How do we fix social security and medicare?

[EVAY]

Since baby boomers are about to break both the social security system and medicare, how about we ask the baby boomers to volunteer to fix it?

Look, Social Security was ins uted, in part, to provide a financial safety net for older Americans during the 30's in order to entice older Americans to leave the work force so that younger folks could get their jobs. It was also done at a time when the average life span was closer to 65. So, the expected period of outlay wouldn't be too long.

Well, we all know what has happened since then. Folks are living longer, social security is an enormous 'en lement', and now medicare costs have been added to the burden on younger earners (increased during the era of Republican 'don't spend my granchildren's futures'), so that the entire federal budget is pretty much a disaster that won't get fixed until and unless we address en lements.

The Republican party has attacked the democratic health care proposal in the senate for actually suggesting that the 'medicare advantage' health insurance plans should no longer be subsidized, thereby saving $500 billion dollars. Republicans attack that the plans are taking money 'away from our seniors', and therefore should be voted down.

Since neither political party has the guts to do anything but keep subsidizing some of us who don't need it, I propose that the baby boomers get a grass-roots plan started that says "If I earn more than X amount (fill in the amount...I don't know what it should be), I do not receive a social security check. Or, in the alternative, my social security is taxed at a 100% rate.

I know all the arguments against this..."I paid in for all those years, I DESERVE my money now", etc. etc. I've heard them all. Thing is, this just can't go on. Somebody has to bite the bullet. Baby boomers were raised by the "greatest generation" who had lived through the depression and fought and won WWII. So, it's time for the babay boomers to 'give something back'.

Who would organize something like this? What would it take to make it happen? What is the magic dollar amount, above which you don't receive social security payments? I would suggest $250K per year, for no particular good reason.

What do you think?

BTW, I'm a baby boomer.

[Wild Cobra]

EVAY, I am as concerned as you about such costs. However, SS is not in the red for a long time. True, soon we will be paying out more than the insurance payment bring in, but congress has been spending the extra revenue for years on social programs, buy borrowing the SS money. As a matter of principle, we cannot accept the way congress does business, and we have to make them do what is right rather than allow substandard returns because of our elected officials. I can accept a reduction, means testing, etc. as long as something is done to make things right as well.

Remember. This is a paid for retirement system. Yes, subsidized, but it is an insurance, not a tax, and not meant to be spent with tax dollars.

I am not a fan of the income tax system we have, but it is likely impossible to change it. A few thoughts:

1) Everyone pays SS insurance. Eliminate "making work pay" which is nothing more than a reimbursement of SS insurance.

2) Since SS is not spent as intended by congress, rename it to a Social Tax.

3) Mandate a balanced budget where this new "Social Tax" that everyone pays an equal share of income to, increases pr decreases as congress spends more or less money. This way every voter who works has a stake in the policies of who they vote for.

Without making meaningful changes, whats the point of giving up my insurance due to me, for which I have paid into since 1975?

[George Gervin's Afro]

raise the 95,000.00 threashold to 150,000.00

[EVAY]

raise the 95,000.00 threashold to 150,000.00

Would this do it?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Would this do it?

It would increase the funding for social security. of course you'd have to tell Congress to keep their grubby hands off of the money..

[EVAY]

EVAY, I am as concerned as you about such costs. However, SS is not in the red for a long time. True, soon we will be paying out more than the insurance payment bring in, but congress has been spending the extra revenue for years on social programs, buy borrowing the SS money. As a matter of principle, we cannot accept the way congress does business, and we have to make them do what is right rather than allow substandard returns because of our elected officials. I can accept a reduction, means testing, etc. as long as something is done to make things right as well.

Remember. This is a paid for retirement system. Yes, subsidized, but it is an insurance, not a tax, and not meant to be spent with tax dollars.

I am not a fan of the income tax system we have, but it is likely impossible to change it. A few thoughts:

1) Everyone pays SS insurance. Eliminate "making work pay" which is nothing more than a reimbursement of SS insurance.

