UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (16) | Ignore Thread Prev | Next
Author: knows09 Two stars, 250 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 5267  
Subject: Other Suggestions?? Date: 2/4/2005 5:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Forgive me if this has come up before, but can anyone come up with an alternate plan for fixing social security besides privatization??

Privatization is NOT the answer, for the single reason that Social Security was created to help those who lost their shirts in the stock market crash of 1929. It's a total slap in the face to those who created Social Security in the first place. Privatization will just force us into the 2nd Great Depression.

Now, there is no question that Social Security needs to be addressed. It may not be now (and really shouldn't be now), but at some point, something needs to be done. Any ideas? Raise the retirement age, raise taxes. All done before. Can't anyone come up with an original idea that doesn't involve privatization?

I think we first need to look at what Social Security really is. Most look at it as a retirement fund. In fact, almost everyone factors in the benefits when figuring out how much they will need/want for retirement. But its really not a retirement account. It's basically a type of insurance, there to take care of those who didn't have the ability or know-how to save sufficiently enough for their retirement. It should pay the most to those who need it the most and vice versa.

So instead of coming up with a payout ratio based on the average income over the last 35 years of employment, why not base it on average income during retirement?? And do it inversely for that matter (ie - those who have more get less). So Joe six-pack who worked minimum wage all his life and barely saved anything collects the maximum allowable by social security. But Bill Gates who may have $1 trln saved by retirement gets the minimum allowed.

Ex: I just went to www.ssa.gov and calculated benefits based on a 55 year old with $40,000 earnings and a 55 year old with $1,200,000 earnings.

$40,000 = $2,768 @ age 70
$1,200,000 = $4,510 @ age 70

Total = $7,278


Now if we keep the benefits for the $40,000 earner the same but lower the $1,000,000 earner to maybe 1/3 of the other, we'd have:

$40,000 = $2,768
$1,200,000 = $1,503

Total = $4,271



I know this goes against the natural thinking of most people, but why not do it? Any comments? Could this ever work?

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post  
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (16) | Ignore Thread Prev | Next

Announcements

Social Security Website
www.ssa.gov is a massive information storehouse about all things Social Security. Check it out if you're looking for anything from general info to personalized answers.
2013 Feste Award Voting Begins!
Who will win the 2013 Feste Award? Vote now for the Fool that most exemplifies the Fool Community mission of Learning Together!
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Post of the Day:
Tax Strategies

TMFPMarti-Feeling Good
What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
Community Home
Speak Your Mind, Start Your Blog, Rate Your Stocks

Community Team Fools - who are those TMF's?
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and "#1 Media Company to Work For" (BusinessInsider 2011)! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.
Advertisement