UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (60) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: pauleckler Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 76395  
Subject: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/10/2007 2:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Hillary Clinton has revealed one part of her American Retirement Plan, as reported in an article from McClatchy Newspapers--

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/politics/story/A5D2C474261DFABE862573700013047A?OpenDocument

"Her plan would allow all workers to open portable retirement accounts and put up to $5,000 a year in them on a tax-deferred basis. The federal government would match the first $1,000 in savings for married couples who earn up to $60,000 a year and would match the first $500 for married couples who earn $60,000 to $100,000 a year.

"Individuals probably would receive less generous matches, said Gene Sperling, a Clinton economic adviser. The government also would give new tax credits to small businesses to help defray setup costs for the accounts.

"Workers satisfied with their current retirement plans would still participate in those plans."

No details yet. Before tax? Aftertax? Roth like tax free in retirement? Investments like present IRAs? The main factor seems to be govt matching part of your contribution.

Also a few details of her estate tax plan--

"Clinton would pay for the plan by freezing the estate tax at 2009 levels, rather than allowing it to expire temporarily in 2010. Taxing estates worth more than $7 million per couple would provide more than $400 billion over 10 years, according to Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation."
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Budgie69 Two stars, 250 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59541 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/10/2007 2:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
She's shopping for votes. That woman is going to say/do anything she thinks will get her 1 more vote next November. Unbelievable.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: foolazis Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59542 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/10/2007 2:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
This may sound great to the electorate, but it is a very poor idea. If the goverment starts sponsoring a 401(k) plan, how long do you think it will take for the employers currently offering 401(k) to save on the administrative expenses by terminating the current plans and sloughing all there employees off on the government plan? Something like this has already happened with retiree drug benefits when Medicare D became available.

I think the politicians should look into ways to incent small employers to offer 401(k)s, maybe through some kind of 401(k) "pool" to lower the expenses.

Typical politician - sounds good, bad consequences.

foolazis

Print the post Back To Top
Author: canonian Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59543 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/10/2007 3:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
Just let me divert my social security taxes to my retirement account. Let my retirement account be one that I can control what I invest in, bonds, stocks, mutual funds whatever. That would make we quite happy.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TMFPMarti Big funky green star, 20000 posts Home Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59544 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/10/2007 4:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
Just let me divert my social security taxes to my retirement account. Let my retirement account be one that I can control what I invest in, bonds, stocks, mutual funds whatever. That would make we quite happy.

We'll assume for the sake of discussion that you have the discipline and investment sense (and luck) for this to work out great for you. That's terrific for you, but human nature tells us nothing if it doesn't tell us that everyone is not you.

So, since we're talking about a system for everyone in the country, not just you, what's your plan for dealing with the next situation that resembles the one that gave us Social Security in the first place, when there were also people who resembled you and didn't need any help?

Phil

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ptheland Big gold star, 5000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59545 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/10/2007 4:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
So, since we're talking about a system for everyone in the country, not just you, what's your plan for dealing with the next situation that resembles the one that gave us Social Security in the first place, when there were also people who resembled you and didn't need any help?

Or to translate:

What would you do with the folks who invested their personal SS accounts in Enron stock? Who were really lousy investors and lost their retirement money?

--Peter

Print the post Back To Top
Author: canonian Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59546 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/10/2007 4:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
We'll assume for the sake of discussion that you have the discipline and investment sense (and luck) for this to work out great for you. That's terrific for you, but human nature tells us nothing if it doesn't tell us that everyone is not you.

So, since we're talking about a system for everyone in the country, not just you, what's your plan for dealing with the next situation that resembles the one that gave us Social Security in the first place, when there were also people who resembled you and didn't need any help?


Teh goverment does not tell us what mortgage or credit card we can sign up for do they? Why dictate my retirement future?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: canonian Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59547 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/10/2007 4:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
What would you do with the folks who invested their personal SS accounts in Enron stock? Who were really lousy investors and lost their retirement money?

Or to translate:

The goverment spends my SS money and I have none at retirement.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: alaskack Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59548 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/10/2007 4:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Or to translate:

What would you do with the folks who invested their personal SS accounts in Enron stock? Who were really lousy investors and lost their retirement money?


