McCain and Social Security

[tw1nsmom]

McCain favors partial privatization of Social Security. He previously (within the last year) supported Bush's idea of full privatization. From McCain's site:

* Reform Social Security: John McCain will fight to save the future of Social Security and believes that we may meet our obligations to the retirees of today and the future without raising taxes. John McCain supports supplementing the current Social Security system with personal accounts -- but not as a substitute for addressing benefit promises that cannot be kept. John McCain will reach across the aisle, but if the Democrats do not act, he will. No problem is in more need of honesty than the looming financial challenges of entitlement programs. Americans have the right to know the truth and John McCain will not leave office without fixing the problems that threatens our future prosperity and power.


Considering that current Social Security taxes are what pay the benefits to current senior citizens, and also considering what has happened in the economy and on the stock market, how can he be holding onto this idea? Is he completely out of touch? Just so you know I consider that a rhetorical question.

I personally know seniors who carefully invested their money and lost everything. I know people who's pensions were bankrupted by investing. These people, who worked hard all their lives and didn't take outrageous risks, now are living on their social security and part time jobs. Forget retirement. How could anyone think that putting any amount of social security funds into privatized accounts was a good idea? Social Security is the safety net for our seniors. You don't gamble with a safety net.

It just further underlines one of McCain's weakness's...the economy. I really don't want four more years of a Bush economy.

 

[dejr_8]

McCain favors partial privatization of Social Security. He previously (within the last year) supported Bush's idea of full privatization. From McCain's site:

* Reform Social Security: John McCain will fight to save the future of Social Security and believes that we may meet our obligations to the retirees of today and the future without raising taxes. John McCain supports supplementing the current Social Security system with personal accounts -- but not as a substitute for addressing benefit promises that cannot be kept. John McCain will reach across the aisle, but if the Democrats do not act, he will. No problem is in more need of honesty than the looming financial challenges of entitlement programs. Americans have the right to know the truth and John McCain will not leave office without fixing the problems that threatens our future prosperity and power.


Considering that current Social Security taxes are what pay the benefits to current senior citizens, and also considering what has happened in the economy and on the stock market, how can he be holding onto this idea? Is he completely out of touch? Just so you know I consider that a rhetorical question.

I personally know seniors who carefully invested their money and lost everything. I know people who's pensions were bankrupted by investing. These people, who worked hard all their lives and didn't take outrageous risks, now are living on their social security and part time jobs. Forget retirement. How could anyone think that putting any amount of social security funds into privatized accounts was a good idea? Social Security is the safety net for our seniors. You don't gamble with a safety net.

It just further underlines one of McCain's weakness's...the economy. I really don't want four more years of a Bush economy.

My response to this argument is at the very least let the people invest their SS taxes into T-Bills. That way the investment is still backed by the Federal Government AND the rate of return will far exceed the anemic 1.9% yield we "get" with the current SS scheme.

Also, you don't immediately switch for full privatization . You break it down by age. Those 50 or older (pick an age) are under the current plan. Those 40 to 50 will get an 75/25 split. Those 30 to 40 will be 50/50 and 20 to 30 would be 25/75. Those under 20 would invest solely in the private account.

Would you support this?

 

[RUDisney]

My response to this argument is at the very least let the people invest their SS taxes into T-Bills. That way the investment is still backed by the Federal Government AND the rate of return will far exceed the anemic 1.9% yield we "get" with the current SS scheme.

Also, you don't immediately switch for full privatization . You break it down by age. Those 50 or older (pick an age) are under the current plan. Those 40 to 50 will get an 75/25 split. Those 30 to 40 will be 50/50 and 20 to 30 would be 25/75. Those under 20 would invest solely in the private account.

Would you support this?

This is exactly what I believe. Even with the market tanking, I'm still better off with the money that I've invested over the years than what I'd have earned in a fixed rate account.

Have you ever read the statement SSA sends you each year? It's pathetic to see the slow growth in money that could be invested so much more wisely.

 

[tw1nsmom]

My response to this argument is at the very least let the people invest their SS taxes into T-Bills. That way the investment is still backed by the Federal Government AND the rate of return will far exceed the anemic 1.9% yield we "get" with the current SS scheme.

