Social Security

Both candidates have their opinions on how to fix it..

Obama is pushing to cap it at the $102K it's at now, then start it back up once you hit $250K. So if you make between $102K and $250K (or whatever the lower limit goes to) you'd pay no SS on that money, but you do up to the $102 and above $250.

I like the idea.. though I don't see the point in having the hole, just make 100% taxable and have it over with, or else you'll get into people playing games by running salary to $249,999 and figuring out other ways to get the rest, it's not that hard.

McCain wants to keep things the same, only push back retirement age or reduce benefits and likes the idea of allowing you to invest your SS yourself.. creating the personal retirement accounts.

Honestly.. I can go for either.. I don't plan on getting anything as it is, so either way it's a bonus in my eyes. I like the no cap from BO and I like the personal accounts from McCain.

I did like this quote from BO though..

"Imagine if your security now was tied up with the Dow Jones," he said, alluding to the recent slide in stock prices. "You wouldn't feel very confident about the security of your nest egg."

Seems to me that if Congress wouldn't have taken the money from SS in the first place we wouldn't even have an issue here.. or at least not as much of an issue as there is now. So what's worse.... risking it in the market with a historical rate of return of 7%, or risking it with congress who has removed the return and then some for their own needs?

I'd risk the stock market approach...

So you don't think it will be there for you?

Do you think it will be there for me in 12 years?

I think the stock market seems better but I have lost a lot of money in the last two years doing just that on my 401 in Fidelity funds

Problem with personal accounts is that some people ... many people will be reckless and loose their shirts off their back and we will still be bailing them out, so I don't support personal accounts in lieu of SS. Yep, the liberal here says that people won't be responsible enough to manage it correctly ... now I will agree the govt has not done a bang up job either with our retirement program.

Bring back Al Gore and his Social Security Lock Box.

cardinal5150 wrote:

Seems to me that if Congress wouldn't have taken the money from SS in the first place we wouldn't even have an issue here.. or at least not as much of an issue as there is now. So what's worse.... risking it in the market with a historical rate of return of 7%, or risking it with congress who has removed the return and then some for their own needs?

Wait until they decide to raid your IRA and 401k accounts.

I wouldn't mind a combination of both. Personal accounts for individuals, collected by the government as it is now. Invested in long term treasury bills. Not going to get the avg 7% return in the stock market, but will be a better return than what congress gives people now. I believe an economist awhile back the government rate of return averages out to about 1%. At least with T bills it would be around 3%. And it would keep politicians away from it, or at least make it harder for them.

Mort wrote:So you don't think it will be there for you?

Do you think it will be there for me in 12 years?

I think the stock market seems better but I have lost a lot of money in the last two years doing just that on my 401 in Fidelity funds

I guess it's not so much that I don't think it'll be there as much as I'm not going to plan on getting anything from them. Whatever I get will be bonus money, but I'm going to plan for my retirement 100% on my own.

Bman wrote:Problem with personal accounts is that some people ... many people will be reckless and loose their shirts off their back and we will still be bailing them out, so I don't support personal accounts in lieu of SS. Yep, the liberal here says that people won't be responsible enough to manage it correctly ... now I will agree the govt has not done a bang up job either with our retirement program.

Bring back Al Gore and his Social Security Lock Box.

You mean the Al Gore who served in Congress or as VP for almost 25 years yet wasn't able to stop congress from stealing our money?

I do agree.. some people will be reckless and loose their SS if they are allowed to invest in it. But to me that's part of personal responsibility.

Bman.. you're saying you'd rather have someone steal your money from you when they promised to hold it than you would allow someone to make decisions for themselves?

Scooby01_98 wrote:I wouldn't mind a combination of both. Personal accounts for individuals, collected by the government as it is now. Invested in long term treasury bills. Not going to get the avg 7% return in the stock market, but will be a better return than what congress gives people now. I believe an economist awhile back the government rate of return averages out to about 1%. At least with T bills it would be around 3%. And it would keep politicians away from it, or at least make it harder for them.

And that's really what they should do.. give you the option, and flat tell you hey, if you don't know anything about the stock market, invest it here.. it's virtually guaranteed and you won't lose any value in your money.. so basically, you're doing a better job than congress can.