Limited offerings to just a few index funds of domestic/international stocks and bonds. Added value/risk comes from allocation strategies, with maybe a required minimum by a certain age (i.e., 25% minimum in bonds by age 60). The Enrons aren't a problem because they aren't a large percentage, limited to what is in the index.

Calvin

Print the post Back To Top
Author: joelxwil Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59549 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/10/2007 5:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Limited offerings to just a few index funds of domestic/international stocks and bonds. Added value/risk comes from allocation strategies, with maybe a required minimum by a certain age (i.e., 25% minimum in bonds by age 60).

Well, that will certainly guarantee mediocre returns. Let's see, when I was 61 it was 1997, and I was all in mutual funds and stocks. I had an excellent run until March 2000, when I went to cash. There were a few times between 1997 and 2000 when I was all cash also.

I like to pursue excellence in everything I do. Pursue is the right word - I was a terribly slow runner, but I had a lot of fun going for it anyway.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: alaskack Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59550 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/10/2007 5:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Well, that will certainly guarantee mediocre returns

I never said they would be stellar returns. You have to gear it towards the least experienced investor, not towards a seasoned investor. Besides, the options could be similar to 401k plans and it's not money you currently have available to you.

Calvin

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TMFPMarti Big funky green star, 20000 posts Home Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59551 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/10/2007 5:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 11
Teh goverment does not tell us what mortgage or credit card we can sign up for do they? Why dictate my retirement future?

The government in no way dictates your retirement future. You're free to save what you like, within your financial ability to do so.

To anticipate your next dodge of my question, yes, if you didn't have to pay SS tax you'd have more to save, just as you would if you didn't have to pay so much income tax or so much for food or so many other things that are beyond your immediate control.

So, back to my question. We're talking about the entire country, not just you. What's your proposal for dealing with everybody else?

Note: "Let them fend for themselves" is an answer, but I have to note that this is pretty much the system we had when Social Security was implemented. When we look at replacing current systems it behooves us to take a look at why we have them in the first place.

Phil

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JAFO31 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59552 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/10/2007 6:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
TMFPMarti: "Note: "Let them fend for themselves" is an answer, . . ."

OCD: "Let them eat cake".

Regards, JAFO

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ziggy29 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59553 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/10/2007 6:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
>> The government in no way dictates your retirement future. You're free to save what you like, within your financial ability to do so. <<

You are mostly right, at least for now. But if the government eventually "fixes" the Social Security mess by heavily means testing it -- as would seem to be one option for "fixing" it -- then they would be actively discouraging saving, especially if the phase-out was sharp and the phase-out income level started at a modest level.

That's not the same as saying we *can't* save, but eliminating almost all incentive to do it would nearly be the same.

#29

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TMFPMarti Big funky green star, 20000 posts Home Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59554 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/10/2007 6:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
But if the government eventually "fixes" the Social Security mess by heavily means testing it -- as would seem to be one option for "fixing" it -- then they would be actively discouraging saving, especially if the phase-out was sharp and the phase-out income level started at a modest level.

Not necessarily. It would, however, require abandoning fiction and returning to looking at SS as what it was designed to be--welfare to keep old people without private resources from starving in the streets, but just barely.

Instead of admitting that the payroll tax is exactly that, a tax, the politicians sold a story that makes people think every one of us has a box in Baltimore with "our" money in it. As late as the 1970's SS benefits were meager, and the tax was low. And very few people complained that the gummint was robbing them of their future.

Phil

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JAFO31 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59556 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/10/2007 7:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
TMFPMarti:

<<<But if the government eventually "fixes" the Social Security mess by heavily means testing it -- as would seem to be one option for "fixing" it -- then they would be actively discouraging saving, especially if the phase-out was sharp and the phase-out income level started at a modest level.>>>

"Not necessarily. It would, however, require abandoning fiction and returning to looking at SS as what it was designed to be--welfare to keep old people without private resources from starving in the streets, but just barely.

Instead of admitting that the payroll tax is exactly that, a tax, the politicians sold a story that makes people think every one of us has a box in Baltimore with "our" money in it. As late as the 1970's SS benefits were meager, and the tax was low. And very few people complained that the gummint was robbing them of their future."