2) Since SS is not spent as intended by congress, rename it to a Social Tax.

3) Mandate a balanced budget where this new "Social Tax" that everyone pays an equal share of income to, increases pr decreases as congress spends more or less money. This way every voter who works has a stake in the policies of who they vote for.

Without making meaningful changes, whats the point of giving up my insurance due to me, for which I have paid into since 1975?

I agree with some of the points you make, though not all.

For example, it is absolutely true that politicians have been spending the money for purposes other than social security since Lyndon Johnson first raided it to pay for Vietnam by pulling the monies for Social Security into the general revenues. This year, though, we will come perilously close to being in the red. It makes me mindful that one of Al Gore's campaign promises was a 'lockbox' for Social Security. In hindsight, it doesn't look like such a bad idea.

I know that it is described as a retirement plan, but given the projections, I don't think that we can reasonalby argue that it is that anymore. I think it is simply a tax on the working to support those of us who are now retired.
And certainly that is the way it originated. I mean, initially, it was simply a way of redistributing wealth.

I also paid in, past the "you don't have to pay any more after you make x amount of dollars", for a gazillion years. But I was lucky enough to make some decent investments and today I no longer need to work. Having said all of that, I will likely outlive what I put in. And I think it will create a huge burden for the younger generation in the workplace.

Is GGA correct that it could be made solvent again by upping the amount of salary subject to withholding to &150K?

Don't you think it should be means-tested, though, regardless?

[coyotes_geek]

What I'd like to see happen: For social security, the current ponzi scheme system needs to be phased out completely. Instead of making everyone pitch into one big pot take people's contributions and put them in to individual accounts. How much control we want to let people have over their own money is another fight for another day. Just get to a system where money is taken from an individual for the sole benefit of that same individual. Medicare is tougher. It would be nice if medical costs would go down, but the government is completely incapable of delivering any kind of a program that would do that. All that the government can do is raise taxes and cut benefits by jacking up the age at which you can start getting coverage.

What's actually going to happen: The politicians, afraid of upsetting people, will delay doing anything until the last possible moment. Then they'll cook up a bandaid fix consisting of some benefit cuts and tax increases. The boomers, not wanting to stop the ponzi scheme now that it's their turn to collect, will use their political clout to ensure that it's the younger generations who have to bear the brunt of the expense. Benefits will not be cut nearly as much as taxes will be increased. The bandaid fix will be polished up with a bunch of unrealistic economic projections and be presented to the people as a long term solution. Those predictions will eventually be proven to be inaccurate, and another fix will be required much sooner than anyone was led to believe. But that's tomorrow's problem. And the cycle starts again.

[EVAY]

What I'd like to see happen: For social security, the current ponzi scheme system needs to be phased out completely. Instead of making everyone pitch into one big pot take people's contributions and put them in to individual accounts. How much control we want to let people have over their own money is another fight for another day. Just get to a system where money is taken from an individual for the sole benefit of that same individual. Medicare is tougher. It would be nice if medical costs would go down, but the government is completely incapable of delivering any kind of a program that would do that. All that the government can do is raise taxes and cut benefits by jacking up the age at which you can start getting coverage.

What's actually going to happen: The politicians, afraid of upsetting people, will delay doing anything until the last possible moment. Then they'll cook up a bandaid fix consisting of some benefit cuts and tax increases. The boomers, not wanting to stop the ponzi scheme now that it's their turn to collect, will use their political clout to ensure that it's the younger generations who have to bear the brunt of the expense. Benefits will not be cut nearly as much as taxes will be increased. The bandaid fix will be polished up with a bunch of unrealistic economic projections and be presented to the people as a long term solution. Those predictions will eventually be proven to be inaccurate, and another fix will be required much sooner than anyone was led to believe. But that's tomorrow's problem. And the cycle starts again.

So, you're not really suggesting privatizing social security as much as you are saying that, minimally, gov't should withhold some earnings and put it in your own account for you, for the future (I understand that you may want the argument about who would control the investments for your individual account to be held for another day, but as far as it goes, you would make that move to individualized accounts, right?)?

