Originally Posted By EdisYoda >>Illegal aliens pay taxes, too, you know. In fact, they're more likely to fail to collect tax returns and social services owed them than citizens.<< Also, those that are paid "under the table", which a lot are, pay no income tax. Yes, they pay sales tax, but since a good portion of their pay is sent to their home country, they don't pay much of that either. Oh, and if you doubt that, hang out around a check cashing store in areas where they are likely to live and you'll see the thousands leaving the country daily... from one store.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>The State of Minnesota certainly invests its retirement funds.<< As any responsible retirement fund should. But SS won't, and its my belief that they have done this to provide the feds with a captive source of funds to borrow at rock bottom rates.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>This of course is what the individual account thing is all about in the first place... giving billions and billions of trading dollars to Bush’s rich buddies on Wall Street.<< I wouldn't mind this if it meant doubling or tripling my SS benefit, but as you have reasoned there is no reason why SS couldn't have its own fund managers like most states and larger municipalities do.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>One thing I can guarantee you... public employee fund managers make a WHOLE LOT LESS SALARY than fund managers in the private sector.<< Actually, only a handful of fund managers make mega bucks (mostly hedge fund types). Anyway, few "managed" funds outperform indexed funds (like funds that merely match the SP500 index). Index funds require little management, and index fund managers aren't paid the super mega bucks (they are probably paid better that state fund managers).
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>My sister estimates that burden (public education, food stamps, housing assitance, etc.) that they place on NC taxpayers exceeds their incomes.<< Here is a sample estimate: 3 kids in public school: $15,000+ (actually more since biligual costs more) Food stamps: $5,000 Housing: $5,000 We are already up to 25K, and we haven't factored in medicaid yet. Were probably talking 30K a year, if not more. I doubt Jose drywaller is paid $35K a year. From what my sister tells me the typical profile is an off the books job that pays $8-9 an hour. Its a great deal for home builders, but a lousy one for taxpayers. I believe that Milton Friedman said that the welfare state and open borders are incompatible.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd Remember i'm non-partisan. Social security was great when it looked like our civilization wasn't going to run out of oxygen, and water. Now, facing the facts about carbon pollutants, as the offshoot of our energy benefits, means our population can not multiply on this planet, like tatooine. We can not sustain a 9 billion population, if they also all own suv's. I'm starting to think less rigidity is needed in a president, and computer skills, that are demonstrated by the president in the media.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>Also, assuming an annual return of 10% is part of the problem. The whole point of Social Security is that it's predictible and guaranteed.<< <Historical averages are higher than 10%. Forinstance, small caps have averaged 17% return over the decades. And that's the point of retirement savings, its being done over the long term. So on a bad year you can lose 10%, but you will more than make up for that bad year. The idea is that you invest in volatile, higher risk investments when you are young, and slowly transition to more stable, lower return investments as you age. Then when you retire you can buy an annuity that guarantees monthly income until you pass away.> I understand all that, and that's how I'm handling my personal investments. But you have to remember that social security is essentially a country-wide insurance policy/safety net, more than an individual investment. It's designed to provide a floor below which retirees cannot fall, on a nation-wide level. There was a time when seniors were the poorest demographic in the country. SS and medicare changed that. Going to a private system would entail creating millions of "winners" and millions of "losers." Even if more people ended up with more retirement money than they would have under SS, there still then would be the question of what to do with the losers. Say "tough noogies, your investments tanked, too bad, better clip those coupons for dog food?" Create a new category of welfare recipient (which means, a new taxpayer funded program)? SS is not perfect and it will never make anyone rich. It was not designed to. It was designed to allieviate poverty and guarantee a minimum standard of living among seniors nationwide, and has done an admirable job.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Going to a private system would entail creating millions of "winners" and millions of "losers." Even if more people ended up with more retirement money than they would have under SS, there still then would be the question of what to do with the losers. Say "tough noogies, your investments tanked, too bad, better clip those coupons for dog food?" Create a new category of welfare recipient (which means, a new taxpayer funded program)? << I understand your point. But they way things are going SS will only be able to pay 70 cents on the "promised" dollar in the not too distant future. All I'm saying is that if SS were run like a real pension plan (as opposed to being a source of cheap money for the gov't) it would be safe and would pay much more handsomely than it does now. And I do agree that turning it into a 401K type of vehicle would be detrimental for the financially illiterate.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <All I'm saying is that if SS were run like a real pension plan (as opposed to being a source of cheap money for the gov't) it would be safe and would pay much more handsomely than it does now.> Oh, there's no question that the gov't has treated SS as a source of "cheap cash" for a long time. But the theory behind it is solid and I'd rather clean up the present system than privatize it.