I have two words for you:

Inflation and COLA

Historical Rates
Calendar year OASDI HI Total 
1969-70 4.200 0.600 4.800
1971-72 4.600 0.600 5.200
1973--- 4.850 1.000 5.850
1974-77 4.950 0.900 5.850
1978--- 5.050 1.000 6.050
1979-80 5.080 1.050 6.130
1981--- 5.350 1.300 6.650
1982-83 5.400 1.300 6.700
1984--- 5.700 1.300 7.000

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html

Maximum Amount:
1972 9,000
1973 10,800
1974 13,200
1975 14,100
1976 15,300
1977 16,500
1978 17,700
1979 22,900
1980 25,900
1981 $29,700
1982 32,400
1983 35,700
1984 37,800

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/cbb.html#Series

COLAs implemented in 1974-1975
Year COLA
1975 8.0%
1976 6.4%
1977 5.9%
1978 6.5%
1979 9.9%
1980 14.3%
1981 11.2%
1982 7.4%
1983 3.5%
1984 3.5%
See http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/colaseries.html

Regards, JAFO

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ziggy29 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59557 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/10/2007 7:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
>> I have two words for you:

Inflation and COLA
<<

This is a big part of it. but also, Boomers were entering the workforce in droves in the late 1960s and 1970s. Demographics were looking better in the important taxpayer/recipient ratio. That made it politically feasible to sweeten the pot at the time and promise the moon and stars.

Apparently no one thought to consider that maybe this demographic trend was a short-term anomaly. Just as they never thought to factor increasing life expectancies, except for the one-time adjustment of the full retirement age from 65 to 67.

#29

Print the post Back To Top
Author: canonian Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59558 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/10/2007 8:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
To anticipate your next dodge of my question, yes, if you didn't have to pay SS tax you'd have more to save, just as you would if you didn't have to pay so much income tax or so much for food or so many other things that are beyond your immediate control.

So, back to my question. We're talking about the entire country, not just you. What's your proposal for dealing with everybody else?


So your thought is all retirement rules should be setup for the "REST" or lowest person in the food chain of capitalistic America? Do the rest get a different break when getting a credit card, a mortgage, a car loan?

Define everybody else? I feel your driving at the poor? Maybe not, I'm not sure.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: canonian Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59559 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/10/2007 8:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Not necessarily. It would, however, require abandoning fiction and returning to looking at SS as what it was designed to be--welfare to keep old people without private resources from starving in the streets, but just barely.

Anyone who worked can collect social security no matter their income level. People retired today with 10 million in retirement funds can and do collect it. So if it was intended to do what you said above where and when did it get changed so anyone could collect it who was well above poverty?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TMFPMarti Big funky green star, 20000 posts Home Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59560 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/10/2007 8:58 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Anyone who worked can collect social security no matter their income level. People retired today with 10 million in retirement funds can and do collect it. So if it was intended to do what you said above where and when did it get changed so anyone could collect it who was well above poverty?

See JAFO's post with the history of what happened in the 1970's. COLAs didn't exist before then, and benefits and tax rates (when you include the cap on taxable earnings) were low.

The changes made transformed the benefits into something more along the line of pensions, but without considering long-term funding issues. Mix this with spending the tax revenues now and writing IOU's to the nonexistant trust fund along with an aging but healthier workforce, and we face the problems we have today.

Phil

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TMFPMarti Big funky green star, 20000 posts Home Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59561 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/10/2007 9:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
So your thought is all retirement rules should be setup for the "REST" or lowest person in the food chain of capitalistic America? Do the rest get a different break when getting a credit card, a mortgage, a car loan?

Define everybody else? I feel your driving at the poor? Maybe not, I'm not sure.


Let me see if I can clear some of this up for you. The other posts in the thread should also help.

Our conversation began with your saying "Just get rid of SS tax and let me do my own investing."

My point is that while that approach may work out just fine for you, it won't work out for everyone. When we form public policy we need to look at the country as a whole, not just people who will take care of themselves. So the question is "What kind of retirement security, if any, do we want to be available to the general population without any independent action by them?"

IMO until we answer that question we haven't a prayer of coming up with solutions.

Phil

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Maraith Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59562 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/10/2007 9:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 59
>>She's shopping for votes. That woman is going to say/do anything she thinks will get her 1 more vote next November. Unbelievable.<<

Unlike the other politicians running for President. The rest are speaking from the heart and would never curry favor in order to gain votes. And they would do just what they promise when in office and not owe anything to the lobbyists who gave them just one more dollar for one more vote.

