your comment! A number of experts, including Nancy Altman & Eric Kingson at the Nieman Foundation at Harvard, suggest that if we raise the SS tax cap on all of the wages of workers who make more than $110,000 a year this would guarantee full payment of SS benefits for the next 75 years.

IMO, I believe if we did that, and considering how modest the benefits really are, we could double the benefits.

As Tom Tomorrow said, “End the Wars. Tax the rich. This isn’t rocket science.”

Pretty much. The rise of all of the secret/spy/ops programs has been duly noted.

Although that does provide employment for citizens, at what cost? Duly noted, also, that when conservatives bitch ‘n moan about the increasing size of the govt, they rarely, if ever, complain about the Defense & related budgets… but boyohboy let’s castigate the dirty teachers, PD, fire dept, etc.

Nuts.

Amazing, isn’t it?

And just think: the cap is at around $110k. It’s an incredibly regressive tax that – per usual – more directly affects & negatively impacts the working and lower middle classes. Those firmly in the middle to upper middle class? Not so much.

Again: Nuts.

Nuts indeed.

Problem not solved.

Unless you have a number for how much the $216,000 figure would bring in.

Okay.

Any shortfall in the program is automatically made up with indexed increases to tax rates of the 1%.

Problem solved.

I have clients who are retirees in the State Teachers Retirement System.
Many receive over $4,000/mo. in retirement with cost of living increases. I point out to them all the time how lucky they are to not be in the Social Security system like the rest of us schmucks.

Hmm. Seems those teachers were able to opt out of SS for a better system. Sounds like a good deal to me.

I don’t have a problem changing the funding of SS to make it a welfare plan by taking a disproportinate share from the rich. But some people don’t like that idea.

This appears to be the right opportunity to begin weening the country off of this 1930s era program. People have far more control and options in regards to their retirement today. Once people begin to take responsibility for their own retirement the sooner we see an end to unnecessary risk taking and a cut back in consumption in favor of savings and investment.

Absolutely agree. Make the system voluntary.

No, Alan, I doubt that Kris is suggesting we make SS a “welfare plan.”

Let’s keep it real. How does raising the cap on the FICA tax make SS a “welfare plan”? Your statement about taking a “disproportionate share” from the rich doesn’t cut it. In actuality, as I stated previously, the current cap is incredibly regressive, and takes a disproportionate share for the middle and working classes.

“Anyone who says we “don’t have the money” should be direct to look at our military budget, which is roughly five times larger then the next largest country’s.”

Of course, that money is budgeted for the military from the general fund, not from payroll tax receipts from the Trust Fund.

Perhaps.

But most of those types of “good deals” have been done away with these days. They’re not much of an option, and most conservatives bitch and whine about public servant or union worker pensions now.

So: that doesn’t “solve” anything, although it might be “nice” for those who presently enjoy a defined benefit plan, like the one mentioned.

Here in CA, though, most public servants make far far less than $4000 per month (which, after all, is only $48,000 per year. not exactly a princely sum) via their defined benefit plans.

Because the middle and working class gets most if not all of the benefits.

OIG #22

Turns out SS was supposed to be a social safety net. Everyone pays in a little, (rich and poor alike) and everyone gets out a little, (rich and poor alike). The poor tend to take out a little bit more because of the bend points, but that’s ok.

It’s not regressive, because you get back (on average) about what you pay in, (rich and poor alike).

If you eliminate the cap on the rich, they’ll just get more back in their retirement. Bill Gates will get $1M monthly SS checks. There’s a formula. In that case, you haven’t solved anything.

Once people begin to take responsibility for their own retirement the sooner we see an end to unnecessary risk taking and a cut back in consumption in favor of savings and investment.

Nicely self-righteous sermon.

I have taken personal responsibility for my own retirement, and I did all the stuff we’re told to do. I don’t have *any* debt other than a mortgage, which is at a very low interest rate. I have quite a lot of personal savings & investments, etc, which I *studied a lot* to figure out how best (as best as I could figure out) to spread my investments, etc.

Yet when the Banks & Wall Streets gambled away my money, and the crash happened in 2008? Now somehow *I’m* irresponsible, and *I* should not have to benefit from what has been, after all, a retirement insurance fund called Soc Sec… which actually acts much like some other retirement insurance funds that I invest in privately.