Also, you don't immediately switch for full privatization . You break it down by age. Those 50 or older (pick an age) are under the current plan. Those 40 to 50 will get an 75/25 split. Those 30 to 40 will be 50/50 and 20 to 30 would be 25/75. Those under 20 would invest solely in the private account.

Would you support this?

Ok, but who will pay for the current social security benefits under your plan? The ss taxes on the young people currently pay for the ss benefits of the current citizens. Without raising taxes on everyone (which McCain has said he won't do), how do you pay for the program? Also, with the volatility of the market, there's no guarantee in anything. What if it crashed to the point that the federal government can't back/cover the loss? This isn't smart economic policy. Remember, social security was designed as a safety net for seniors, not an investment opportunity to expand their wealth.

Of course, as much as McCain says that social security doesn't work, he still cashes those social security checks every month. Maybe we need to start looking at having an income cap. When you have someone with 7 or more homes cashing their safety net check it doesn't seem fair.

Why

 

[luvmy3]

Of course, as much as McCain says that social security doesn't work, he still cashes those social security checks every month. Maybe we need to start looking at having an income cap. When you have someone with 7 or more homes cashing their safety net check it doesn't seem fair.

Why

So you don't think its fair for people who paid into SS to get some of their money back?

 

[dejr_8]

Ok, but who will pay for the current social security benefits under your plan? The ss taxes on the young people currently pay for the ss benefits of the current citizens. Without raising taxes on everyone (which McCain has said he won't do), how do you pay for the program? Also, with the volatility of the market, there's no guarantee in anything. What if it crashed to the point that the federal government can't back/cover the loss? This isn't smart economic policy. Remember, social security was designed as a safety net for seniors, not an investment opportunity to expand their wealth.

Of course, as much as McCain says that social security doesn't work, he still cashes those social security checks every month. Maybe we need to start looking at having an income cap. When you have someone with 7 or more homes cashing their safety net check it doesn't seem fair.

Why

First Point. That is why you have an age based transition to the private account. Over time, the amount of funds required to support retirees will decrease as those with private accounts retire

Second Point: Now we are getting to the heart of the matter . You want means testing on who receives SS benefits upon retirement. So you are telling me that it is fair to have 12.6% of my income taken from me to fund a SS account but if I am frugal and save additional money for retirement I lose out on SS benefits? Please explain.

 

[mickeysgal]

Ok, but who will pay for the current social security benefits under your plan? The ss taxes on the young people currently pay for the ss benefits of the current citizens. Without raising taxes on everyone (which McCain has said he won't do), how do you pay for the program? Also, with the volatility of the market, there's no guarantee in anything. What if it crashed to the point that the federal government can't back/cover the loss? This isn't smart economic policy. Remember, social security was designed as a safety net for seniors, not an investment opportunity to expand their wealth.

Of course, as much as McCain says that social security doesn't work, he still cashes those social security checks every month. Maybe we need to start looking at having an income cap. When you have someone with 7 or more homes cashing their safety net check it doesn't seem fair.

Why

I don't see why anyone that has paid into it all their working years should be denied their benefits because of what assets they may have accumulated over their lifetime.

I'm not sure what the best answer is to handle SS. All I know is the government run SS system isn't working (isn't it bankrupt?), but I'm leary of full privatization.

 

[marybet]

I would like to see SS funds making more money, why has that not been fixed already? Why do they still use SS money for other things?

We have a 401k, we have lost money the last quarter. Over the long term we will probably be okay but the closer we get to retirement we will move the money to safer funds. I just don't think privatization will work, what happens to the people who make bad investments? There's always going to be people who will go for the high yield risky investments. What happens when they have no money to retire on? It will be another taxpayer bailout.

What about children's benefits if a parent dies? How will privatization cover disabilities?

We need that "lock box" that Gore talked about. Bush has done nothing and McCain will do the same.

 

[Master Mason]

Remember, social security was designed as a safety net for seniors, not an investment opportunity to expand their wealth.

And herein lies the rub. For a very large portion of the population, it is not a safety net, it was their planned retirement. Also, they are drawing more per year than they paid in during their lifetimes.