Such worthy men.

Mara

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PKnudsen Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59565 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/10/2007 9:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I like it.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Budgie69 Two stars, 250 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59566 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/10/2007 9:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Mara, don't be ignorant. All politicians do that, all parties. Please.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: killerfraug Two stars, 250 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59567 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/10/2007 10:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 9
Mara, don't be ignorant. All politicians do that, all parties. Please.

sarchasm:
(n.) The abyss between the creator of witticisms and the intended recipient who does not find the humor in it.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NevadaGolfer Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59568 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/11/2007 12:06 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Leave Ron Paul out of your complaints about dishonest and self-serving politicians.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: canonian Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59570 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/11/2007 7:36 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
My point is that while that approach may work out just fine for you, it won't work out for everyone. When we form public policy we need to look at the country as a whole, not just people who will take care of themselves. So the question is "What kind of retirement security, if any, do we want to be available to the general population without any independent action by them?"

IMO until we answer that question we haven't a prayer of coming up with solutions.


Why not give people the freedom of choice to decide what they would like to do for their retirement? If you want to give to social security, or invest yourself, or let a financial planner do it for you.

I would not mind giving a smaller amount to SS to cover people who are truly in need. On the other hand I do have a problem with funding people who have the means to do without it.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TMFPMarti Big funky green star, 20000 posts Home Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59572 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/11/2007 8:02 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I would not mind giving a smaller amount to SS to cover people who are truly in need. On the other hand I do have a problem with funding people who have the means to do without it.

That's basically my thought also. I do think we need, for lack of a better term, a safety net, and that's the responsibility of all of us. Beyond that I'm all in favor of individual choice.

Phil

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DeltaOne81 Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59575 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/11/2007 10:06 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 11
I would not mind giving a smaller amount to SS to cover people who are truly in need. On the other hand I do have a problem with funding people who have the means to do without it.

That's basically my thought also. I do think we need, for lack of a better term, a safety net, and that's the responsibility of all of us. Beyond that I'm all in favor of individual choice


The problem with this is it would disincentives saving even more. "You, mean if I don't save anything for retirement, the government will cover me, but if I save some, they won't give me anything? I'm buying that big screen HDTV LCD then!"

People around here wouldn't think like that because we are generally driven to make comfortable retirement for ourselves with more than the bear minimum to get by. But there are plenty of people who would rather get a little for free rather than a lot for themselves - otherwise you wouldn't have abuse of similar welfare, food stamp, etc programs.

I suppose you could be okay with some abuse (I don't mean fraud, I mean chosing to participate by not working/saving, rather than using it as a fall back) as a acceptable consequence.


The bigger issue though, is what happens to the people who have been paying into SS for years, are just retired or about to retire. Where do they get the SS they've paid into for decades if all of a sudden we start letting people keep most of their SS money for themselves?

Its a nice idea in theory, but the transition would be extraordinarily painful, because the reality is that your SS is not 'your money' anymore, it goes to pay today's retirees. And your SS money comes from tomorrow's workers, when you're retired. SS isn't 'savings', the government (Repub and Dem) hasn't saved a penny in its life.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: DeltaOne81 Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59576 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/11/2007 10:09 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Oh, and thanks to the person who pointed out that Hilary is an vote pandering politician. I'll make sure to vote for the politician who doesn't say things to get more votes.

< walks off, whistling and looking around >

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ziggy29 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59577 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/11/2007 10:28 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
>> The problem with this is it would disincentives saving even more. "You, mean if I don't save anything for retirement, the government will cover me, but if I save some, they won't give me anything? I'm buying that big screen HDTV LCD then!" <<

Agreed completely. This is why a phaseout of SS benefits should not be set at *too* low a threshold, and why the phaseout should be gradual as income increases.

For example, we might reduce benefits by 10% for every $5,000 in annual income over $50,000 (adjusted for inflation) such that there would be complete elimination over $100,000. That's enough to reduce the burden and the payouts to the very wealthy, but the phaseout is gradual enough that it doesn't become a strong disincentive to saving.

I'm not dogmatically against means-testing, but I am against doing it so drastically that it discourages private retirement saving.