What a load of bull shit.

I’m sick and frickin’ tired of being condescended to by smug posts like this one, which really don’t make any sense.

Don’t like Soc Sec? Then here’s a clue: don’t bother to collect it when your time comes due. Leave your portion for someone else.

Not true.

Completely inaccurate. Try again. Not buying what you’re selling. A lie.

takes a disproportionate share for the middle and working classes

That may have been a word slip, but you’re right, it does take a disproportionate share FOR the middle and working class.

If you want to take even more FROM the rich and give it to the poor, then it’s welfare. Which I don’t have a problem with.

On this one I’ll agree with you.

The middle and working class may possibly get most of the benefitsmost simply because they’re such a big population (70%) of all retirees, but not all. Rich people are getting their $2000 monthly SS checks, just like the poor (who probably only get $1500 because of lower 35 year average income).

You certainly can benefit from what you put into SS over the course of your career. However, most younger workers would benefit far more from having private retirement accounts rather than paying into Social security. Providing them with the ability to opt out is completely reasonable and most likely a better financial decision.

Here’s where we differ.

You’re looking at numbers.

I’m looking at morality and principle. Someone who works their entire life should not have to become a WalMart greeter at 67 to supplement their income.

Our retirees deserve their dignity. It’s the right thing to do, taking care of them.

If it costs folks who can afford to pay a little more a little more? So what? We’re preserving the dignity of folks who have, by and large, earned our respect and assistance.

You’re also right about the SS alternates. I think several south Texas communities opted out early on, and are much better for it. I believe they closed that loop hole in the 80′s.

If they don’t want to be a Walmart greeter at 67 they can forgo that new TV or new automobile for a few years and put some of that income into a savings/investment account.

We don’t owe them that dignity in retirement if they care too little to work for it over the course of their careers. But really what is so undignified about working at an older age anyway?

God knows that’s what we need to help get out of this depression – LESS consumption. Yuppers.

Pardon me for being rude, but that is utter baloney.

This is presumptive and fallacious.

I’ll not engage with a tool troll who established their account half an hour ago for the sake of shooting down a well thought out post.

Go back to your paymasters. Tell them you failed.

Since the federal gov’t is obligated by law to make up the difference in any shortfall SS experiences in benefit payout, the question remains as to how can we continue to fund the military at the current rate of expenditure? If SS is a dire fiscal threat it would be reasonable to assume that we cannot continue to fund the military at the current rate, say $699 billion per year. This is why we need to let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire and do so ASAP.

Checkout what Robert Greenstein says:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3753

We don’t differ all that much in numbers, just in language.

You call taking from the rich and giving to the poor – morality and principle and preserving the dignity of folks who earned our respect and assistance – and I call it Welfare.

As I said several times, I don’t have a problem with money transfers, but some people do. My grandma would have sooner died than take welfare, but she took SS because grandpa paid in all those years and it was a survivers benefit.

This is so moronic as to lead me to one conclusion – you are a paid troll. Go away.

Check the account history :)

Troll.

If you want to attack me for being a new user ok? I’m not sure how that makes my argument any less credible.

What is your objection to allowing people to opt out of social security? If the program is the overwhelming success that you and some claim it is no one would choose to do so right? Where is the harm in allowing people the decision making power to control their own retirement?

What is your objection to allowing people to opt out of social security? If the program is the overwhelming success that you and some claim it is no one would choose to do so right? Where is the harm in allowing people the decision making power to control their own retirement?

Ugh. Some days the bleating of deliberately backwards free-marketeers is more than I can stomach.

I’m interested in this statement:

Since the federal gov’t is obligated by law to make up the difference in any shortfall SS experiences in benefit payout

Do you have a link? I know the Obama payroll tax holiday had a make-up provision for funding, but not on shortfall of benefits.

The U.S. spends more money on the military than all the rest of the nations combined and yet that’s not enough for conservatives/Republicans and no one in the Democratic Party dares challenge this absurdity.

As if Social Darwinism has any legitimacy.

Well aren’t you the asshole?

How so?

At some point people have to decide what is more important to them and should not expect the rest of the country to bail them out for a lifetime of poor decisions. Its very straightforward and fair. End SS and other social welfare programs and allow the cream to rise to the top.