I am afraid that you are very right about what the gov't. will or will not do. I just don't understand why younger people are not screaming their heads off about this already. If I were younger, I think I would be.

[Winehole23]

I am afraid that you are very right about what the gov't. will or will not do. I just don't understand why younger people are not screaming their heads off about this already. If I were younger, I think I would be.

Don't worry, they will.

[coyotes_geek]

So, you're not really suggesting privatizing social security as much as you are saying that, minimally, gov't should withhold some earnings and put it in your own account for you, for the future (I understand that you may want the argument about who would control the investments for your individual account to be held for another day, but as far as it goes, you would make that move to individualized accounts, right?)?

I am afraid that you are very right about what the gov't. will or will not do. I just don't understand why younger people are not screaming their heads off about this already. If I were younger, I think I would be.

If it were up to me I'd let people have the option of opting out of social security entirely. But that's never going to happen. Doing that would result in people opting out and then not saving anything for retirement, and the government wouldn't have the stomach to tell those people "tough " when they came looking for a handout. So I accept it as "just the way it's going to be" that the government will be involved in some kind of compulsory retirement program.

If we're going to have such a program, then individualized accounts is the only thing that makes sense. The ponzi scheme concept has failed, just like all ponzi schemes do. If we want people to have money stashed safely away somewhere then it's going to be a of a lot safer if you put that person's contributions in an account where only they can touch it as opposed to taking that person's money, giving it to someone else and saying "here's an IOU".

This is all just academic though. We're never going to have individualized accounts. We're never going to have individualized accounts because if the government puts your money in a place where only you can touch it, then that means the government can't take your money and loan it to themselves.

[spurster]

For Medicare, I don't see any way other than rationed medicine of some sort [I think rational medicine is a better phrase]. You need to focus on what gives you more bang for the buck.

As for SS,

http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshot...cial_security/

Americans agree on how to fix Social Security

By Ross Eisenbrey

Reports that exaggerate the problem of looming deficits have left many Americans worried that Social Security will not be there when they retire. A survey conducted jointly by the Rockefeller Foundation and the National Academy of Social Insurance found that 90% of Americans are concerned about the program’s ability to pay benefits for the next generation. Because these same people believe strongly that workers should have financial security in their retirement, most want Social Security’s finances strengthened. Regardless of their party affiliation, 85% or more of survey respondents said it is important to keep Social Security financially solvent.



The most striking finding in the survey is that most Americans are willing to pay higher payroll taxes to preserve the Social Security program. When asked to respond to the statement: "It is critical that we preserve Social Security for future generations, even if it means increasing working Americans’ contributions to Social Security," 77% of those surveyed said they agreed (see Figure). When presented with a specific way to strengthen Social Security, an even larger portion showed support. Of those surveyed, 83% said they supported lifting the Social Security tax cap of $106,800, so that high-income earners would pay the tax on all of their salary in the same way that lower-wage earners do. Because the projected shortfall in social security is much smaller and more manageable than is often presented, eliminating the cap on taxable earnings would bring in sufficient funds to close the projected Social Security shortfall over the next 75 years, solving the entire problem.

[EVAY]

For Medicare, I don't see any way other than rationed medicine of some sort [I think rational medicine is a better phrase]. You need to focus on what gives you more bang for the buck.

As for SS,

http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshot...cial_security/

Americans agree on how to fix Social Security

By Ross Eisenbrey

Reports that exaggerate the problem of looming deficits have left many Americans worried that Social Security will not be there when they retire. A survey conducted jointly by the Rockefeller Foundation and the National Academy of Social Insurance found that 90% of Americans are concerned about the program’s ability to pay benefits for the next generation. Because these same people believe strongly that workers should have financial security in their retirement, most want Social Security’s finances strengthened. Regardless of their party affiliation, 85% or more of survey respondents said it is important to keep Social Security financially solvent.