#29

Print the post Back To Top
Author: reallyalldone Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59580 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/11/2007 11:06 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
For example, we might reduce benefits by 10% for every $5,000 in annual income over $50,000 (adjusted for inflation) such that there would be complete elimination over $100,000. That's enough to reduce the burden and the payouts to the very wealthy, but the phaseout is gradual enough that it doesn't become a strong disincentive to saving.

So if I have paid SS for over 40 years but have an income over $100,000, I would get nothing ? Huge disincentive for private savings and continuing to do some work(which would put money into the SS coffers).

rad

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ziggy29 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59581 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/11/2007 11:15 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
>> So if I have paid SS for over 40 years but have an income over $100,000, I would get nothing ? Huge disincentive for private savings and continuing to do some work(which would put money into the SS coffers). <<

Well, you can plug in different specific numbers, but in any event it doesn't seem to me that a $50,000 phaseout range would discourage private saving when at most SS would probably pay out about $20,000. I'm not going to blow all my money and fail to save so I can earn $69,000 in retirement ($49K plus $20K in SS) instead of $100,000.

Make it a dollar-for-dollar phaseout, though -- you make an extra dollar, you lose a dollar in benefits -- and the equation *does* change to one of significant disincentive to save. Make the phaseout 3-to-1 or 5-to-1, and not so much. This goes back to what I said before; the phaseout, if any, would need to be gradual enough to avoid creating an incentive to blow all your cash and live off of government (read: taxpayer) largesse.

The bottom line is that this can't be fixed without someone's ox getting gored. And it has to be fixed. I'd prefer to see something that distributes the pain of the goring fairly equitably across generations and economic classes.

#29

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Hawkwin Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59582 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/11/2007 11:27 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
My point is that while that approach may work out just fine for you, it won't work out for everyone. When we form public policy we need to look at the country as a whole, not just people who will take care of themselves. So the question is "What kind of retirement security, if any, do we want to be available to the general population without any independent action by them?"

A funded pension system and/or target date retirement funds would be an extremely simply solution that would provide ownership as well as much higher returns than the 1% or so people get now on their money. Additionally, having ownership would help the vast majority of the poor and minorities that die earlier than the rest of us and leave nothing in SS benefits to their spouses in many cases - we take their money and they often get nothing back.

I don't mind so much that the govt requires that I 'save' for retirment via SS, I do mind that I get less return than what I would get in a FDIC or U.S. Treasure account.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JLC Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59583 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/11/2007 11:33 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
So, since we're talking about a system for everyone in the country, not just you, what's your plan for dealing with the next situation that resembles the one that gave us Social Security in the first place, when there were also people who resembled you and didn't need any help?

Coming to this thread quite late.....

My plan would be the same as what got us through the first 150 years of being a country and basically the first 350 years of living colonizing this continent: a good dose of personal responsibility and self reliance.

JLC

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JLC Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59584 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/11/2007 11:36 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
When we look at replacing current systems it behooves us to take a look at why we have them in the first place.

Same then as now, trying to buy votes to stay elected.

JLC

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ziggy29 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59585 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/11/2007 11:37 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
>> My plan would be the same as what got us through the first 150 years of being a country and basically the first 350 years of living colonizing this continent: a good dose of personal responsibility and self reliance. <<

It'll never fly. Self-reliance means no dependency on politicians to get your entitlements. No dependency means loss of power and clout for Congresscritters. There's no way they're going to allow that.

#29

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JLC Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59586 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/11/2007 11:40 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
It would, however, require abandoning fiction and returning to looking at SS as what it was designed to be--welfare to keep old people without private resources from starving in the streets, but just barely.

SS was designed to have a forced retirement at 65. During the depression you had numerous young men standing around unemployed. What do you get when you mix boredom and youth? Riots and revolution. Force all the old geezers to retire but promise them and income. Think about it, retirement was NOT a social norm until the invention of SS, it is a 20th century invention. People worked till they couldn't do anything anymore or died. Then the family took care of them.

JLC

Print the post Back To Top
Author: alchook Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59588 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/11/2007 12:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Well, you can plug in different specific numbers, but in any event it doesn't seem to me that a $50,000 phaseout range would discourage private saving when at most SS would probably pay out about $20,000. I'm not going to blow all my money and fail to save so I can earn $69,000 in retirement ($49K plus $20K in SS) instead of $100,000.

But $69K could provide most people with a very comfortable lifestyle.