Originally Posted By fkurucz Anyway, the bottom line is this: any private pension plan that invests 13% of your income over 40 years should be able to provide you with a monthly benefit at least equal to your annual salary when you retire. Most pension plans that pay you 50% of your salary actually invest much, much less than 13% of your annual pay (I seem to recall that 5 or 6% is magic number). Yet with 13% of your pay SS doesn't even provide 1/3 of your pre retirement salary.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Oh, there's no question that the gov't has treated SS as a source of "cheap cash" for a long time. But the theory behind it is solid and I'd rather clean up the present system than privatize it.<< I agree. But sadly, it won't happen. The government would have to borrow hundreds of billions more on the open market, and that could have all sorts of ramifications. So what I expect to happen is bigger FICA payroll taxes and reduced benefits. I feel sorry for my kids. They will be paying more than 10% out of their own pockets (plus the employers matching contribution).
Originally Posted By fkurucz ^^ And FWIW, I recall that the privatization proposals only called for a fraction of one's SS contributions being privatized. They (the gov't) had no intention of giving up that cash.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Of course, the Democrats aren't proposing to do either.> There's no reason for them to, controlling neither house of congress nor the white house. Any plan they propose would be "dead in the water" on arrival. If they take over congress this year, and/or the white house in 2008, your complaint would have more validity. Frankly, I expect both parties to just hope this all goes away until it reaches crisis mode and they're forced to deal with it.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <There's no reason for them to, controlling neither house of congress nor the white house.> And if they want to continue controlling neither the Congress nor the White House, they should continue to decline to come up with any solutions to our problems. <Any plan they propose would be "dead in the water" on arrival.> Nonsense. If they had a good plan, it would get support, and a compromise could be worked out. That's the way politics is supposed to work. <If they take over congress this year, and/or the white house in 2008, your complaint would have more validity.> I wasn't complaining, merely observing.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<There's no reason for them to, controlling neither house of congress nor the white house.>> <And if they want to continue controlling neither the Congress nor the White House, they should continue to decline to come up with any solutions to our problems.> I kind of agree. I think they've been remiss in not putting forward the equivalent of the "contract with america" that was politically successful in 1994. Of course, the polls now look good for the Democrats anyway, but I do think they're missing an opportunity. <<Any plan they propose would be "dead in the water" on arrival.>> <Nonsense. If they had a good plan, it would get support, and a compromise could be worked out. That's the way politics is supposed to work.> Yes, that is the way politics is supposed to work. But rarely does, especially in this polarized atmosphere. <<If they take over congress this year, and/or the white house in 2008, your complaint would have more validity.>> >I wasn't complaining, merely observing.> Then if the Democrats take over congress this year, and/or the white house in 2008, your observation would have more validity.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>that is exactly right, and the matches are also coming down in % from most. The companies only want to 'use' employees for a 5 year life cycle and then have them move on -- << DuPont just announced that they will be reducing pension benefits for current employees and that new hires won't have any pension at all. <a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DUPONT_PENSION?SITE=COLOV&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT" target="_blank">http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/s tories/D/DUPONT_PENSION?SITE=COLOV&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT</a>
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <DuPont just announced that they will be reducing pension benefits for current employees and that new hires won't have any pension at all. < there will be almost no pensions left ( outside of unions - that will be a harder nut to crack) - as once the major companies lead- the rest will follow suit as they do not need to keep to be competitive for the same employees anymore.... yet no politician talks about this - neither Dem or GOP because both sides are in the pockets of the large corporations - same reason there isn't outrage over off shoring 10M jobs in 7 years...
Originally Posted By YourPalEd <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0" target="_blank">http://www.time.com/time/magaz ine/article/0</a>,9171,1376213,00.html?cnn=yes How about that, time magazine even. She is a shoo in for president. It's easy to move her picture to the cover of time as time's man..er...ah. person of the year. Those dang sexists.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>there will be almost no pensions left ( outside of unions - that will be a harder nut to crack)<< I never thought that some day I would envy the few cops and firefighters that I am acquiantanced with. Nice fat pensions and they retire at a pretty tender age.