 

[creativeamanda]

One major problem we have is people receiving money through the social security fund who have never paid any money in.

I've given up on SSI being there when I retire. It won't.

Best thing anyone can do is go ahead and save now. My mama said she'd never collect a dime--my father got $250 of the money she paid in when she died. It didn't even pay for the flowers. By the time I retire, SSI will be bankrupt.

 

[creativeamanda]

And herein lies the rub. For a very large portion of the population, it is not a safety net, it was their planned retirement. Also, they are drawing more per year than they paid in during their lifetimes.

Exactly.

 

[HakunaMatata2]

Ok, but who will pay for the current social security benefits under your plan? The ss taxes on the young people currently pay for the ss benefits of the current citizens. Without raising taxes on everyone (which McCain has said he won't do), how do you pay for the program? Also, with the volatility of the market, there's no guarantee in anything. What if it crashed to the point that the federal government can't back/cover the loss? This isn't smart economic policy. Remember, social security was designed as a safety net for seniors, not an investment opportunity to expand their wealth.

Of course, as much as McCain says that social security doesn't work, he still cashes those social security checks every month. Maybe we need to start looking at having an income cap. When you have someone with 7 or more homes cashing their safety net check it doesn't seem fair.

Why

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Where are you getting this information?

 

[creativeamanda]

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Where are you getting this information?

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2008/07/14/daily79.html

He does receive SSI, but he paid it in. It's his money.

 

[tw1nsmom]

Yes, but if the system is broke, and without it some seniors are going to starve, wouldn't a less radical approach to beginning reform be to eliminate benefits for people who are pulling in say...over $500,000 a year? Also, I would definitely like to make it against the rules for any of our legislatures, or really any government employee working full time to also draw social security until they retire.

Again, this was never meant to be an investment program. It's a social program to make sure our seniors don't starve.

 

[creativeamanda]

Yes, but if the system is broke, and without it some seniors are going to starve, wouldn't a less radical approach to beginning reform be to eliminate benefits for people who are pulling in say...over $500,000 a year? Also, I would definitely like to make it against the rules for any of our legislatures, or really any government employee working full time to also draw social security until they retire.

Again, this was never meant to be an investment program. It's a social program to make sure our seniors don't starve.

You realize this would include bus drivers and school paraprofessionals?

 

[crazyforgoofy]

You realize this would include bus drivers and school paraprofessionals?

Are bus drivers and school paras employees of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT??

 

[creativeamanda]

Are bus drivers and school paras employees of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT??

She said government. She did not specify which. School employees, social workers, etc., are all govt employees. This would also include persons in the military, secretarys, etc. The problem is Social Security is being handed out to people who never paid that amount in SS in the first place. I'm not counting on it for myself and neither should anyone else.

 

[mickeysgal]

Yes, but if the system is broke, and without it some seniors are going to starve, wouldn't a less radical approach to beginning reform be to eliminate benefits for people who are pulling in say...over $500,000 a year? Also, I would definitely like to make it against the rules for any of our legislatures, or really any government employee working full time to also draw social security until they retire.

Again, this was never meant to be an investment program. It's a social program to make sure our seniors don't starve.

If you put into it, you should get benefits from it. Why should there be a line drawn? It's their money as much any other person that paid into it regardless of prior income level.

 

[luvmy3]

Yes, but if the system is broke, and without it some seniors are going to starve, wouldn't a less radical approach to beginning reform be to eliminate benefits for people who are pulling in say...over $500,000 a year? Also, I would definitely like to make it against the rules for any of our legislatures, or really any government employee working full time to also draw social security until they retire.

Again, this was never meant to be an investment program. It's a social program to make sure our seniors don't starve.

I can agree with that, only of course if that person making $500,000 doesn't have to pay anything into SSI. Otherwise its just another way to rob the rich to give to the poor.

 

[HakunaMatata2]

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2008/07/14/daily79.html

He does receive SSI, but he paid it in. It's his money.

Now, when exactly would he have paid this money in? He spent the early part of his life in the military and qualifies for a military pension. Then he entered government service. By the way, the 'double dipping' regulations would prevent anyone with his income from government sources from receiving full benefits from SSI assuming he qualified.
I seriously question where your source got their info.