One problem with income as a means test is that income in retirement has a significant discretionary component to it. You can live quite well on a fairly low income by carefully selecting which securities you sell.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: IndecisiveFool Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59589 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/11/2007 12:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
So if I have paid SS for over 40 years but have an income over $100,000, I would get nothing ? Huge disincentive for private savings and continuing to do some work(which would put money into the SS coffers).

I'm not sure it is a huge disincentive for many people. I know I don't want to depend on government benefits by not having any savings. If the choice was have your own assets and no SS versus have no assets and receive SS, I know what my choice would be.

IF

Print the post Back To Top
Author: reallyalldone Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59590 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/11/2007 12:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I'm not sure it is a huge disincentive for many people. I know I don't want to depend on government benefits by not having any savings. If the choice was have your own assets and no SS versus have no assets and receive SS, I know what my choice would be.

I have my own savings snd my husband has a pension but I can tell you that I'm pretty close to having had enough of saving other people from their own choices. This kind of thing could influence my vote this time around.

rad

Print the post Back To Top
Author: canonian Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59601 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/11/2007 3:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The problem with this is it would disincentives saving even more. "You, mean if I don't save anything for retirement, the government will cover me, but if I save some, they won't give me anything? I'm buying that big screen HDTV LCD then!"


Did not say that at all. They could mandate that you save x% for retirement but give you options to control more of where it goes.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: canonian Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59602 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/11/2007 3:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Ok get rid of all the toys and marketing games so no one will want to waste their money on anything. We can then all band together and help make the world a better place and further the quality of life for the human race. No retirement money required, we would all just love eahch other and help out in anyway we can! :)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: dlmdon Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59603 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/11/2007 3:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 8
I must say I am shocked at the comments on this site regarding the taking away SS if you earn over a certain amount. Pure socialism. Since many of you apparently believe that SS should be taken away why not broaden this concept. One person said 69k was enough to retire on. Given this type logic I propose that anyone that makes over 69k that all such income in excess of 69k be taxed at 100%. Anyone that has worked and paid in to SS should expect to receive the appropriate SS benefit period. If there is a funding problem why use only SS to solve it since the funds have for years been spent to fund general government programs and not put in a trust fund earning money. Why not include government workers pensions that are in general much more generous than private pensions. If you guys don't think this will not impact savings and peoples response are not living in reality.

If the government decides to take away my SS if I earn over a certain amount I will revolt, especially if they do nothing with government pensions(including state emplorees)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: cliff666 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59604 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/11/2007 3:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
If the government decides to take away my SS if I earn over a certain amount I will revolt, especially if they do nothing with government pensions(including state emplorees)

For some reason, this post reminds me of an old "I Love Lucy" episode. Lucy and Ethyl were mad at their husbands, and they decided to rebel against the tyrants. They marched into the living room and Lucy announced, "We're revolting!" Naturally, Desi replied, "Oh, no more than usual."

Well, I thought it was funny.

cliff

Print the post Back To Top
Author: canonian Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59605 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/11/2007 3:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Anyone that has worked and paid in to SS should expect to receive the appropriate SS benefit period.

I agree but as a TMFPMarti posted the original thought behind SS seems to have been changed over time. I'm actually confused, was SS originally created just to keep people from hitting poverty or was it created to allow people to put money in to take out later when they do retire?

Anyone?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: canonian Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59606 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/11/2007 3:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Well, I thought it was funny.

Your post was funny, but the SS problem is not.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JAFO31 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59607 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/11/2007 4:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
canonian: "I agree but as a TMFPMarti posted the original thought behind SS seems to have been changed over time. I'm actually confused, was SS originally created just to keep people from hitting poverty"

Yes; and, as another poster noted, to encourage retirement so that the young could obtain jobs.

"or was it created to allow people to put money in to take out later when they do retire?"

NO. It was designed to be pay as you go and there were never personal accounts with any money that could be taken out later.

Regards, JAFO

Print the post Back To Top
Author: hockeypop Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59610 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/11/2007 6:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
canonian: "I agree but as a TMFPMarti posted the original thought behind SS seems to have been changed over time. I'm actually confused, was SS originally created just to keep people from hitting poverty"

Yes; and, as another poster noted, to encourage retirement so that the young could obtain jobs.