The most striking finding in the survey is that most Americans are willing to pay higher payroll taxes to preserve the Social Security program. When asked to respond to the statement: "It is critical that we preserve Social Security for future generations, even if it means increasing working Americans’ contributions to Social Security," 77% of those surveyed said they agreed (see Figure). When presented with a specific way to strengthen Social Security, an even larger portion showed support. Of those surveyed, 83% said they supported lifting the Social Security tax cap of $106,800, so that high-income earners would pay the tax on all of their salary in the same way that lower-wage earners do. Because the projected shortfall in social security is much smaller and more manageable than is often presented, eliminating the cap on taxable earnings would bring in sufficient funds to close the projected Social Security shortfall over the next 75 years, solving the entire problem.

Hey, thanks, man. I didn't know that's how people felt about it the SS thing.

As for Medicare, you're right, I guess I think there is no answer to that until some sort of health reform takes place. Right now, I thnk that American medicine has learned how to prolong death, as opposed to prolonging life, and the cost of prolonging the deaths of the baby boomer generation is gonna be huge. We don't really cure people as much as we 'keep them dying right this minute'. And we seem to feel quite strongly about keeping it that way.

[CubanMustGo]

I agree that they need to get rid of the SS earnings cap, and possibly even raise the rates by half a percent or so (remember, employers match so the impact would be doubled).

This is funny, tho:

Of those surveyed, 83% said they supported lifting the Social Security tax cap of $106,800

Any bets that the # of ppl making less than $106,800 is somewhere around ... 83%?

[boutons_deux]

Rich people like flat taxes (like SocSec takings), but only if flat up to where they want it to stop (then flat becomes regressive, which is their point).

Lots of ways to raise/save money to pay the extorting gangsters of the health care industry.

Cut all subsidies and tax breaks for agriculture, for oil/gas/coal,

Make fund/equity managers pay income taxes, not capital gains taxes.

Sales tax on all financial sector sales (stock market, derivatives, etc, etc)

Kill Medicare Advantage (a Repug gift to health insurers that require $50B subsidy to compete with Medicare) which cost 10%+ to Govt than Govt Medicare.

Repeal the Repug regulation that forbids the US govt from screwing down drug prices to overseas levels. the US govt as single-buyer for universal Medicare/medicaid.

Offer a public option like Medicare truly for all (including employees currently captured by inescapable group plans), and for all ages which goes hand-in-hand with single-payer. Public option insurance premiums to be taken out salary, like tax and SocSec.

Kill tax-free health insurance for employer-provided for-profit group plans. You buy your group insurance after tax, not before tax.

But America is a Can't Do country, because the corporations have a strangleholed on the corruptible in Congress (esp the hole Senate) and WH.

[Wild Cobra]

raise the 95,000.00 threashold to 150,000.00

As long as it is an insurance, and people can get back the first $400, I say NO. Make it a variable social tax that everyone pays, without deduction, then I say have no threshold! However, as a insurance, there needs to be a limit.

Make it the one tax, a social tax, do deductions, a strait percentage that all people pay. Rich and poor alike, so the poor have to vote YES or NO for politicians and laws that raise or lower taxes.

I am sick and tired of people voting for policies and politicians who keep raising my taxes.

[EVAY]

Rich people like flat taxes (like SocSec takings), but only if flat up to where they want it to stop (then flat becomes regressive, which is their point).

Lots of ways to raise/save money to pay the extorting gangsters of the health care industry.

Cut all subsidies and tax breaks for agriculture, for oil/gas/coal,

Make fund/equity managers pay income taxes, not capital gains taxes.

Sales tax on all financial sector sales (stock market, derivatives, etc, etc)

Kill Medicare Advantage (a Repug gift to health insurers that require $50B subsidy to compete with Medicare) which cost 10%+ to Govt than Govt Medicare.

Repeal the Repug regulation that forbids the US govt from screwing down drug prices to overseas levels. the US govt as single-buyer for universal Medicare/medicaid.