“Tis easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter heaven.”

If we take from the rich and give to the poor, it makes it easier for these rich bastards to get into heaven, ergo, we’re doing THEM a favor.

I think “founding father” needs a dose of reality about “individualism”.

The Self-Made Myth: Debunking Conservatives’ Favorite — And Most Dangerous — Fiction

I take it back. You’re a fucking asshole. Did you pass along your “philosophy” to the banks when their hands where outstretched.

Great an article on the importance of public schools, paved roads and indoor plumbing, no argument there……but what does that have to do with allowing people to opt out of social security?

At some point people have to decide what is more important to them and should not expect the rest of the country to bail them out for a lifetime of poor decisions.

At one point or another — and maybe even as you read this — every large corporation and bank has been bailed out, or is being bailed out, by taxpayers. Educate yourself.

So what is your issue with making the program voluntary?

My wording of my comment may be somewhat awkward. I was thinking of the promises made, which are ensconced in law. Obviously if the feds fail to keep the promise to keep the benefit payout at its current rate we have a problem if SS begins to implode in 2033. This is why the 99% say let the tax cuts expire and the 1% say cut SS, Medicare, and other benefits.

Can we start with cutting off corporate welfare for banksters and big agribusiness? Let’s cut off the *real* recipients of government welfare.

What does that have to do with a voluntary social security program? Please, lets stay on topic.

Yes absolutely.

Ayn, is that you? I thought you had gone to a better place along with Atlas?

Your “world view” gives you the rationale for being a misanthrope. You’ll probably have to look it up. Satan, the Devil, Beelzebub, or whatever one might name evil would be so happy to know they have a representative walking among the civilized.

trusting myself more than taking from my neighbor or the U.S. government to fund my retirement? What is your issue with that?

Maybe bc we, the people, thought it was a good idea ?

Our society isn’t an absolute monarchy is why your preference is a fallacy of your argument. Employees (wage earners) who work in large groups, and whose large groups join under law with other large groups, establish such retirement instruments as defined benefits (and Social Security), which must be compulsory for them to be effective, more or less in perpetuity. It’s still a free country: masses of employees may sue in court to end the compulsory contributions.

Why don’t you find a lawyer to help you end the retirement benefits institutions you know nothing about?

Then move away to a small island and separate yourself from the rest of society, who think it is a good program.

But what if I don’t trust you and you get sick or something or lose all your money? Who takes care of then?

You sound like you’re scared that the opportunity for people to opt out would just demonstrate how antiquated this program really is.

je,je,je…and today Nancy Pelosi,one of the democrats beacons said that she wants and agrees with cuts in Medicare and Social SEcurity,what a piece of BS,president Obama is headed to cuts in his second mandate,that’s why we voted for him…hyahhh.

No one. Its not someone else’s responsibility to take care of me.

I’m totally on board with getting rid of the cap and increasing Social Security. Things are going to be even worse when the generation that has to forgo housing gets stuck with paying for housing in their golden years.

It’s definitely time to revamp some of these programs.

No, I am scared of,people like you who think you will all get rich and won’t need any help. But guess what that is called a fallacy of composition bc,most people just can’t do it. So, no, I don’t,trust you. Sorry.

That is not a true statement.

Doesn’t work like that. So I would be happy to let you starve, but others in your same boat would not want to starve and would,come begging. So I want the beggars off the street especially old people. Rather have SS for everyone financed by taxes. Easy that way.

What is it like to be in your 50s and still need a babysitter? Sometimes I wonder if people with your mindset can even wipe their own ass.

Funny guys who say that in my experience can’t find their ass.

The majority of people in this country disagree with you. Polls overwhelmingly support Social Security programs. over 2/3 of Americans support higher taxes over cuts to the program.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/us/politics/21poll.html

or this one

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/03/02/wsjnbc-poll-hands-off-medicare-social-security/

The Democrats are cowards when it comes to messaging. They are always worried that the GOP might call them commies or baby killers.

Better yet, he can move to Somalia. I’m pretty sure then he’d be free from the perils of social obligation AND he could see his whole “cream rising to the top” theory in practice.

Let’s please refrain from personal attacks, no matter how much we disagree with a person’s views.

I’m pretty sure I can help.

Hint: Look for your head, I’m pretty sure it’s located up inside your ass.

Takes two, you know. Ever play hockey?

It seems to me that it’s pretty tit for tat when the poster insinuates that members here “have a mindset so stupid they can’t wipe their own asses.”

I’m a strong believer in playing nice with people who choose to play nice. If you behave like a butthole though then the community ought to be able to respond accordingly as well.

awfully big leap there isn’t it?

I thought you were gone?

why? afraid you hurt my feelings?

Translation: GIMMEE!!!

Well yeah, I can hope right?

Obvsly you’re not a native speaker. The correct translation is: “I got mine,fnck you!” Escuchan y repitan.

You’re the one who wants escape social security, I’m just offering up a country that doesn’t believe in social obligations.

The US, as I pointed out in post number 76, doesn’t support ending the programs you hate. We live in a democracy. Your choice is move to somewhere like Somalia or suck it up. I’m pretty sure everyone here would be completely unoffended if you headed to a libertarian paradise like Somalia, where they totally agree with the pholosophy of letting the elderly die in the streets as a job creating endevour.

How many trillions did we spend on the defense industry again this year or hand out to corporate America?

It always amazes me how fiscally responsiblity only seems to apply if it applies to the elderly or any other venture that actually might benefit the majority of this country instead of a select few.

Tell you what C, why not start the drums beating for the Treasury to print everybody a million bucks. That should solve everyone’s problems, yes?

The Preamble summarizes what the Founding Fathers had in mind reasonably well, which includes We The People, Union, and other notions of mutual responsibility. This also includes the Common Defense and the General Welfare, and of course the Blessings of Liberty, which is not an opt out for the other provisions.
The people buried at Arlington paid some pretty heavy taxes to preserve this system that enables individuals to achieve great wealth and success. But there is a price of admission, and those who benefit the most from our nation owe the most to it.

I will repeat this for you, the Treasury had absolutely no problem firing up those printing presses and printing TRILLIONS to fund the Iraq debacle and to fund Jamie Dimon and the other banking CEOS. That’s right, that funding was put on the proverbial “credit card” that conservatives like to extol so much upon and wax poetic about. Funny thing how “deficits didn’t matter” so much back then.

I’d much rather they fund ordinary Americans then selectively choose to bailout out the captains of industry or finance the pillaging of the ME countries to benefit Lockheed or Exxon.

Computers are king, even on Wall Street.

Today, close to 70 percent of all the trades on Wall Street are conducted by high-frequency traders, or super-computers that can buy and sell stock faster than it takes for someone to blink, according to a segment airing on 60 Minutes on Sunday.

“Humans are not involved in the trading because humans are way too slow to trade on the kinds of opportunities that we’re trying to capture,” Tradeworx Chief Executive Manoj Narang says in the segment. “We’re trying to capture opportunities that exist for only fractions of a second.”

the inmates asylum,well you know what i mean

I am so sick of hearing this statement from the conservatives. If this proposal was ever put into action a new welfare system bigger than what we have ever seen would be created. If people have access to their money throughout the years they will spend it. Situations arise all through ones life and by retirement time there would be thousands without any retirement money. Give your lifetime savings to Wall Street??? Are you crazy ??? On the other hand , maybe this is the way to go to ensure a solid Socialist System in the future that will once and for all take care of the American People in their elder years as is done in Europe.

written in the 1930s read it
Smedley Butler
War is a RACKET
………the end

Good. It looks like we can agree on something.

I am one of those people who has been lucky enough to max my 401k plan for the past 5 to 6 years. At the end of 2006 I had X in my 401k and IRS after 6 years of maxing out I now have X plus 30k. Wall st stole the rest of the money. Obama wants to push through the some BS that George W proposed and was rejected for SS; private accounts and changes to cost of living and change the retirement age! The GOP is even worse…Given the big money being thrown around I fear SS is in big trouble…look for proposed big SS cuts when ghe election of over in 2013..the lie machine aka is news media has started already

Why not have the rich opt out of anything that redistributes income?

But if you want an opt out option work for the state and local gov and convince your org to opt out – it is already permitted under the law – you may want to talk to the folks now experiencing the alternative before you dp push the idea.

The rich get benefits from Social Security – I don’t get your point.