"or was it created to allow people to put money in to take out later when they do retire?"

NO. It was designed to be pay as you go and there were never personal accounts with any money that could be taken out later.

Regards, JAFO

I have NO solution for this discussion, but will note that the present SS bears little resemblance to what was originally passed. Age 65 retirement in the 1940's was near death for most males. There were HUGE problems with poverty at retirement and at the time of its passage it solved a national disgrace.

I can't find the graph any more, but the early social security WAS a very small percentage of the total retirement income for most Americans. So, although predicted by some in the debate and possibly not attributable directly to SS, a "perfect storm" began to happen where Americans gradually began saving less, so that SS became a greater percentage of the retirement savings of MORE Americans. That has happened for almost every year since its beginning.

ALSO, the retirement year 65 stuck, even as the longevity of Americans began to increase each year, and (horrors) women entered the workforce making 65 an even more relatively young age. Women did add more workers to the SS pool, which made things look good for a number of years (and I agree with the voodoo accounting) while ignoring the ultimate problem with their retirement and a longevity even greater than men.

Finally two other demographics are taking their toll. First, more students are going to college, thus delaying their entry into the social security pool. Rather than providing space for them to work, they are now opting out of the workforce and eventually entering it with more debt to boot. This reduces the number of working years by about 8-10% and makes it difficult to add retirement funds at a key early investment time because they are paying down loans. In addition, with a booming stock market, more Americans at relatively high paying jobs are retiring early, again reducing the SS pay-in pool.

For my prediction, I've said other places that I believe that there will be an increase in retirement age (at least eliminating early retirement) for younger workers, and greater means testing for existing retirees (graduated taxation of SS benefits). The SS tax either for individuals or businesses can't go up much more without seriously reducing productivity IMO.

As more and more retirees DO see it as a program for poverty, it will have less sensitivity in the majority's own pocketbook, be less of a "middle rail" issue, and the benefits will be squeezed down until the program does become more self-sustaining, perhaps with more of the taxes going toward the larger healthcare issue.

But, who knows. I was on a social security commission about 20 years ago and there were ALL of these issue then. Talk = 100, action = 0

Hockeypop

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: JAFO31 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59611 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/11/2007 7:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
hockeypop:

canonian: {{{"I agree but as a TMFPMarti posted the original thought behind SS seems to have been changed over time. I'm actually confused, was SS originally created just to keep people from hitting poverty"}}}

JAFO: <<<Yes; and, as another poster noted, to encourage retirement so that the young could obtain jobs.>>>

c: {{{"or was it created to allow people to put money in to take out later when they do retire?"}}}

J: <<<NO. It was designed to be pay as you go and there were never personal accounts with any money that could be taken out later.>>>

"I have NO solution for this discussion, but will note that the present SS bears little resemblance to what was originally passed."

No one wants to bite the bullet and eat 100% of the transition costs and no one has hyped any plan that equitably distributes the burden of the transition costs.

"Age 65 retirement in the 1940's was near death for most males."

Not really. You need to review life expectancy at age 65 and not average life expectancy from birth.

See e.g. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/tables/2003/03hus027.pdf

In 1950, life expectancy at age 65 was 12.8 years for a male and 15.0 years for a female. In 2000, it was 16.4 years for a male and 19.4 years for a female.

While definitley increasing, it is not nearly as large as you suggest by using average life expectancy at birth, which in 1950 was 65.6 for a male and 71.1 for a female versus 2000, when it was 74.3 for a male and 79.7 for a female.

The male increase at age 65 is 3.6 years and the female increase is 4.4 years, which are much smaller than the from birth increases of 8.7 for males and 8.6 for females, respectively.

"ALSO, the retirement year 65 stuck, even as the longevity of Americans began to increase each year, and (horrors) women entered the workforce making 65 an even more relatively young age. Women did add more workers to the SS pool, which made things look good for a number of years (and I agree with the voodoo accounting) while ignoring the ultimate problem with their retirement and a longevity even greater than men."

Actually the lower earning sposue gets scrued by the SS system, which was historically the woman, so women entering the work force was not detrimental to the balance of collections versus payments due.