Offer a public option like Medicare truly for all (including employees currently captured by inescapable group plans), and for all ages which goes hand-in-hand with single-payer. Public option insurance premiums to be taken out salary, like tax and SocSec.

Kill tax-free health insurance for employer-provided for-profit group plans. You buy your group insurance after tax, not before tax.

But America is a Can't Do country, because the corporations have a strangleholed on the corruptible in Congress (esp the hole Senate) and WH.

b_d, I agree with you that subsidies for farm, oil and gas and coal should be undone, but you can't be seriously suggesting that any politician would vote for this, much less suggest it, are you?

Moreover, I would go along with making sure that employers pay for the for-profit-group plans after taxes rather than before. Finally, the Medicare Advantage thing is TOTALLY overdue for change.

Having said all that, though, shouldn't all that go to decrease the deficit, regardless of medicare/social security changes?

I mean, your suggestions are quite reasonable, I think ( the fact that they will never see the light of day notwithstanding). But, I still think that SS and medicare are still overdrawn for folks that don't need it.

Finally, I would agree with taxing the employer-provided group plans before, rather than after,

[EVAY]

As long as it is an insurance, and people can get back the first $400, I say NO. Make it a variable social tax that everyone pays, without deduction, then I say have no threshold! However, as a insurance, there needs to be a limit.

Make it the one tax, a social tax, do deductions, a strait percentage that all people pay. Rich and poor alike, so the poor have to vote YES or NO for politicians and laws that raise or lower taxes.

I am sick and tired of people voting for policies and politicians who keep raising my taxes.

WC, I respect your disdain for taxes. I know a lot of people who agree with you. I honestly do not. Although I would prefer to keep my money, I honestly believe that we can and probably should pay more in taxes if our population insists on having more governmental services than we can afford with our current level of taxes. I think that all of us get a lot more than we pay for ( and that includes those of us like you and me, likely, who don't use a lot of social services) from our federal government.

[Wild Cobra]

Is GGA correct that it could be made solvent again by upping the amount of salary subject to withholding to &150K?

I rather doubt the $150k would make much difference. Most people who make more than the $95k, or whatever the current figure is, are making that money from sources not required to pay into SS, like Capitol Gains, stock dividends, etc.

Don't you think it should be means-tested, though, regardless?

NO. If anything, if someone rich does not qualify for the maximum benefits, then they didn't pay much into the system, and made most from means other than employment.

Maybe I'm just being pig-headed about this, but I am tired of congress always changing the rules, favoring some over others.

Who is to determine at what level a person gets reduced or no SS retirement?

Myself, I don't expect to need SS, I have contributed to my own retirement plan for years. But that extra money sure will help.

Who has the right to say how much money is too much for someone else?

Someone who actually advocates such dictates, does not have the heart of an American.

Give people the option to pay more in taxes, or give up their benefits. That way the Bleeding Heart Liberals can put up, or shut up. I think you will find several well to do conservatives voluntarily giving up their SS is such a thing was made easy.

[Wild Cobra]

WC, I respect your disdain for taxes. I know a lot of people who agree with you. I honestly do not. Although I would prefer to keep my money, I honestly believe that we can and probably should pay more in taxes if our population insists on having more governmental services than we can afford with our current level of taxes. I think that all of us get a lot more than we pay for ( and that includes those of us like you and me, likely, who don't use a lot of social services) from our federal government.

We actually agree here.

I do not have a problem in paying taxes. In fact, I do not claim a 1040 form when I have so many things I can write-off. I simply use the 1040 EZ when I can, or 1040A. My problem is more on principle rather than dollar amount.

All voters should have a stake in tax rates. As it stands, we have almost a majority of people who pay not taxes at all. These same people are willing to sell their souls, and our nations welfare, and elect politicians who promise them redistribution from those who produce. I am absolutely appalled that we have so many unethical people.

It is simple. I want all workers to pay taxes. Not because I want to hurt anyone, but because I want them to think if they can afford to have taxes raised for the causes they support. I am sick and tired of having my taxes go up, because of majority theft.

Again, I am more than willing to pay more in taxes. I just want the impact of such decisions to be recognized by all voters.

[Marcus Bryant]

raise the 95,000.00 threashold to 150,000.00

you.

[Marcus Bryant]

Since baby boomers are about to break both the social security system and medicare, how about we ask the baby boomers to volunteer to fix it?

Look, Social Security was ins uted, in part, to provide a financial safety net for older Americans during the 30's in order to entice older Americans to leave the work force so that younger folks could get their jobs. It was also done at a time when the average life span was closer to 65. So, the expected period of outlay wouldn't be too long.

Well, we all know what has happened since then. Folks are living longer, social security is an enormous 'en lement', and now medicare costs have been added to the burden on younger earners (increased during the era of Republican 'don't spend my granchildren's futures'), so that the entire federal budget is pretty much a disaster that won't get fixed until and unless we address en lements.

The Republican party has attacked the democratic health care proposal in the senate for actually suggesting that the 'medicare advantage' health insurance plans should no longer be subsidized, thereby saving $500 billion dollars. Republicans attack that the plans are taking money 'away from our seniors', and therefore should be voted down.

Since neither political party has the guts to do anything but keep subsidizing some of us who don't need it, I propose that the baby boomers get a grass-roots plan started that says "If I earn more than X amount (fill in the amount...I don't know what it should be), I do not receive a social security check. Or, in the alternative, my social security is taxed at a 100% rate.

I know all the arguments against this..."I paid in for all those years, I DESERVE my money now", etc. etc. I've heard them all. Thing is, this just can't go on. Somebody has to bite the bullet. Baby boomers were raised by the "greatest generation" who had lived through the depression and fought and won WWII. So, it's time for the babay boomers to 'give something back'.

Who would organize something like this? What would it take to make it happen? What is the magic dollar amount, above which you don't receive social security payments? I would suggest $250K per year, for no particular good reason.

What do you think?

BTW, I'm a baby boomer.

Right. SS was meant to provide a minimum income in retirement. If you have enough to live on, you shouldn't draw a check. That should be the point of compromise.

One of the main reasons the en lement programs are unsustainable is that they provide benefits to those who otherwise could provide for themselves.

Make the en lement programs what they were intended to be: welfare programs.

[EVAY]

We actually agree here.

I do not have a problem in paying taxes. In fact, I do not claim a 1040 form when I have so many things I can write-off. I simply use the 1040 EZ when I can, or 1040A. My problem is more on principle rather than dollar amount.

All voters should have a stake in tax rates. As it stands, we have almost a majority of people who pay not taxes at all. These same people are willing to sell their souls, and our nations welfare, and elect politicians who promise them redistribution from those who produce. I am absolutely appalled that we have so many unethical people.

It is simple. I want all workers to pay taxes. Not because I want to hurt anyone, but because I want them to think if they can afford to have taxes raised for the causes they support. I am sick and tired of having my taxes go up, because of majority theft.

Again, I am more than willing to pay more in taxes. I just want the impact of such decisions to be recognized by all voters.

Fair enough. I respect this.

[EVAY]

Right. SS was meant to provide a minimum income in retirement. If you have enough to live on, you shouldn't draw a check. That should be the point of compromise.

One of the main reasons the en lement programs are unsustainable is that they provide benefits to those who otherwise could provide for themselves.

Make the en lement programs what they were intended to be: welfare programs.

Well, I agree with you that it becomes the equivalent of welfare, and that giving to people who don't need it is not what it was originally intended to be. That's why I tend to believe that those of us who don't really need it should forgo it. But I think there a lot more of us than are willing to admit it.

[EmptyMan]

Let me opt out.










































Let my people go.

[SAGambler]

The boomers, not wanting to stop the ponzi scheme now that it's their turn to collect, will use their political clout to ensure that it's the younger generations who have to bear the brunt of the expense.

And why not? Remember, once upon a time, us "boomers" were the "younger generation" that was bearing the brunt of the expense.