Because the non-rich pay the most in and get the most out the system is unfair to your rich friends?

Nonsense – the GOP WANT TO MAKE IT WELFARE as welfare is so easy to cut – the politics is we are just being fair!

Get rid of the cap – we are all in this together – it makes us a nation – everyone gets benefits and everyone gets more benefits the more they make.

Not true – you can’t even duplicate the survivor benefits and disability benefits in the private market – and we have seen what happens to retirement funds of those that must assume their own investment risk. If one lays off the investment risk to an insurance company you will not see the less than 1% admin cost of the current system – which kills that spreadsheet presentation of how money grows at 8% to such wonderful amounts over a lifetime.

If the non-rich pay taxes that provide for their retirement at a level above starvation that is “GIVEME”??????

Why do the rich fear the non-rich when they don’t totally control them via “we will watch you starve – no job and no benefits – if we don’t get our way”?

Cool. I’m glad that we can totally agree that cutting defense and spending the money on the elderly is the right way to go, just like Jon outlined in his post.

We already outspend China by five times and actually outspend the 20 countries under us in terms of defense dollars. Making sure the elderly don’t starve or are forced to live in cardboard boxes is a way better use of our resources.

Cool. I’m glad that we can totally agree that cutting defense and spending the money on the elderly is the right way to go, just like Jon outlined in his post.

We already outspend China by five times and actually outspend the 20 countries under us in terms of defense dollars. Making sure the elderly don’t starve or are forced to live in cardboard boxes is a way better use of our resources especially if we are firing up the printing presses.

You don’t know much about Social Security, what it actually is or its history, do you? Social Security is not a retirement account. Social Security is social insurance. That insurance is there even for young workers (should they become disabled), not to mention for the children of workers that die young. What private retirement accounts may yield is not relevant to the discussion, but even if it were, in a time where ratings agencies rate junk securities like CDOs to be AAA investment grade and when safe investments like government bonds and insured bank deposits are yielding less than the rate of inflation, your claim still doesn’t hold up. But as I said, even if it did hold up, it’s not relevant in a discussion of social insurance.

Ok this is just the response I was waiting to hear from you. For the last 33 years my neighbor has displayed conservative candidate political signs in his yard at every election. He quit his job years ago and started a small yard care business. A close friend of his who I know also did the same thing…started his own computer repair business. They wanted to avoid giving the government their money so they did there best to cover up as much as they could by working for cash. Both of them became ill and recently passed away….about 1 1/2 years between each other. Guess who picked up the tab for both of their medical care ?????? You are totally wrong about this “antiquated system” and SS should be expanded and made even better.

Tell you what C, why not start the drums beating for the Treasury to print everybody a million bucks.

That’s exactly what they’re doing for the banksters and the defense contractors, which you applaud.

-stewartm

This appears to be the right opportunity to begin weening the country off of this 1930s era program.

Jeffery Sachs, I presume?

-stewartm

I believe it’s been demonstrated that if you raise the SS tax back to 6.2 %, and then eliminate the cap make that tax applicable to ALL INCOME, regardless of source (hello, capital gains!!) then you could raise the benefits at least by 1.5x (if not double) while sliding the current benefits scale (ages 62-65-70) downward by 3 years. All while making SS secure as far as the eye can see.

That is precisely what needs to be done.

-stewartm

Once people begin to take responsibility for their own retirement the sooner we see an end to unnecessary risk taking and a cut back in consumption in favor of savings and investment.

Spoken like a true bankster.

Tell, me, then, who’s going to do all the consuming that a modern economy needs to stay in-gear. “Savings and investment” by themselves do NOTHING without consumption. The problem is nowadays is that we have way too much “savings and investment” in our economy (all by the 1 %) and not enough consumption.

“Savings and investment” sans consumption only leads to financial ponzi schemes and bubbles, which when they burst, crash the world economy like 2008 or 1929. That is because “savings and investment” sans consumption means that there are *no legitimate real-world opportunities for real-world investment*–why should any company try to build new plant or expand production when sales are flat??

(Here’s your basic economic lesson for today. Oh, and you’re not a “founding father” because the original founders were much more socialist than you).

-stewartm

I’ve never seen that demonstrated.

Link it or …

Well, you know.