"Finally two other demographics are taking their toll. First, more students are going to college, thus delaying their entry into the social security pool. Rather than providing space for them to work, they are now opting out of the workforce and eventually entering it with more debt to boot. This reduces the number of working years by about 8-10% and makes it difficult to add retirement funds at a key early investment time because they are paying down loans. In addition, with a booming stock market, more Americans at relatively high paying jobs are retiring early, again reducing the SS pay-in pool."

Agreed.

Regards, JAFO

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: alchook Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59612 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/11/2007 8:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
The male increase at age 65 is 3.6 years and the female increase is 4.4 years, which are much smaller than the from birth increases of 8.7 for males and 8.6 for females, respectively.

Not on a percentage basis.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TerryMcK Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59613 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/11/2007 8:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
- If Clinton wants to do something to help retirement, she should put her efforts into fixing the existing systems first, before starting a new entitlement program.

- I would be surprised if the cost of this program could be covered by the estate tax of the high rollers as was suggested. First, this is not a given to get through Congress and second I would be almost certain it would create a new bureaucracy/government agency that would have to be staffed/funded by ???? Surprise anyone ?

- When the previous proposals were made for privatization of SS, it was not a scheme to allow people to lose all of their savings; that's a left wing talking point. The suggestion was to allow the OPTION of using a percentage (e.g. 2%) for individual investment. It was not madatory and it was not the entire portion from the employee or employer. Most folks never got this since the media blitz was always how you could lose your shirt.

- This is also just another tentacle that some would like to have so there is one more part of your life under government control.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: hockeypop Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59627 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/12/2007 7:46 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"Age 65 retirement in the 1940's was near death for most males."

Not really. You need to review life expectancy at age 65 and not average life expectancy from birth.

Good data that proves both our points. About 10% more males and females were dead in the 40's by 65 than now.

If there is good fiduciary news its that illegal aliens are infusing it with billions of dollars of payments off of false SS #s.

Tough issue.

Hockeypop

Print the post Back To Top
Author: maracle Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59702 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/15/2007 1:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I can tell you that I'm pretty close to having had enough of saving other people from their own choices. This kind of thing could influence my vote this time around.

If given a vote, would you support letting old people with insufficient savings starve to death or join the homeless on the streets?

Personally, I'd like to see a means test and a maximum benefit that is sufficient to live on but not any higher. Maybe $1000 a month. That would give almost anyone an incentive to save but hopefully cost a lot less.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: reallyalldone Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59708 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/15/2007 4:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Personally, I'd like to see a means test and a maximum benefit that is sufficient to live on but not any higher. Maybe $1000 a month.

So make the minimum SS benefit $1000 a month. No means test.

Next, someone will say but that $1000 won't support someone living in [expensive cost of living place].

rad

Print the post Back To Top
Author: cliff666 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59709 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/15/2007 4:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
rad: So make the minimum SS benefit $1000 a month. No means test.

Common sense from an unexpected source! Good idea, rad.

cliff
... but how, oh how will I replace that income?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: maracle Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59710 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/15/2007 4:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
So make the minimum SS benefit $1000 a month. No means test.

I'm not sure I understand, that would defeat the purpose of it being a means-tested maximum.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ziggy29 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59711 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/15/2007 5:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
>> I'm not sure I understand, that would defeat the purpose of it being a means-tested maximum. <<

I think the idea was that the first $1,000 in monthly benefit wouldn't be means-tested but above that amount it would be.

#29

Print the post Back To Top
Author: maracle Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59712 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/15/2007 5:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I think the idea was that the first $1,000 in monthly benefit wouldn't be means-tested but above that amount it would be.

Ahh, well, its just a pipe-dream anyway. My plan would never fly politically and I don't even know how much it would save.

My guess as to what will happen with social security...we've got like 20 years or something before the surplus ends. Nothing will be done until then. Then I think they'll take a few years after it to do something, probably a small tax increase (maybe .5%) and a small increase in the retirement age.

Call me in 25 years to let me know if my clairvoyance is confirmed!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JAFO31 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 59713 of 76395
Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan Date: 10/15/2007 6:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
maracle: "My guess as to what will happen with social security...we've got like 20 years or something before the surplus ends."

Unless i have missed a recent report, you are off by about a decade.

While the date has fluctuated somewhat, it is usually circa 2015-2018 that the surplus ceases accruing and then another 20-25 years until the special purpose bonds are expected to fully redeemed.

Regards, JAFO

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (60) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement